CC Resolution 2002-014RESOLUTION NO. 2002-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-081,
ZONE CHANGE 2001-104, SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016,
AMENDMENT #1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 5th day of February 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-437 for General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone
Change 2001-104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract Map
30357, located on the east side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenue
52:
— WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 8th day of January 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-437 for General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone
Change 2001-104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract Map
30357, located on the east side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenue
52, more particularly described as:
APN 772-250-002 & 003, 772-250-007 through 012,
772-270-001 through 004, 772-270-006
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 2001-437)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-081,
Zone Change 2001-104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract
Map 30357 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 and 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 City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2002-14
Environmental Assessment 2001-437
Toll Bros., Inc.
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 2
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone Change 2001-104,
Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract Map 30357 will
not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community,
either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were
identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-437.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed 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.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
437 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
Resolution No. 2002-14
Environmental Assessment 2001-437
Toll Bros., Inc.
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 3
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-437 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-437 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 5th day of February 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Mayor Pro Tem Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins, Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
<Z QLA.S� Qn�j
STANL Y SNIFF, Mayor Tem
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2002-14
Environmental Assessment 2001-437
Toll Bros., Inc.
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
JUN REEK, CMC, Cii-%rUc4k
City of La Quinta, Cayifornia
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATKERINEPE SO , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, Ca . ornia
Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Assessment 2001-437
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-007
City Council Resolution 2002-
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone Change 2001-
104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment # 1, and
Tentative Tract Map 30357
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City La Quinta
78-4 5 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: East side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and
Avenue 52
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Toll Brothers, Inc.
8901 E. Mountain View Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change 14 acres from Low Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. Specific Plan to amend development
standards for the construction of low density residential units, casitas, golf course
and a neighborhood shopping center. Tentative Tract Map to create residential and
golf course lots, as well as a number of lettered lots.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Golf course, low density residential
South: Vacant desert lands, low density residential
West: Jefferson Street, PGA West
East: La Quinta Polo Estates, Coachella Canal
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Lj Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
king further is required. '
Signature ;' Date
r
Christine di Iorio
Printed Name
City of La Ouinta
For
I LK
FE]
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
I . A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact'' answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentiall
y
Significan
t
Impact
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Unless Significant No
Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
V
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 4
IV.
V.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate. sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 ff., biological resource letter, LSA Associates, August 2001)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Letter dated August
22, 2001, LSA Associates)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed Delineation Map)
X
X
X
X
X
X
P.
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2,
page 6-7)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan MEA, page 6-2 ff)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application
Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
X
X
X
X
X
X
r_1
X
X
k.N
X
F.
9
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 6
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
h) Expose people -or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff., and "Hydrology Specific Plan
90-016 Tentative Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October
2001)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff., and "Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative Tract 30357,"
prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2001)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff., and "Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative
Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2001)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13 )
X
X
X
FA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description) X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-
4, page 6-17, and "Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA
Associates, October 2001)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4,
page 6-17, and "Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates,
October 2001)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17, and "Noise Impact
Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials)
V/
X
X
94
X
X
X
X
*1
/0
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) X
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-126 ff., and "Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA
Associates, October 2001)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff., and
"Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff., and "Draft Traffic Study,"
prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff., and "Draft Traffic Study," prepared
by LSA Associates, October 2001)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation a
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecfs
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
P.
X
9
91
X
KI
X
q.
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 10
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(1)). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001
"Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001
Cultural Resources letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates
Biological Resources letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates
Results of Phase II Testing of Two Prehistoric Sites within the Grove/Mountain View Country Club Project, LSA-
Associates, January 21, 2002
Paleontological Resource Assessment, LSA Associates, December 4, 2001
"Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October 15, 2001
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Toll Bros Cklst.WPD 11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-437
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-007
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation
of motor vehicles. The traffic study estimates that a total of 12,941 new
trips will be generated by the proposed project'. Based on this trip
generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 334.2 12.96 68.5 -- 1.43 1.43
4 6
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 12,941 trips/day and average trip length of 5 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an
EIR.
As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any
threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The
impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be
significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the
area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit a dust management plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity
at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be
mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
I "Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA Associates, October 18, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 1
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed, or chemical
stabilizer.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenues 50 and 52
and Jefferson Street shall be completed with the first phase of
development.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
IV. b) A biological resource site survey was conducted for the proposed project site2.
A mesquite hummock is located on the subject property. This feature has been
identified by the Department of Fish & Game as an important community in the
Coachella Valley. In order to mitigate the potential impacts to this natural
community, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
Biological Resources letter dated August 13, 2001, LSA Associates.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 2
1. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project developer
shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and
an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and
manage land for the purpose of protecting special status plants and
wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial
resources necessary to purchase and manage 1 acre of mesquite
hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area.
V. b) A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Phase II testing were conducted for the
subject property'. The site survey included identification of previously recorded
sites, and additional finds. The Phase I recommended testing. The testing did
not indicate that additional significant resources were present on the parcel and
no further test excavation is warranted. Therefore, the mitigation measure as
recommended by the professional archaeologist is that the portion of the parcel
that contained the cultural resources be monitored during any grading activities.
V. c) A Paleontological Resource Assessment was conducted for the subject
property.' The record search did not identify any previous surveys for the
project area, but did recognize the high potential for impacts to nonrenewable
paleontological resources and recommended, prior to issuance of a grading
permit impact mitigation program as follows:
3
1. Excavation for the proposed project has potential to impact significant
nonrenewable paleontological resources. The project proponent must
retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to carry out a PRIMP. This
program must conform to the guidelines of the City of La Quinta and The
County of Riverside and to recommendations of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. The PRIMP must include project -specific measures to
reduce impacts to the fossils to a level less than significant. The
program must include, but not be limited to:
a. Monitoring of excavation by a qualified vertebrate paleontologic
monitor to recover paleontological resources. Project specifics
that will be incorporated into the PRIMP should include excavation
monitoring that starts on a half-time basis, and continues until
vertebrate fossils (fish, reptile, bird or mammal remains) are
encountered by the monitor. When vertebrate remains are
recognized, the monitoring will increase to a full-time basis. The
monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect
Cultural Resources Letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates.
Results of Phase I1 Testing of Two Prehistoric Sites Within the Grove/Mt. View Country Club Project.
4 Paleontological Resource Assessment, LSA Associates, December 4, 2001
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 3
construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to
paleontological resources. The monitor shall be equipped to
rapidly remove any fossil specimens encountered during
excavation.
b. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification,
including washing of sediments to recover small fossil vertebrates.
If small fossils are encountered, a standard 6,000 pound bulk
matrix sample will be collected from each locality. Removal of
surplus sediment from around the specimens reduces the volume
of storage for the repository and the storage cost for the
developer.
C. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, itemized catalogs of
al material collected and identified will be provided to the City of
La Quinta with the specimens. A report documenting the results
of the monitoring and salvage activities, and analyzing the
significance of the fossils will be prepared.
d. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, preparation of a report
with an appended, itemized inventory of specimens. The fossils
from the project shall be given to the City of La Quinta for
permanent curation and storage. The report and inventory, when
submitted to the City, signifies the completion of the program to
mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
Compliance with these recommendations will ensure that the impacts to the
paleontological resources are below a threshold of significance as required in
CEQA.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III 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. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b)
Portions of the subject property are subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City
will implement requirements for a PM 10 management plan, and additional
mitigation measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above.
These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 4
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The development of the project site will require domestic water, and can also
irrigate the proposed golf course utilizing canal water, since the All American
Canal is located adjacent to the project site. This usage will reduce the potential
impacts to water resources on the project site. The project proponent will be
required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing
fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts
associated with groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the
requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These
standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-d)
The City requires that all construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour
storm on -site. A hydrology study has been prepared for the project site which
analysis several drainage areas, and assigns retention amounts'. The study
identifies the measures necessary to control water in the event of a storm. The
project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of grading permits. The preparation of final grading plans will
be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure conformance with the drainage
study and City standards. These requirements will ensure that the impacts
associated with drainage at the site are reduced to a less than significant level.
XI. a) A noise study was prepared for the proposed project6. The study found that the
project's sensitive receptors (the residential dwelling units) will be impacted by
traffic noise, noise from the well sites, and noise from the commercial site. In
order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1 . A six foot high perimeter wall shall be installed for residential properties,
at a minimum:
a. Within 238 feet of the centerline of Jefferson Street south of
Avenue 50.
b. Within 152 feet of the centerline of Avenue 50 between Jefferson
and Madison Streets.
2. A six foot high wall shall be constructed around both well sites at the
project.
"Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October 15, 2001.
6 "Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 19, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 5
3. A six foot high wall shall be constructed on the northwest corner of the
project site adjacent to the commercial lands at Jefferson and Avenue
50.
4. A six foot high wall shall be constructed on the southwest corner of the
project site adjacent to the commercial lands at Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52.
XI. c) The noise study also found that noise levels will be affected by construction
activities on the site. In order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
1. All construction equipment shall be fitted with properly operating
mufflers and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner
as to emit noise away from sensitive receptors.
3. Equipment staging areas shall be located as far away from sensitive
receptors as possible.
4. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with
noise at the subject property to a less than significant level.
XIII. a)
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax and sales taxes which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as
development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the
impacts to schools.
The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax will generate
revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of
municipal services. The project will be required to participate in the City's
Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site
development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services
or facilities.
XV. a)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 6
A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project'. The study found that
the traffic generated from the project site, both residential and commercial, will
not reduce levels of service to a less than acceptable level, assuming
surrounding roadways are improved to City standards. No mitigation measures
are therefore needed to ensure that impacts associated with traffic generation
are reduced to a less than significant level.
"Draft Traffic Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 18, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TOIIBrosAddend.WPD 7 J
I7 --
i
OO
�
fz7
�
Q
V
N
�
�
�
Z
c
O
kn
O
u
F.
C
Q
E'
o
�
�
kn
=
� O
_
�3 r,4
o
Z
O
W
N
z�
oo
w
Z
N
�OpZ
z�
.--
.-+
rArq
C,
V
r
NEW
O
z
Qwz
a
--
E"O�
L7 U
ri
W
O
�
Oz
Q
a
Q
Cz
Ncz"aOM
cz bn
N
a
cn
ti
..; �o
�5C/5c)
oE-
N
u �Tw
zz
..
z
Q
°d
o
z
p;
U
Now
•a x
O
F
rw
W
a
U
A
U
W
Q
HA
E-
m
Z
_Q
UU
L
cy
CA
a�
c^n
�
O
Z
`
_
o
�
CA
L
CA
tan
•
Q�
L
� Q)
L
� �
L
CL
V
-
z
U
U
U
m
m
D
Ucz
1-4
a�
a�
c
�
o
CA
cz
x
=
�.+
O.
cz
e�
3
cz
c�
G
G
Gz7 �-
fs7 y,
Um
Um
Q�
Q�
aU
a.0
OV
OV
Q
Q
6.
c
0
U
O
L
fn
CC
cz
0
U
U
cz
O
O
to
O tb
' L
p 'C
'CL Lf)
a
rL�.,, I/)
V
�Z
c.
Z Z
fi
^
L
� L
.�-. C.
cz
C.
^ C.
UCH
UGC
UGC
.r
cz
cC
cn U
L°
U _
L
•
°
cam.,
cC
� U O
ct
et
Zwcz
Cl.
o
MIT
—Ct
cz
CZ
CZ
r—CA
� �
V/
�
• L
Cn
� O � • _ r" �
N Q%
�
Q�
:�
L Q% L w
IMCI
=
y;
cz
Gz:
Q
C
U m
Z C
Q c�:
c. U
VV
Q
cz
cz
czU
--
U
U
U
L
L
Q�
cz
♦ +
♦-.r
O
O
O
ucc
E
CZ+..
a
c
o
.4 a
O =
,�
O
._
U
CA
cl
0
0
0
z
L1
Li
z
C
v:
a.
E a
ULl
UC]
Ucq
O L c� o
Q� L = Ocz
CA CZ a� �,
a
o �, a . o a
an
' a4 c�
V •
CA
cz
a -o a r� ...
w.
Q
�
a� —
=
=
o
0 0
o
O O c O O O O
fl- r O
i._ G z
C.
0
cz
U "p O
O cC
�
� L
.,
c+ct
►;,
o
3
3
u� L L v
U .� -v c' cn
G) cc F-
cz
yC
U
O c
a
m
C
c
C
C
O
O
O
0
a
a
a
a
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
N
U)
W
O
O
0
0
U
U
U
U
c
c
C
C
Q
QIJ
r-
a
a.
a
a
0
0
Q
Q
�v
=v
�v
•v
tE
w
c
Cy
°
.0
rAcn
rA
c°a
.0
c
aL
Ln
0
�
Lam.
L
O
r.+ CO
rA
C
0
U
>
> =
i.. C
0
U
=
L
0 CA..,
U a)
a
3
C
0
y
O
0
C
W_
N
U
O
0
a