CC Resolution 2004-017RESOLUTION NO. 2004-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR THE AMENDMENT TO
REDEVELOPMENT AREA NO. 2
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-494
PROJECT SPONSOR: LA QUNTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 20" day of January, 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2003-494 to amend Redevelopment Area No. 2 for the
purpose of increasing the limit on the cumulative tax increment revenue within
Redevelopment Area No. 2, said area being located in the northerly section of the
City, generally bounded by the City limits on the north, east and west and by 501"
Avenue on the south.
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has been prepared in
compliance 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 2003-494) and has determined that the proposed
project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and
therefore, a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt the Negative Declaration in
compliance with Pubic -Resources Code (PRC) § 21092 was mailed by the City to
the County Clerk of the County of Riverside and was recorded on December 11,
2003; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. 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
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-489.
2. The proposed project will not have a 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 in that the project area is largely urbanized.
Resolution No. 2004-017
Environmental Assessment 2003-494
Amendment to Redevelopment Area No.2
Adopted: January 20,2004
Page 2
3. There is no evidence before the City Council 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 project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effect on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. 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 in that no change to
existing land uses is involved.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effect that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which
would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-494 and
said Assessment reflects the independent judgment 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 Council records relating to this project
is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle
Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92553.
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.
Resolution No. 2004-017
�- Envkonmental Assessment 2003.494
Amendment to Redevelopment Area No.2
Adopted: January 20, 2004
Page 3
2. That it does hereby
reasons set forth in
Assessment Checklist
and attached hereto.
certify Environmental Assessment 2003-494 for the
this resolution and as stated in the Environmental
on file in the Community Development Department
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-494 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held this 20' day of January, 2004, by the following vote, to wit;
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
DON ADOL H, Major
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUNtVGREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La. Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2004-017
Environmental Assessment 2003-494
Amendment to Redevelopment Area No.2
Adopted: January 20, 2004
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KA ERINE JENS N, city'Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Amendment to Redevelopment Area No. 2 (EA 2003 -494)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman, Director
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
4. Project Location: Located in the northerly section of the City, bounded by Fred Waring Drive
on the north, the City limits on the east and west and by Avenue 50 on the south. Areas north
of Fred Waring Drive are excluded from the Project as are areas south and west of
Washington Street from Avenue 48 to Avenue 50, within the City of La Quinta, County of
Riverside. See Exhibit No. 1.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential predominates in the northern section of in the north with commercial uses
the project area, with commercial designations designated for properties along the
adjacent to the Highway I I I corridor. Pockets of Highway 111 Corridor.
park and other community .designations are found
through out the project area. It is bisected by the
Whitewater River (designated W on the General
Plan).
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 City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") proposes an amendment to
Redevelopment Area No. 2 for the. sole purpose of increasing the limit on the cumulative tax
increment revenue from $400,000,000 to $1,500,000,000. This increase is being proposed in
order to continue with projects and programs that eliminate blight, to fund affordable housing
programs and projects, and to accommodate repayment of existing bond and other debt
obligations. No additional programs or projects are being proposed as part of the amendment.
The programs and projects to be undertaken are as described in the previously adopted plan
for Redevelopment Area No. 2. Implementation of any future project, as that term is defined
by CEQA, will be subject to its own CEQA clearance.
1114nOo4 _1_
Specifically, the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 was adopted in 1989 and
subsequently amended in 1994. Since that time, the Agency has been implementing programs
identified in that plan. Raising the funding limit as is proposed in this amendment will
facilitate the continuation of the programs contained in the adopted plan.
The area in question is generally the northern third of the City of La Quinta, and totals
approximately 3,100 acres in size. Land uses include residential, commercial and
institutional.
Exhibit No. 1 depicts the boundaries of Project Area No. 2.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Unincorporated vacant, residential and golf course uses (Bermuda Dunes)
South: Low density residential and golf course uses
West: City of Indian Wells - institutional and residential uses; Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains National Monument
East: City of Indio - vacant and residential uses
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None.
1/14/2004 _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
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
effect on the
gyred.
.t effect on the
,cause revisions in the
L. A MITIGATED
n the environment, and
-ant impact" or
nent, but at least one
irsuant to applicable
res based on the earlier
►L IMPACT REPORT
addressed.
t effect on the
been analyzed
ursuant to applicable
at earlier EIR or
i measures that are
December 2.2003
Date
I/M0oa -3-
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 referenced 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for 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.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
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.
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.
1/14/2004 _4_
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sficant
SignUicant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Project
Description Materials)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
X
its surroundings? (Project Description
Materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
X
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Project Description Materials)
I. a)- d) Approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on aesthetics.
1/14/2004 -5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
X
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-
22 ff.)
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 result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
X
(General Plan EIR p. III-22 ff.)
H. a)-c) The project area is largely urbanized and contains no agricultural uses. There are no
Williamson Act contracts that affect the project site. The proposed project will have no
impact on agricultural resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
X
CEQA Handbook)
1/14/2004 6
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
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
X
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
(Project Description Materials, Aerial Photo)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (Project
X
Description Materials)
III a) —e) Approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on air quality.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
X
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 74 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
X
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 74 ff.)
1/14/2004 -7-
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
X
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan
MEA, p. 74 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
X
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 74 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
X
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p.
74 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
X
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 74 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The project area includes recommended survey areas for the Coachella Valley Giant Sand
Treader Cricket, the Flat -tailed Horned Lizard, the Palm Springs Ground Squirrel, and the Palm Springs
Pocket Mouse. It is located within the fee mitigation area for the Fringe -Toed Lizard. In addition,
rugged terrain on the western fringes of the project area are identified as critical habitat for the
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. However, approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no
impacts on biological resources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance. of a historical resource
as defined in Government Code
X
Sec 15064.5 (General Plan MEA, p. 123 ff.)
1/14/2004 _$_
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
X
resource pursuant to Sec 15064.5?
(General Plan MEA, p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
X
cemeteries?
V. a) - d) Although the project area has been identified as an area of low paleontologic sensitivity,
the City of La Quinta has been identified as having one of the most dense concentrations of
archaeological sites in California. General Plan policies and City ordinances ensure that appropriate
surveys are conducted prior to development occurring. However, approval of the proposed amendment
will, in and of itself, have no impacts on cultural resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
X
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
X
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2)
1/14/2004 -9-
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction? (General Plan
X
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil
that unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
X
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.3)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
X
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
X
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project area is located approximately 3 — 6 miles from the San Andreas Fault and is
subject to seismic events, as is all of Southern California. Most of the project area is identified as a
potential area of liquefaction hazard, although the western fringes of rugged terrain are an exception.
Nevertheless, approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on geology and
soils.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
X
hazardous materials? (Project Description
Materials)
1/14/2004 -10-
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
X
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Project Description Materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
X
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Project Description
Materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (DTSC List)
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
X
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
X
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
X
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
1/14/2004 -11-
VII. a)— h) Approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on
hazards and hazardous materials. Furthermore, the project site is not within the vicinity of an
airport or airstrip.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan MEA, p. 92ff)
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 (e.g., the production rate of
X
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
MEA, p.92ff))
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
X
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site?
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
X
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
X
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
1/14/2004 -12-
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
X
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
X
redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.6)
VUL a)- g) The Whitewater River sub -basin is actively managed by the Coachella Valley Water
District. City policies and ordinances aid in this management effort. The Whitewater River serves as a
major segment of the regional flood control system and is identified as being in the 100-500 year flood
plain. Certain segments of the project area adjacent to it are identified with in the 500 year flood zone.
The bulk of the project area is not identified as being in a flood hazard zone. However, approval of the
proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on hydrology and water quality.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Project Description Materials)
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,
X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
X
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74*ff.)
1114noo4 -13-
IX. a)-c) The adopted Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 is consistent with, and helps to
implement the City's General Plan and its zoning regulations. The proposed amendment makes no
change in this relationship Approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts
on land use and planning.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
X
the state? (General Plan MEA, p. 72 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
X
general plan, specific plan or other land
useplan? (General Plan MEA, p. 72 ff.)
X. a) - b) Nearly all of the project area is identified as being in the MRZ 1 zone indicating that no
significant mineral deposits are present or that there is little likelihood of their presence. A small
segment of the project area is designated as MRZ 3, indicating that it contains mineral deposits, but their
significance cannot be evaluated from available data. However, most of the MRZ 3 area is within the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. Accordingly, approval of the proposed
amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on mineral resources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No .
Impact
M. 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
X
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA,
P. 111 ff.)
1/14/2004 -14-
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
X
groundbome noise levels? (Project
Description Materials)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
X
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project Description Materials)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
X
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
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
X
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)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
X
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
M. a)-d Approval of the proposed amendment will; in and of itself, have no impacts on noise.
e)-f) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Sficant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Sficant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING n
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
X
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
1/14/2004 -15- -
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., Project
Description Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
X
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., Project Description Materials)
XII. a)-c) The adopted Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 addresses housing issues and
programs. The proposed amendment makes no changes in those programs. However, approval of the
proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on population and housing.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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
X
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)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
1/14/2004 -16-
XIII. The adopted Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 addresses several infrastructure issues
and programs. The proposed amendment makes no changes in those programs. However, approval of
the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on public services.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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
X
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Project Description Materials
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
X
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Project Description
Materials
XIV. a) - b) Approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on recreation.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATIONM AMC --
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
X
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan MEA, P. 27ff.)
1/14/2004 -17-
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
X
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan MEA, p. 27 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
X
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
X
Description Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project Description Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project. Description Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project Description Materials)
XV. a)-g) The adopted Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 addresses several transportation
issues and programs. The proposed amendment makes no changes in those programs. Accordingly,
approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself, have no impacts on transportation or traffic.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. LrrH ES AND SERVICE
X
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
X
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
1/14/2004 -18-
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
X
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
X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
X
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
X
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
X
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) ) The adopted Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 addresses several wastewater
and stormwater projects and programs. The proposed amendment makes no changes in
those programs. Accordingly, approval of the proposed amendment will, in and of itself,
have no impacts on utilities and service systems.
1/14nOO4 -19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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
X
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
X
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
X
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
X
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The project area has been largely developed for many years and contains very limited
potential habitat for fish or wildlife. Approval of' the proposed project will not degrade
the quality of habitat in the area. Nor will the project have any impact on cultural
resources.
XVIL b) The project is consistent with the long term goals of the General Plan. Given the
relationship between the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, the proposed project
will help further a variety of General Plan Goals and Policies. There is no potential for
the project to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals.
1/14/2004 -20-
XVII. c) The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable.
XVII. d) No impacts have been identified that are substantially adverse to human beings.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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.
None
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.
Not applicable.
Sources of Information:
City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan, adopted March 20, 2002
City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, adopted March 20, 2002.
City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan Draft EIR, July 2001
Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Project Area No. 2
1/14/2004 -21-