RDA Resolution 1995-08^#[ II
RESOLUTION RDA 95.08
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95-302
PREPARED FOR STAMKO ACQUISITION OF 50 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF
WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF MILES AVENUE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95.302
RE') EVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency j1 me City of La Quinta, California, did Ofl the 6th day of
June, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed property acquisition from Stamko
Development; and,
WHEREAS, said acquisition has complied with the requirements The Rules to Implement the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended) Resolution 83-B8 adopted by the La Quinta City Council)
in that the Community Development Department has prepared Initial Study EA 95-302; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said land acquisition will not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that 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 Board did find the following facts, findings, and reasons
to justify certification of said Envir*nmental Assessment:
1. The proposed acquisition will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community,
either indirectly or directly.
2. The proposed acquisition 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed acquisition does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
4. The proposed acquisition will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable.
RE5ORDA.009
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[Resolution No. RA 95-08
NOV**, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Agency for this
environmental assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify the Environmental Assessment 95.302 for the reasons set forth in this resolution
and as stated in the attached Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit *A" and
adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quint a Redevelopment Agency
held on this 6th day of June, 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Board Meu*bers Bangerter, Cathcart. Pena, Chairman Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Board Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
YSMFF,Ch all
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
A ST:
SAUNDRA L. JU A, Secretary
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
APPROVED TO FORM:
H LL, ity Attorney
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
RESOROA.009
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No.95-302
Case No. Date: May 15, 1995
I.
Name of Proponent: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Address: 78-495 CalIe Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Phone: 619)777-7125
Agency Requking Checklist:CITY OF LA QUINTA
Project Name if applicable): LAND ACQUISITION STAMKO
MILES AVENUE & WASHINGTON STREET
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[II. 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" or Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning x Transportation/Circulation X Public Services
Population and Housing x Biological Resources Utilities
X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
X Water Risk of Upset and Human Health X Cultural Resources
X Afr Quality Noise X Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
III. DEThRMIN*ON.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLA*ON 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
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEG*VE DECL*ON will be prepared.
I fmd 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least,
1) one effect 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, if the effect is a potentially significant impact" or potential
significant unless mitigated. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. U
Signature Date
Printed Name and Title: LESLIE MOURIQUAND, Associate PLANNER
For: CITY OF LA QUINTA
i
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ I-
*ly P*tc*idIy
SIpif****t I-i ThU*
u* s*r*
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? * I
source N(s):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations e.g.
impact to soils or fanrnlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community including a low-income or
minority community)?
3.2. POPUL*ON AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either direcdy or
indirecdy e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential inpacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaicing
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? I
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic harard? 2.. * p
e) laandslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features? U
ii
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ P****iIy
Powmlly 5*fi*t *Thm
Sigftiflcin Ujus 5jpifi* No
3.4. WAThR. Would the project result in:
a) changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? E E U
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazardssuchasflooding? U U U
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? *: U
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? U
f) Change in the qaantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater reclaarge
capability? 1
g) Mtered direction or rate of glow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
3.5. AIR QUAL*. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violations? U
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectional odors? I I I U
iii
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ ftwmliily
Po**WalIy Sipjf* *
Si*f=m * S*f*t No
Mki*
3.6. ThANSPORT*ONICIRCUL*ON. WouLd the project
resuft in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? U U U
b) Hazards to safety from design features e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses e.g. farm equipment)? U
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? U
d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. WouLd the project result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds?
b) L*ally designated species e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities e.g. oak
forest, e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? A
iv
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ 5-
Po*m*IIy
*t*Iy S*if* Lu *
sj:nirmni U* 5'pif* No
*
d) Wedand habitat e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)9 5 U
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? a E
3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? E
b) Use non-renewable resources m a wasteful and
inefficient manner? 5
3.9. RISK OF UPSE*IHUMAN HEALTH.
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances including, but not limited to: oil,
pesucides, chemicals or radiation)? I
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health haa:ard or potential health
ha:zards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health ha:zards?
e) lncreasesl fire haaard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gover'u*m
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? I
V
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ a
Po*Ii*IIy
P*mII* 5i*ifk**L *- *
sjpir**i U*L* 5i*i** No
Mki*
b) Police protection? E U m
c) Schools? E U E
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? U U
e) Other governmental services? U U U
3.12. U'flLr'lES.
Would the proposal result in a need for flew Systems, or
substantul alternadons to the following udlides:
a) Power or natural gas? U
b) Communications Systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? x
e) Storm water drainage? I
f) Solid waste disposal? I
3.13. AES*CS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? I
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? I U
b) Disturb archaeological resources? I
c) Affect historical resources? *
d) Have the potential to cause a physical claange which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
vi
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02
^#[ II
*,*Li.iIY
p*i**t*iy 5i*f* *
5*nif,can* Unim SIZnlflcam No
Miii* *
3.15. RECRE*ON. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks of other recreational facilities? 2 5
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? U I U'
4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? 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 projects, 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 indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ETR, 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.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are potentially significant" or potentially significant unless
mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refmed from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
vii
BIB]
11-03-1997-U01
12:57:32PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
RDARES-U02
95-U02
08-U02