RDA Resolution 2003-21RESOLUTION RA 2003-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THE VISTA DUNES MOBILE HOME PARK
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-489
PROJECT SPONSOR: LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 2 "d day of December, 2003 hold a duly noticed public meeting
to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-489 to allow the purchase by the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency of an existing mobile home park approximately nine
acres in size located at 78-990 Miles Avenue, more particularly described as
follows:
APN 604-032-022
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
2003-489) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant
effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of
the Assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for the project, and
therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed;
and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Redevelopment Agency
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
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-
489.
Resolution RA 2003-21
Environmental Assessment 2003-489
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: December 2, 2003
Page 2
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 site has been previously
graded and has been developed as a mobile home park for many years.
There is no evidence before the Agency that the proposed project will have
the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on
which the wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not
identify any wildlife resources on the site.
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 in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The Redevelopment Agency has considered Environmental Assessment
2003-489 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the
Agency.
Resolution RA 2003-21
Environmental Assessment 2003-489
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: December 2, 2003
Page 3
9. The Agency 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 Redevelopment Agency 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 Redevelopment Agency,
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, Redevelopment Agency, for this Environmental
Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-489 for the
reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department
and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-489 reflects the independent
judgment of the Agency.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency held this. 2 d day of December, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit;
AYES: Members Adolph, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Chair Henderson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
TERRY H DERSON, Agency Chair
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Resolution RA 2003-21
Environmental Assessment 2003-489
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: December 2, 2003
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU'Iq9 S. GREEK, CMC, Agency Secretary
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERII
La Quinta Re
mncy uounsei
ency
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: EAP 2003-489 Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park Purchase
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: 78990 Miles Avenue
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 (LDR)
(RL)
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.)
Purchase an existing mobile home park located at 78990 MilesAvenue by the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency. The site (APN 604-032-022) consists of approximately nine acres
on the north side of Miles Avenue, slightly west of Adams Street. Access to the site is from
Miles Avenue. The property is rectangular in shape, with a narrow frontage along Miles
Avenue. There are 93 mobile homes on site at this time with a variety of accessory structures
on many of the lots. The ages of the mobile homes vary, but most are many years old.
Until such time as the site is redeveloped, there will be no discernible changes to existing
conditions. However, purchase of the site is made with the general expectation that the
property will be redeveloped as an affordable housing project at some future date. Decisions
related to future development (via approval of a use permit) will be made at a future time and
will be subject to appropriate CEQA clearance.
The property is designated LDR — Low Density Residential on the Land Use Element. The
zoning designation is RL — Low Density Residential. As such, the existing mobile home park
is a legal non -conforming use.
Exhibit I. is the Assessor Parcel Map of the project. Parcel 22.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Bfiefly describe the project's surroundings:
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC -I -
North: Low density residential/retention basin/park (Adams Park)
South: Miles Avenue, bordered by low density residential
West: Retention basin /low density residential
East: Church and fire station (under construction)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None for purchase of property itself.
SACity ClerMesolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkIst.D0C -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
X
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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
X enviromnent, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisio * ns in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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
11potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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
envirom,nent, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChk1st.D0C -3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
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, includ ing 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 deten-nination 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.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChk1st.DOC -4-
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
Signiflcant
Significant w/
Signiflcant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scemc 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?
1 (Project Description Materials)
I. a), b), c) Miles Avenue is designated as a Secondary Image Corridor on the La Quinta General
Plan (Exhibit 3.6). Purchase of the property, in and of itself, will not impact this corridor.
d) The purchase, in and of itself, will have no impact as a source of light or glare.
SACity C1crk\Rcso1uflons\RDA EA WcldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC -5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
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
X
contract? (Zoning Map)
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. 111-22 ff.)
II. a)-c) The proposed project site has been fully urbanized for many years. 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
X
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
X
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChklst.DOC -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,, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors' affecting a
substantial number of people? (Project
X
Description Materials)
III a) —e) The proposed purchase of the property will not, in and of itself, generate
emissions, expose sensitive receptors, create objectionable odors or lead to the creation of dust in
excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria
pollutants and therefore will not obstruct implementation of applicable air quality management
plans.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Signiricant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
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. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
X
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChk1st.D0C -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. 73 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. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
X
policy or ordi hance? (General Plan MEA, p.
73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The project site has been previously graded and has been urbanized for many years. It is
surrounded by urban development. It does not have potential as habitat for species of
concern. No impacts to biological resources are expected to occur as a result of the
purchase of the property.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
X
as defined in Government Code
Sec 15 064.5 (General Plan MEA, p. 123 ff.)
SACity Clerk\ResolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC -8-
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?
I
V. a) - d) The project site has been previously graded and has been occupied by a mobile home park
for many years. No impacts to cultural or paleontologic resources are expected to occur as
a result of the proposed purchase of the property.
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,
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)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,,
including liquefaction? (General Plan
X
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC -9-
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
X
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (Gener . al Plan
Exhibit 8. 1)
VI. a) i)-iv) The proposed project site lies approximately 4 miles from the San Andreas Fault, in a
Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to
significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake'. Purchase of the
property, in and of itself, will have no impact. The risk of liquefaction on the site is
considered low.
b) The site is located in a very severe wind erosion area, and will therefore be subject to
significant soil erosion from wind.
c)-e) The soils on the subject property have a low expansion probability, as defined in the
Uniform Building Code. The purchase of the property will, in and of itself, have no
impact.
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
X
routine transport, use, or disposal of *
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
SACity ClerMesolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChk1st.DOC -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? (Application 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)
a)-c) Purchase of the site will, in and of itself, have no impact.
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC - I I -
d) The site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste
and Substances Site List (Cortese List)
e)—h) The site is not located in proximity to any airport or airstrip. It is surrounded by
urbanized uses, with access to Miles Avenue, a primary arterial roadway. Its location
does not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Lastly, due to its
location the site is not susceptible to wildland fires.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan MEA, p. 92M
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?
SACity C1erk\Reso1ufions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChk1st.D0C - 12-
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.?
f) Place housing within a I 00-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 I 00-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
X
redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a)- e) The purchase of the property will, in and of itself, have no impact. There will be no
discernible change to existing conditions as a result of the purchase.
f) - g) The project site is not located in a 100 year flood plain.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Signiflcant w/
Signiflcant
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
X
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
SACity ClerMcsolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC - 13-
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
X
conservation plan? (Master Enviromnental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
LX a)-c) As noted above, at present the site is fully developed for residential uses (mobile home
park). The site is located between residential uses to the west and north and institutional
uses to the east (fire station and church). As such residential development will not divide
an established community; rather it serves as an extension of the residential neighborhood
to the west. The purchase of the site will not interfere with any Habitat Conservation
Plan, although the project site is located within the fee area (but not a reserve) for the
Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
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
X
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (General Plan MEA, p. 72 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
X
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
,use plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 72 ff.)
X. a) - b) The purchase of the site will, in and of itself, have no impacts on mineral resources. The
project site is located in the MRZ —1 Zone, and is not expected to contain mineral
resources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Les's Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
X
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA,
P.
SACity ClerMesolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC - 14-
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
X
groundborne 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)
XI. a)-d) Purchase of the property, in and of itself, will not have noise related impacts. There will be no
discernible change to existing conditions due to the purchase.
e) & f) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ff
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.)
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChklst.DOC - 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
I Plan, p. 9 ff., Project Description Materials) I
I
I
XII. a)-c) Purchase of the property in and of itself will not cause any changes in the City's housing
stock or of residential patterns. However, the reason for the purchase is to facilitate
redevelopment of the site. This action will lead to the displacement, at least temporarily,
of current residents and the loss of the existing housing units. For these reasons, and
pursuant to Redevelopment Law, any such development must be preceded by a
Replacement Housing Plan as well as a Relocation Program for current residents. These
programs will ensure that existing residents are afforded appropriate assistance in finding
new homes and that any net loss in housing units is accounted for.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts to Population and Housing:
I . Prior to the demolition of the first existing residential unit on the project site, the Executive
Director, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency shall certify that a replacement housing plan
meeting all requirements of the adopted Redevelopment Plan of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 and applicable State Law has been adopted.
2. Prior to the demolition of the first existing residential unit on the project site, the Executive
Director, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency shall certify that a Relocation Plan has been
adopted pursuant to Section 513 of the Redevelopment Planfor the La Quinta Redevelopment
Project Area No. 2.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChklst.DOC - 16-
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.)
XIII. a)Purchase of the property, in and of itself, will not have Public Service impacts.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
I (Project Description Materials)
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WcldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC - 17-
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) I
XIV. a) b) The purchase of the site in and of itself will have no impacts.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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
X
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan MEA P. 27ff.)
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)
SACity ClerMesolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC - 18-
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 purchase of the site will, in and of itself, have no impact. Miles Avenue even. at
General Plan Buildout, is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. It is
fully developed along the site frontage and meets arterial roadway standards.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
X
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
X
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
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.)
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC - 19-
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) Purchase of the site, in and of itself, will have no impacts on Utilities and Service
Systems.
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?
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkist.DOC -20-
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
x
effects of a project are considerable when
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 eff�cts on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
—J
XVII. a) The project site has been developed for many years and does not contain potential habitat
for fish or wildlife. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of habitat in the
area. Nor will the project have any impact on cultural resources.
XVII. b) The project is consistent with the long term goals of the General Plan, and is currently
designated for Low Density Residential development. There is no potential for the project
to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals.
XVII. C) The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The project is
consistent with that analysed in the General Plan EIR. The mitigation measures imposed
on this project, will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. d) The project has identified impacts associated with Population & Housing, which affect
human beings. However, a number of mitigation measures are proposed which reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
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 applic�ble.
SACity ClerMesolutionARDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChkistDOC -2 1 -
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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\RDA EA WeldonVDMHP EAChk1st.DOC -22-
C-4
cq
C
C�
F-
MEN
z
to
rA
P-"
CY
0
4.4
o
>1
C)
0
C-4
U
0:
0
z
0.
z
Z
z
06
CA
9:
0
.
0
U2
I.
EA
(D 10
z
0
Poo
W