Loading...
CC Resolution 2004-132RESOLUTION NO. 2004-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-519 PREPARED FOR THE EISENHOWER DRIVE BRIDGE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2001-06 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-519 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th day of November, 2004 consider Environmental Assessment 2004-519 for the Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements, Capital Improvement Project No. 2001-06 (the "Project"); and 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' r-- the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2004-519) and has determined that although the 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 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons 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 2004-519. 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. The project is located in an urbanized area that is built out. No habitat suitable to support special status plant or wildlife species exists on or adjacent to the site. Resolution No. 2004-132 EA 2004-519 - Eisenhower Drive Bridge Adopted: November 16, 2004 Page 2 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. The Project is being constructed to achieve the long term goal of reducing or preventing traffic congestion in the project vicinity and the City's circulation system. 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. The Project is a roadway improvement project that has been anticipated in the General Plan. 6. The proposed Project may result in impacts to air quality, noise and traffic during construction; however these impacts will be temporary and short in duration and will also be mitigated to a less than significant level with the mitigations measures contained herein. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-519 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10.. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this Project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. Resolution No. 2004-132 EA 2004-519 - Eisenhower Drive Bridge Adopted: November 16, 2004 Page 3 2. That Environmental Assessment 2004-519 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 16' day of November 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DON ADOLPH, Mayor City Iof La Quinta, California ATTEST: JU E . GREEK, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: r-- A".ATHRI JENSON,City At rneyQuinta, Califor Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253. 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oscar Orci, (760) 777-7125 4. Project Location: The project site consists of Eisenhower Drive from Avenue 50 to approximately 700 feet north of Calle Tampico in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The project site encompasses approximately 2.8 acres, primarily within existing right-of-way (ROW) for the roadway easement, which varies in width from 32 to 70 feet. The site is shown on the U.S. Geological Survey's La Quinta 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map as a portion of Section 1, Township 6, South/Range 6 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The regional location and local vicinity of the proposed project are shown on Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. An aerial of the site is provided on Exhibit 3. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Golf Course Open Space (G), Village Commercial (VC), Low - Density Residential (LDR), and Watercourse/Flood Control (W) 7. Zoning: Golf Course District (GC), Low -Density Residential District (RL), and Floodplain District (FP) 8. Description of Project: The project involves the widening of Eisenhower Drive from two to four lanes from Avenue 50 to approximately 700 feet north of Calle Tampico in the City of La Quinta. The objectives of the project are to improve the level of vehicular service on Eisenhower Drive and to reduce response times for emergency vehicles. The proposed project would improve .the existing two-lane Eisenhower Drive to the Primary Arterial-B roadway designation identified in the Traffic and Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. The Primary Arterial-B Designation is a 100-foot-wide roadway with four 12- foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide median, 7-foot-wide bike Lanes adjacent to the parkway curb face, and 12-foot-wide parkways (i.e., meandering sidewalks and landscaping). In addition to the street widening, the bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel would be widened from its existing 40 foot width to 88 feet to match the realigned paved width of Eisenhower Drive. To support the widened roadway and parkway on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, a retaining wall would be constructed from the bridge to approximately 600 feet to the north. Three alternative configurations for the widening are currently proposed. The alternatives are discussed below. The project area of disturbance is very similar for all three alternatives. The construction would occur almost entirely within City -owned right-of-way (ROW) and Coachella Valley Water District ROW, with the exception of approximately 8,930 square feet of ROW that would need to be acquired on the west side of Eisenhower Drive on areas that are currently adjacent to the existing edge of paved roadway and used for a sidewalk and landscaping. No existing habitable structures would be directly impacted by project implementation. Project design and areas of impact are shown on Exhibit 4. t a t r tip 2 - �• 42y ^_ , _ A _ b Na C - • 2 C O O C ��... •L N ; � - h co> a J r � , c .O CL r o co 3 m it sele6uv sod L X W ki Local Vicinity Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements 0.25 O 0.25 0.5 Milts Swm: US C nvA Burew TKM 2000 Exhibit 2 �►yr C0NSULTfNG SAG Eal�ilaMAaMI1J00/_LV io"00.0 lk 44 +r VP 447 1 1 //► :c 1 Qulnta Cho r 1 � iJq y w t. 1 Existing Conditions Exhibit 3 Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements '4- 100 0 100 200 FeM :: ; • C O N S U L FIN G t m Errrw.eamr ..,� �e�pS,r. Direct Impact Area Indirect Impeot Area Project Design Topography Bridge Widening 0 ExWbng Bridge Structure sa... ew.�enrr Project Design and Impacts Exhibit 4 Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements n e n +eo Few c o N1 awu_wrwr�r_w_+M� Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would widen Eisenhower Drive approximately 12 feet on the west side and would widen the existing bridge approximately 42 feet on the east side and 6 feet on the west side, providing a total bridge width of approximately 88 feet. The widened bridge structure would be a cast -in -place reinforced concrete slab, similar to the existing bridge. It is anticipated that the column supports for the bridge will be 24-inch diameter cast -in -drilled - holes (CIDH) piles that will be located on the banks of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This alternative would provide four lanes (two in each direction of travel) with a 12-foot-wide raised median separating the northbound and southbound directions of travel, a left -turn lane from northbound Eisenhower Drive onto Calle Mazatlan, and a left -turn lane from southbound Eisenhower Drive into the entrance for the La Quinta Village Apartments (under construction). In addition, this alternative would provide sidewalks for the full length of the project improvements and a seven -foot -wide bike lane on each side of the roadway. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would widen the east side of the bridge by approximately 42 feet providing a total bridge width of approximately 82 feet. The widened bridge structure would be a cast - in -place concrete slab, similar to the existing bridge. It is anticipated the column supports for the bridge will be 24-inch diameter CIDH piles that will be located in the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The median width for this alternative would be 6 feet, widening to 12 feet wide at the two left -turn lanes at Calle Mazatlan and the La Quinta Apartments. The taper in the roadway is necessary to meet the location of the existing west curb face on the existing bridge. The taper will shift the roadway approximately six feet to the east compared to Alternative 1; however, ROW requirements are identical for both alternatives. All other project features would be identical to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is the City of La Quinta's preferred alternative. Alternative 3 The alignment of Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2. This alternative would widen the bridge using a precast, prestressed girder structure that will span the La Quinta Evacuation Channel without piles in the channel. The existing bridge would serve as the southbound lanes and the new bridge would be constructed to serve as the northbound lanes. The roadway profile for the northbound traffic at the bridge would be approximately two feet higher than the southbound lanes. This is a result of the increased depth of the widened bridge structure for this alternative. All other roadway improvements associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 are applicable to -Alternative 3. All three alternatives incorporate a landscaping component that would follow the City of La Quinta "Desert Palette," featuring decorative bridge railings and median landscaping treatments including desert shrubs, trees, and palms. Examples of the desert palette are shown on Exhibit 5. The current street lighting would be replaced by a new street lighting system as a project component for all three alternatives. In accordance with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, street lighting would be fully shielded to direct light onto the road surface and prevent lighting spillover into adjacent residences. No stormwater drainage improvements are proposed with any of the project alternatives, with the exception of setback and reconstruction of existing storm drain inlets on Eisenhower Drive. The addition of approximately 0.75 acre of paving would add a negligible amount of street runoff to flows entering storm drains that currently convey flows to the La 2 Photo 2: Desert Palette bridge treatment and landscaping. Vol Z'--1 �` �.i,. - �7 i.. •!T Photo 2: Desert Palette median landscaping. Proposed Landscaping Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements Source: Moffatt 3 Nichol engineering Exhibit 5 CONSULTING Quinta Evacuation Channel. The additional flows would be adequately conveyed by existing storm drain capacity and no improvements are proposed with the project. The project would be constructed in one phase. Eisenhower Drive and the bridge would remain open to through -traffic throughout construction for all alternatives. Construction vehicles would be staged off -site at one of three alternative locations. The City shall either identify a location identified for use as a Contractor staging area or the bid documents will identify the Contractor's responsibirity to obtain the construction staging area. Some heavy equipment, such as the drill rig for the CIDH pipes, may remain at the site overnight. All loose construction material shall be removed from the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and site at the end of each workday. Construction vehicle staging area alternatives are described below: 1. A vacant parcel adjacent to the north of Montezuma Park approximately 1 /3 mile to the south of the project site. This staging area alternative is bound to the north by seven single-family residential units and two multiple -family residential apartment buildings opposite to the north of Avenida Villa, to the east by Avenida Mendoza and vacant land, to the south by Avenida Montezuma and Montezuma Community Park, and to the west by the La Quinta Studio and Gallery and Eisenhower Drive. 2. A vacant parcel adjacent to the south of Montezuma Park approximately 1/3 mile to the south of the project site. This staging area alternative is bound to the north by Avenida Montezuma and Montezuma Community Park, to the east by vacant land, to the south by Avenida Martinez and four single-family residential units, and to -the west by Eisenhower Drive and single-family residential units opposite to the west of Eisenhower Drive. 3. The City of La Quinta Corporation Yard is located approximately one mile to the southeast of the project site. This staging area alternative is bound to the north by vacant land, to the east by a fire station, to the south by Frances Hack Lane and low -density single-family residential, and to the west by Fritz Burns Park. The locations of the staging areas relative to the project site and anticipated construction vehicle routes are presented on Exhibit 6. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site consists of the existing two-lane Eisenhower Drive and bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel between Avenue 50 and approximately 700 feet north of Calle Tampico. Topography , is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 35 to 55 feet above mean sea level (msl). Surrounding land uses are described below. North: Eisenhower Drive continues to the north of the proposed project segment from the intersection with Avenue 50/Avenida Mazatlan and is currently being improved to a four -lane facility in accordance with the General Plan Traffic and Circulation Element build -out assumptions. The Santa Rosa Cove Townhouse complex is located to the northwest of the project site. Tennis courts of the La Quinta Country' Club are located to the northeast of the project site. South: Eisenhower Drive continues to the south of the proposed project segment. The La Quinta Country Club Golf Course is located to the southwest of the project site. Vacant land is located to the southeast of the project site and is the proposed site for the Calle Tampico Elementary School. East: To the south of the existing bridge, the project site is bound to the east by the La Quinta Village Apartments currently under construction. To the north of the existing bridge, the project site is bound to the east by the La Quints Country Club Golf Course and the Haciendas at La Quinta (low -density residential). West: To the south of the existing bridge, the project site is bound to the west by the La Quinta Country Club Golf Course. To the north of the existing bridge, the project site is bound to the west by the Santa Rosa Cove Townhomes (medium -density residential). 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). Coachella Valley Water District (approval of encroachment permit for work in the La Quinta Evacuation Channel). 4 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 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 (EIR) 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 EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Sign re Date 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an r-- earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis is 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 significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 1. 2. Potentially Significant Impact AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Site topography, Site Visit) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Project Description) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Project Description) AGRICULTUR Potentially Significant Less Than Unless Significant No Mitigated Impact Impact AL 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? (Site Visit) 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 nonagricultural use? (Project Description, Site Visit) X X X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3. 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 URBEMIS) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD URBEMIS) 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, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley, URBEMIS) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) 4. 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 (CDFG) or (USFWS)? (BonTerra Consulting 9/18/2003) 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 CDFG or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (BonTerra Consulting 9/18/2003) 8 X X 9 X X X X c) Adversely impact federally protectei wetlands (including, but not limited tc marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc. either individually or in combinatior with the known or probable impacts o other activities through direct removal filling, hydrological interruption, of other means? (BonTerra Consultinc 9/18/2003) 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? (BonTerra Consulting 9/18/2003) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (BonTerra Consulting 9/18/2003) 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? (BonTerra Consulting 9/18/2003) 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the prc 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? (BonTerra Consulting 10/17/2003) 9 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Im act Mitigated Im act Impact i f X X X. X ject: 6. 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)? (BonTerra Consulting 10/17/2003) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (BonTerra 'Consulting 10/17/2003) 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: 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? (Master Environmental Assessment) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental Assessment Section 6.3.5) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (DMG 2000) Landslides? (DMG 2000) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Project Description, Site Topography) 10 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X U X X X X Q 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? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.3, DMG 2000) d) 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? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Imn2ef ul**I eft6. 2 Less Than Significant No X X 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? (Project Description) 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? (Project Description, EDR 2003) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Project Description, EDR 2003, Site Visit) 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? (EDR 2003) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, Site Visit, Surrounding Land Uses) 11 V X X FA X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Master Environmental Assessment, Site Visit, Surrounding Land Uses) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Project Description, Master Environmental Assessment Section 6.2) 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? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Imoa 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Project Description) 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? (Project Description) 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? (Project Description) 12 X X Q Q X FA 9. 10. 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? (Project Description) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Project Description) 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? (Project Description) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitinatorf Less Than Significant No X X X X LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) X 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 X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan, Project Description) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? X (General Plan, CVAG) 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 Exhibit 5.1) 1 13 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? (General Plan Exhibit 5.1) 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: 12. 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? (Project Description) b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Project Description) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Project Description) 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? (General Plan, Project Description) 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, Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Uniess SignMcant No —impact Mitt aged IMDaCt Im pa . X 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)? (Project Description) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project Description) 14 X X X U X X Q c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project Description) 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: 14. a) 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? (Project Description, Master Environmental Assessment Section 4.3) Police protection? (Project Description, Master Environmental Assessment Section 4.3) Schools? (Project Description, Master Environmental Assessment Section 4.2) Parks? (Project Description, Master Environmental Assessment Section 4.2) Other public facilities? (Project Description, Master Environmental Assessment Section 4) RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of X the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Project Description) b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have X an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No X 15 X X X X Q Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: 16. 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)? (Project Description) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Project Description) 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? (Project Description) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project Description) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Description) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Description) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle . racks)? (Project Description) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Project Description) 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? (Project Description) 16 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X 17 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? (Project Description) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Project Description) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Project Description) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan Chapter 7, Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant Nn Impact Mitiated Impact Impact X . X X X 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? (BonTerra Consulting 9/18/03 & 10/17/03) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X 17 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Im 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? 18. EARLIER ANALYSIS X X Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D]). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. City of La Quinta General Plan/Master Environmental Assessment (2002), City of La Quinta (Available for review at the City public library and planning department) b) Impacts. adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent.to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. Environmental Analysis and Initial Study This initial study analyzes the project as well as its impacts(s) and the level(s) of significance as required by the State of California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 2100 et seq. "CEQA Statutes" and California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq. "CEQA Guidelines"). State law requires that action on a CEQA document be considered by the decision -maker prior to approval of the project for which is has been prepared. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been designated the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed project. The following is an analysis of the subject proposal: 18 1. AESTHETICS -Would the aroiect• a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundin s? 9 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact (Sections a-d). The proposed project consists of the improvement of an existing segment of Eisenhower Drive and bridge in the City of La Quinta between Avenue 50 and Calle Tampico. These streets are not designated scenic highways and, as such, no scenic highways would be affected. There would be no effect on a scenic vista and there are no rock outcroppings and/or historic buildings that would be impacted by implementation of any of the project alternatives. Eisenhower Drive is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the City of La Quinta General Plan. Primary Image Corridors are considered major design statements in the City, and are required to include landscaped medians, heavily landscaped parkways adjacent to the roadway and within the ROW, and landscaped setbacks for buildings located next to the ROW. All three project alternatives will remove some existing front setback landscaping from the roadway ROW. However, the project includes the installation of landscaping within the public ROW. New 2- to 12-foot-wide medians are proposed as part of the project design for all three alternatives. Landscaping would follow the City of La Quinta "Desert Palette" which features decorative bridge railings and median landscaping treatments including desert shrubs, trees, and palms. The proposed project landscaping plans will bring the project street segment into conformance with the General Plan requirements of the Primary Image Corridor designation. Photos of proposed landscaping features as installed on other street segments within the City are shown on Exhibit 5. None of the project or landscaping features will include reflective surfaces that could create a source of glare. The current street lighting would be replaced by a new street lighting system as a project component. The new street lighting system would be in compliance with City of La Quinta Department of Public Works design standards. In accordance with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, street lighting will be fully shielded to direct light directly onto the road surface and prevent lighting spillover into adjacent residences. Therefore, proposed street lighting would not be expected to impact nighttime views of the area. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the roiect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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 nonagricultural use? No Impact (Sections a-c). The proposed project site or potential staging areas are located in an urbanized area and would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract or located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to 2000 Natural Resource 19 Conservation Service mapping. No agricultural resources impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 3. AIR QUALITY -Would the oroiect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or congestion management plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact (Sections a-e). California is divided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) into air basins which share similar meteorological and topographical features. The City of La Quinta is in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which includes eastern Riverside and Imperial counties. The SSAB's climate and topography, high winds, and fine sandy soils are conducive to the formation of high concentrations of airborne particulate matter. Additionally, the predominantly westerly winds transport pollutants from the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) into the SSAB. The Riverside County portion of the SSAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The pollutants for which the eastern Riverside County portion of the. SSAB is designated a non -attainment area for national ambient standards are ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM,o). Ozone is a colorless, odorless pollutant formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The primary sources of VOCs and NOx are mobile, including cars, trucks, buses, and agricultural and construction equipment. PM,o consists of fugitive dust caused by soil disturbances, such as construction grading, and causes a greater health risk than larger -sized particles because these fine particles can be inhaled more easily and irritate the lungs. Air quality modeling has shown that ozone in the Coachella Valley originates in the SCAB and is transported into the SSAB by the predominantly westerly winds. The pollutant transport pathway from the SCAB to the SSAB is through the Banning Pass to the Coachella Valley. Downwind of the source region, exceedances occur later in the day as the ozone cloud is transported downwind. If the peak were locally generated, it would occur near mid -day and not in the late afternoon or early evening. As a result, the SCAQMD is focusing the regulation of ozone on the SCAB. Between. 1999 and 2001, the Coachella Valley exceeded the federal annual average PM,o national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Because the Coachella Valley was unable to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS through the 2001 attainment year, SCAQiMD prepared the 2002 Coachella Valley PM,o State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). The CVSIP includes control program enhancements that meet the Most Stringent Measure (MSM) requirements and a request for extension of the PM,o attainment date. Jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley are required to adhere to the requirements outlined in the CVSIP, including preparation of a fugitive dust control plan prior to issuance of grading permits. r-- A project's air quality impacts can be separated into short-term impacts from construction and long- term permanent impacts from project operations. Construction impacts can include airborne dust k from grading, demolition, and dirt hauling, and gaseous emissions from heavy equipment, delivery and dirt hauling trucks, employee vehicles, and paints and coatings. 20 The project would not generate new long-term traffic beyond that assumed in the City's General Plan projections and it would not result in any long-term regional or local air quality impacts. The proposed roadway improvements are intended to reduce congestion and increase traffic flow. As such, the proposed project is not considered a traffic -generating use. There would likely be a potentially beneficial effect on existing carbon monoxide concentrations in the vicinity of the project associated with lowered congestions and higher vehicle speeds. Therefore, the air quality analysis is focused on the short-term construction impacts of the proposed project. To determine whether emissions resulting from grading and construction of a project are significant, the SCAQMD recommends significance thresholds in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The City has determined that these thresholds are appropriate for the project in order to assure regional consistency and because they are based on the best available scientific information. The pollutants addressed by the SCAQMD thresholds include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM,o), and reactive organic compounds (ROC). The daily thresholds and expected grading and construction emissions for each of the pollutants are presented in Table 1. Air quality impacts for the three proposed project alternatives are expected to be similar because construction for each alternative will use the same equipment and involve the same amount of paving. TABLE 1 PROJECT EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM POUNDS/DAY) CO ROC NOx. PM10 4.19 Demolition Emissions 71.46 10.16 85.40 Grading Emissions 77.73 11.33 97.32 67.48 Construction Emissions 83.62 12.43 86.96 3.71 150 Daily Thresholds 550 75 100 Source: Urbemis 2002 for Windows 7.4.2 Project grading and construction emissions were calculated using the Urbemis 2002 Model developed by the SCAQMD. Grading emissions were calculated for the following expected grading equipment: one backhoe loader, one grader, three dump trucks, and one flatbed truck. Construction emissions were calculated for the following construction equipment: one roller, one crane, one drill rig, one concrete pump truck, and three concrete mixers. Employee vehicle traffic was assumed to add a maximum of 60 vehicle trips/day based on an expected total of 15 construction employees. These emission levels would not exceed the SCAQMD's daily threshold for any of the pollutants of concern in the region, and would result in a less than significant impact. Vehicle emission odors potentially resulting from temporary construction vehicle emissions may occur in the immediate project vicinity and result in a nuisance to surrounding residents. However, these impacts would be considered less than significant given their temporary nature. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified below would minimize potential daily emissions from active grading operations and the nuisance odor and air quality impacts associated with them. MM-1 In order to minimize dust impacts, the contractor will be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit. This requirement shall be placed on the cover of the grading plans. Said Dust Control Plan shall be consistent with the CVSIP and Public Works Department's existing policies and standards and, at a minimum, will incorporate the following measures: 21 All construction contractors shall comply with the Dust Control Plan and applicable SCAQMD regulations. To ensure that the project is in full compliance and that there are no nuisance impacts off -site, the contractor shall implement the following: 1. Cease all dust generating demolition, grading and/or construction operations during winds in excess of 25 miles per hour, 2. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving it; 3. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days or during very dry weather -in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 4. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; and 5. All trucks entering or leaving the site with material shall use tarps to minimize fugitive dust -or materials release during transit. MM-2 In order to minimize any impact to surrounding residences resulting from construction vehicle emissions odors, and in addition to minimizing contribution to current non - attainment for ozone, the contractor shall implement the following measures during construction activities to reduce construction equipment emissions: 1. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned; 2. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment as required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2; 3. Use existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators; 4. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; 5. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes; 6. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum; 7. When feasible, schedule construction -operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours; and 8. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. 4. 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 by local designation or by the CDFG or USFWS? b) Have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by local designation or by the CDFG or USFWS? 22 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy, or ordinance? 1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact (Sections a-c & e-f). BonTerra Consulting conducted a survey of the project site on September 12, 2003 to identify biological conditions and vegetation types on the project site and to evaluate the potential for special status species. The findings of the biological constraints survey are presented in Appendix A. The proposed project is a roadway and bridge improvement project in the City of La Quinta. It lies within a fully urbanized environment that is characterized by a mix of recreational and residential uses. There is no vacant land on the project site with the potential to support any special status native plant species or habitats or special status wildlife species. Common wildlife species potentially occurring on the project site include primarily non-native species or common native . species that have adapted to urban areas within the Coachella Valley. Landscaping on the project site is typical of recreational and residential urban environments and consists of plantings of non-native and native ornamental shrubs and trees. Ground cover on the project site consists primarily of turf in the landscaped areas and puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris) in disturbed areas. Ornamental shrubs observed on the project site include ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), fuchsia (Fuscia sp.), chuparosa (Justicia califomica), oleander (Nerium oleander), olive (Olea sp.), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), rosemary (Rosemarianus sp.), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Ornamental trees observed on the project site include palo verde (Cercidium sp.), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), palm (Washingtonis sp.), poplar (Populus sp.), locust bean (Robinia sp.), pepper (Schinus), and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.). Ornamental trees on the project site are less than 20 feet tall, with the exception of rows of palms on the east and west sides of Eisenhower Drive. No raptor nesting habitat is available. Common wildlife species observed during the survey consisted of bird species. No amphibian, reptile, or mammal species were observed during the survey. However, coyote (Canis latrans) scat was observed under the bridge indicating that this species likely uses the bridge as a movement crossing. No bat species were observed and none are expected to roost under the bridge because the underside of the bridge is smooth concrete that is free of cracks or crevices. Common bird species observed during the survey included mallard (Anas platyrhyncos), American coot (Fulica americana), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), cactus wren (Campylorynchus brunneicapillus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), great -tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). No natural drainages intersect the project site. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is concrete -lined and contains no native vegetation: Therefore, no riparian habitats, waters of the U.S., or wetlands occur on the project site. Although the bridge may be used for wildlife movement in the project vicinity, no migratory wildlife corridors occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the La Quinta Evacuation Channel's capacity as a wildlife crossing would not be adversely compromised because the channel would remain accessible upon project completion and during 23 non -construction hours (from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) when terrestrial wildlife is most likely to use the crossing. Development of the project would not affect any sensitive species as designated by the CDFG or USFWS. The proposed project would not have any impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community or have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No additional significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated (Section d). Mud nests constructed by cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) were observed on the underside of the Eisenhower Bridge. At least 200 nests were observed beneath the bridge representing a substantial nesting colony. This species builds enclosed jug -shaped nests on the underside of cliffs, rock outcrops, and man-made structures from March through May producing, then fledging offspring through August when it migrates south to Mexico and Central America. The cliff swallow is a migratory bird species that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) of 1918 which prohibits the take or disturbance of an active nest of any migratory bird species listed under the act. In California, unlike some other states, a permit is not required to remove nests under construction that do not contain any new eggs or young, or nests abandoned following the breeding season. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to avoid potential impacts to the cliff swallow: MM-3 If feasible, bridge construction should not occur between the months of February and August. No limitations on construction shall occur at any other time of the year (i.e., September through January). MM-4 If construction during the cliff swallow breeding season (February through August) is unavoidable, all existing nests shall be removed by a qualified biologist between October 31 and January 31 prior to construction. All traces of mud shall be removed from the underside of the bridge to prevent swallows from rebuilding old nests or the remnants of deteriorated nests. Flexible material panels (e.g., fiberglass) shall, be installed in all right angles between the eave and walls or columns forming a smooth, concave surface in order to prevent access to right angles on the structure thereby making nest attachment difficult to impossible. Installation shall be approved by the qualified biologist who will conduct weekly site inspections, or as often as deemed necessary by the biologist, to inspect the bridge for nesting activity and repeat nest removal practices if necessary. 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 Califomia Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? 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)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated (Sections a-d). The following section is based on a cultural resources records search conducted on October 10, 2003 by the Eastern Information 24 Center (EIC) at University of California, Riverside. The EIC is the state -designated repository for records conceming archaeological and historical resources in Riverside County. The records search provided information on known resources and related studies within a one -mile radius of the project area. To augment the records search by the EIC, BonTerra Consulting reviewed published accounts of cultural resources in Riverside County. The findings of the records search and literature review are provided in Appendix B. The results of the records search show that 18 archaeological sites and 5 isolated artifacts have been recorded within a one -mile radius of the project, but none are recorded within or adjacent to the Eisenhower Drive project site. Fourteen of the 18 sites are prehistoric resources represented by bedrock milling features, artifact scatters, hearth features, and an extensive habitation area containing human cremations. The remaining four sites are a cluster of historic -era deposits consisting of scatters of consumer refuse (fragments of cans, bottles, and other household materials). The results of the records search also note that nine built -environment historic properties (buildings, structures, and other constructed features) are located within a one -mile radius of the project site. None are recorded within the project site. One of these properties is located near the northwestern terminus of the project site and corresponds to the 1926 La Quinta Hotel complex located north of Avenue 50 and west of Eisenhower Drive. In 1997, the historic hotel, 20 associated casitas (cottages), and landscaped grounds were determined to be a significant local resource and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district. Under CEQA, properties listed on the National Register are automatically listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. The importance of the La Quinta Hotel is reflected in published accounts of historic resources in Riverside County. No additional known historic properties are proximate to the project site. The EIC reported that at least 22 cultural resources investigations have previously been conducted within a one -mile radius of the project site. Two of these studies involved portions of the project site, but no resources were identified in or adjacent to their respective coverage of Eisenhower Drive. According to current EIC records, approximately 50 percent of the project alignment has not been formally surveyed for cultural resources. The abundance of recorded cultural resources sites in the vicinity of the project site indicates that the potential for archaeological materials to be present is moderate to high. The project site is located upon lacustrine and fluvial sediments deposited below the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Lake Cahuilla occurred intermittently from as recently as 400 years ago to as long as 6,000 years ago. The fluvial sediments occurred when the lake receded and soils were carried down to stream beds and overlain on the lacustrine materials. These alternating lacustrine and fluvial sediments are referred to as Lake Cahuilla Beds and have a high potential for fossilized freshwater diatoms, land plants, sponges, ostracods, mollusks, fish, and small terrestrial vertebrates. The project site has been designated an area of high sensitivity in the La Quinta General Plan Natural Resources Element. Drilling, grading, and trenching of the project site associated with project construction could result in a significant impact to archaeological and paleontological resources. The mitigation provided below would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. MM-5 A City of La Quinta-certified archaeologist shall be retained to attend pre -grade meetings. The archaeologist will carefully inspect the area to assess the potential for significant prehistoric or historic resources. If a site is uncovered, then a subsurface evaluation may be needed to assess the resource before construction is allowed to proceed. Further subsurface investigation may be needed if the site is determined unique/important for its prehistoric information. MM-6 During drilling and/or grading activities, a City of La Quinta-certified archaeologist shall be present during ground disturbance and shall have the authority to temporarily divert or redirect earthmoving to allow time to evaluate any exposed prehistoric or historic 25 material, including paleontological resources. Any recovered prehistoric or historic artifacts shall be catalogued by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist. The City of La Quinta would retain any resources discovered during grading for display in public facilities or for educational purposes following cataloguing. MM-7 In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Riverside County coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then determines in consultation with the property owner the disposition of the human remains. With implementation of the above mitigation measures impacts are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the aroiect: a) Expose people or structures to potential 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? hi) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? 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? Less Than Significant Impact (Sections a-c). The project site is underlain by Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) which is primarily distributed at the mouths of drainages in the Santa Rosa Mountains and in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley. These deposits may have accumulated rapidly, without being saturated, and may be subject to wind erosion or collapse upon saturation (hydroconsolidation). Bedrock at the bridge location is at a depth of approximately 400 to 500 feet below the ground surface. There are no known active or potentially active faults that traverse the project site or the City of La Quinta in general, and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The closest known active fault (San Andreas) is located approximately seven miles northeast of the site. Other nearby active faults include the San Jacinto Fault Zone located approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site. It extends for approximately 175 miles and is capable of producing magnitude 6.5 to 7.5 earthquakes. This fault has historically produced more large earthquakes than any other fault in California; however, it has not produced any particularly damaging quakes in recent history. The next closest major fault zone is the Elsinore Fault, one of the largest but least 26 active faults in southern California. Given that no faults traverse the project site, the risk of ground rupture is very low. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high -intensity ground shaking. The project site is within an area identified as having a low to moderate potential for liquefaction on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the La Quinta Quadrangle (Department of Conservation, 1984). The topography of the project site is flat and would not be substantially altered with implementation of the proposed project. No new slope or bare areas would be created with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the potential for landslides is considered very low. Risks associated with land subsidence or soil expansion are considered low due to the minimal amount of grading required for the project and the lack of subsidence because construction would occur in the original alignment. In accordance with Public Works standard requirements, the Contractor will prepare a soils study. Appropriate design standards and standard engineering practices would be applied during construction of the project. The proposed project consists of street and bridge improvements. No habitable structures are proposed with project implementation and risks to people and private property are negligible. Additionally, the proposed bridge will increase the diameter of the pilings from 16 inches to 24 inches to meet new seismic requirements instituted since the original bridge was constructed in 1981. Pilings for the bridge will be concrete CIDH piles constructed by pre -drilling a hole through the concrete lining of the La Quinta Evacuation' Channel for the full depth of the pile. Steel reinforcement is then placed in the hole prior to pouring the concrete. The size and depth of the pile is engineered to support the forces caused by the superstructure of the bridge, including forces caused by seismic activity. Pile caps at the top of the CIDH piles join the bridge superstructure to the piles. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. No Impact (Section d). The proposed project involves circulation infrastructure improvements and would not involve the construction of habitable structures requiring septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 7. 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? 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? c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 27 g) impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fines, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No impact (Sections a-h). The proposed project involves roadway and bridge improvements to an existing facility and would not involve any operations involving the routine transportation, use, disposal, emission, or storage of hazardous substances or materials. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites nor is it within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The City of La Quinta has established a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) with planned responses to natural and technological emergency situations. The MHFP includes emergency response or evacuation plans that would be implemented during various emergency situations. The proposed project would not be expected to impede the implementation of the MHFP as it would allow through -traffic during construction. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. During a site visit on September 13, 2003, it was determined that one existing school, the Adams Elementary School, is located within Y4-mile of the proposed project. The Calle Tampico Elementary school is proposed less than 300 feet to the south of the proposed project and is expected to be constructed by April -2005. The proposed project would not represent a risk of hazardous materials release to the schools and the students. No impacts are anticipated and no, mitigation is required. A Phase I hazardous materials/substances site records search was completed for the project site and immediate vicinity (EDR 2003). No sites were identified in the area affected by, and immediately adjacent to, the proposed project. The closest site is located approximately 1/8-mile to the east of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 on La Quinta Country Club property and was identified by the State Water Resources Control Board's Proposition 65 database. This record does not involve the spill or release of toxic or hazardous materials/substances but is listed because of La Quinta Country Club storage and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides for the maintenance of the golf course and landscaping. The next closest record is located approximately %-mile to the southeast of the project site at the Circle K Store and gas station identified by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database as a gasoline spill. The records consist of permitted active operations and an underground storage tank location that has since been closed. Neither of these sites would be impacted by project grading or construction. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the proiect: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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? c) 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? 28 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? 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? g) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated (Section a). Less Than Significant Impact (Section b- e & g). No Impact (Section f). The Federal Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction activities through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Municipalities within the Coachella Valley that conduct public improvement projects involving more than one acre of grading are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under the Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Permit (MS4) for the Coachella Valley (Order No. 01-077). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) oversees the implementation and enforcement of the MS4 permit. The proposed project would involve approximately 2.8 acres of grading. Therefore, the City is required to submit a NOI to the SWRCB. Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and trenching for site improvements would result in disturbance of soils on the project site. Runoff from the project site during construction could transport soils and sediments from these activities. Excavated material will be hauled away to an off -site location by the Contractor. Stockpiling of construction materials in the ROW of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel will not be permitted. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging areas, or building sites could also enter runoff. Typical pollutants could include petroleum products and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents that could contain hazardous constituents. Potentially significant short-term water quality impacts could result should polluted runoff enters downstream receiving waters. The mitigation provided below would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. MM-8 Potential erosion, siltation, and other water quality impacts during construction of the proposed project would be managed through the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would be a joint effort of the City and Contractor that would describe the measures or practices to control pollutants during both the construction and post -construction phases of the project. The SWPPP shall provide a list of target structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs), which would be used to control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution. BMPs can include the use of gravel bags, temporary desilting basins, and the timing of grading to avoid the rainy season (November through April). The SWPPP shall contain BMPs that address the following areas during construction, as defined by the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook: control of internal erosion, good housekeeping practices, waste containment, minimization of disturbed areas, stabilization of disturbed areas, and site perimeter control. The project site is outside of the 100-year flood zone based on mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 1991); however, the City of La Quinta General Plan identifies the La Quinta Evacuation Channel as being in the 100-year flood zone. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the paving of approximately 0.75 acre of landscaping and disturbed areas which currently contain permeable soils. The increase in impervious surface would be negligible and would not substantially affect percolation in the project vicinity. Furthermore, flows would be conveyed from storm drains to permeable drainages where they would be allowed to percolate into 29 the substrate. Drainage patterns would not be altered by project implementation and the addition of approximately 0.75 acre of paved surface would not be expected to exceed the capacRy of the existing storm drains on the site. Construction of the bridge would require installation of additional support columns in La Quinta Evacuation Channel; however, they are not expected to appreciably impede or redirect flows as they will be based on the channel slopes and not within the channel bottom. Construction of piles in the La Quinta Evacuation Channel will not induce scour as the channel is completely concrete -lined at the bridge widening location. Any damage to the channel lining during drilling of the piles will be repaired to the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Debris flowing thru the bridge currently collects on the upstream existing piles located on the existing bridge structure. Debris may catch on the newly constructed piles; however, the most upstream piles on the existing badge will still trap most of the flowing debris. The new bridge structure and piles will not increase the maintenance effort of removing debris at this location. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. The proposed project consists of roadway and bridge improvements and no new housing is proposed. According to FEMA Firm Panel No.14F dated June 14, 2000, the majority of the project area is in Zone X and is outside the 100-year flood zone; however, the proposed bridge improvements would be located within the 100-year flood zone. Construction of the bridge would require installation of additional support columns on the banks of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel; however, they would not be expected to impede or redirect flows as they will be placed on the channel slopes. Because no habitable structures would be placed within the 100-year• flood hazard area and flood flows would not be impeded or redirected, the proposed roadway and bridge improvements would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the oroiect: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policy, or regulation (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact (Sections a-c). The proposed project is a roadway and bridge improvement project and as a result, would not physically divide any existing communities. Project implementation would require the development of approximately 1.25 acres of City -owned ROW including landscaped areas and 8,930 square feet of privately owned land that would be acquired -by the City. An encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District would also be required to construct the bridge pilings in their flood control easement. No private structures would be directly or indirectly impacted. No changes to General Plan or zoning designations would be required. Because the project would not change the type or add a new land use to the project area, the project would not result in the development of incompatible land uses. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, including habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The proposed project is consistent with the Traffic and .Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Therefore, no land use or planning impacts would result with implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation is required. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the aroiect: 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? 30 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, speck plan or other land use plan? No Impact (Sections a, b). The Surface Mining -and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) mandated the initiation of mineral land classification by the State Geologist in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the State subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance in accordance with classification criteria from the State Geologist. The project site is located on land that is designated MRZ-1 on California Division of Mines and Geology mineral resources maps, indicating an area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The project site is already urbanized, consisting of development precluding mineral extraction. Furthermore, there are no known state designated mineral resources or locally -important mineral resources recovery sites on or within the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of access to lands potentially containing mineral resources. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 11. NOISE -Would the aroiect• 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated (Sections a, c). Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: short-term construction and long-term. Short-term impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long-term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by a project and those impacts which occur at a project site. Construction activity would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that would cease once construction is completed. Noise levels may exceed outdoor noise standards for the land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site during construction which is expected to last approximately six months. Additionally, construction vehicle startup activities may result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the alternative construction staging areas described in Section 8 of this Initial Study. The severity of impacts to nearby residential units would be adverse associated with staging area Alternatives 1 and 2, located as close as 30 feet to the nearest single-family homes. Residential units in the vicinity of staging area Alternative 3 are separated from the La Quinta Corporation Yard by a six -foot -high concrete wall atop a four -foot -high earthen berm that is vegetated with ornamental trees and shrubs. Therefore, noise impacts from construction vehicle startup at staging area alternative 3 are considered negligible. 31 Temporary construction noise is exempt from the standards of the La Quinta Noise Ordinance on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. from October 1 to April 30 and 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from May 1 to September 30. Government holidays and Sundays are not exempt from the ordinance. Although construction noise impacts may be considered adverse, they would not be considered significant. The annoyance of construction noise can be limited with the implementation of standard noise control measures. Mitigation Measure 9 institutes a contract specification requiring the contractor to place construction and support equipment in the least -disruptive area away from nearby residential units as approved by the City Engineer, and construction of noise barriers on staging area alternatives 1 and 2 along perimeters where residences are in closest proximity to construction vehicle startup. In addition to limiting the hours of construction per the City Noise Ordinance, these requirements will be placed on the covers of the grading and construction plans. The proposed project is a bridge and roadway improvement project and would improve traffic flow in the project area. Increased traffic speeds may result in an incremental increase in noise levels.in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the proposed project was anticipated in the Traffic and Circulation Element of the General Plan and noise impacts to surrounding uses were accounted for during the General Plan CEQA documentation process. Therefore, no significant long-term changes to existing noise levels currently experienced in the area are anticipated. The following mitigation measure would apply to the proposed project. This measure is proposed in order to minimize nuisance noise impacts on residences and comply with existing City of La Quinta Noise Ordinance: MM-9 If construction vehicles are stored at either staging areas 1 or 2 adjacent to Montezuma Community Park, construction and support vehicles and equipment will be staged in the least disruptive area as far as possible from nearby occupied residential units as approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, a temporary noise barrier, consisting of an eight foot high, %-inch plywood partition will be constructed along the northern perimeter of staging area 1 or southern perimeter of staging area 2, in order to reduce nuisance noise impacts to residents in neighboring structures. Less Than Significant Impact (Section b). Project implementation would not be expected to generate long-term, excessive groundbome vibration or noise beyond the existing condition. The potential exists for short-term temporary groundborne vibration impacts during construction, particularly during drilling for the CIDH pilings, roadway pavement, and asphalt ripping. Due to the short duration of construction activities and because construction activities would be conducted within the parameters of the City of La Quinta Noise Ordinance, potential impacts associated with ground -borne vibration are considered less than significant. No Impact (Sections d-e). The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or public airport. No impacts associated with these land uses would occur and no mitigation would be required. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the aroiect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3; No Impact (Sections a-c). The proposed project is a street and bridge improvement project that does not provide access to previously inaccessible areas and would therefore not have growth inducing effects on population. As described in Checklist Responses 15a) and 15b), the proposed project is in compliance with adopted traffic policies and forecasts. In addition, the proposed project was anticipated in the Traffic and Circulation Element of the City of La Quinta General Plan and the County of Riverside Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The project would not result in direct or indirect population growth impacts and no mitigation is required. The proposed project is a roadway and bridge improvement project that would not remove or displace homes. Land uses proximate to the project site include residential and recreational uses; however, project implementation would not displace or adversely affect existing or planned land uses proximate to the study area. No mitigation is required. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the proiect• a� Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services, which could cause significant environmental impacts: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a street and bridge improvement project and would not directly affect emergency police or fire services. With the proposed project, the roadway would operate at an improved level of service and would reduce response times for emergency vehicles. Short-term traffic delays may occur during construction. This short-term impact would not be considered significant because the bridge and road would remain open during construction. Additionally, a Traffic Control Plan would be prepared to address construction work hours, maintenance of pedestrian facilities, and emergency vehicle access (See Section 15 of this Initial Study regarding the Traffic Control Plan). The project involves street and bridge improvements and would not create student generation for local schools. Local school buses may use Eisenhower Drive as a travel route and may be delayed by construction activities. As with other traffic in the area, the delays would not be substantial and construction would be of a short duration. While the school district may choose to re-route their school buses during the construction phase of this project as a result of time constraints, this impact is temporary and would be considered less than significant. The following mitigation measure would reduce the nuisance impact of construction of the proposed project on public services. MM-10 No less than four weeks prior to commencement of roadway demolition and grading activities, the City of La Quinta will provide notice to the City of La Quinta Fire Department, City of La Quinta Police Department, and the school district indicating that they may experience delays on the project roadway segment and providing a schedule with the expected duration of each construction task. 14. RECREATION -Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities causing physical deterioration of the facility? 33 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? No Impact (Sections a, b). The proposed project would not generate an increase in population or increase the demand for local or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. No mitigation is required. 15. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC -Would the aroiect: 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves oi� dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm -equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? Less Than Significant Impact (Sections a, b, e). The primary objective of the project is to improve traffic circulation on Eisenhower Drive by converting an existing two-lane collector road to a four -lane primary arterial, effectively doubling the traffic capacity of Eisenhower Drive between Avenue 50 and Calle Tampico. Therefore, although the increased capacity resulting from project implementation would likely result in increased long-term traffic on Eisenhower Drive, it would not be expected to result in any exceedance of the capacity of the street system or levels of service standards established by the City of La Quinta. The proposed project is .being implemented in accordance with the Traffic and Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan and County MPAH and impacts to the City of La Quinta circulation system were analyzed and approved during their respective environmental review processes. Lanes would remain open in both directions of travel during the construction phase. Construction operations may result in traffic delays on Eisenhower Drive. Construction employee traffic would add up to 60 peak hour trips per day. These delays and additional trips would not be expected to appreciably add to the local traffic load. However, the following mitigation measure will further reduce the short-term traffic impact resulting from project construction. MM-11 The project contractor will be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval. This plan would address construction hours, maintenance of pedestrian facilities, and emergency vehicle measures, as well as include measures to minimize potential traffic delays. Said plan would be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of either grading or construction permits, whichever occurs first. KM All lanes would remain open during construction. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in constraints to local or regional emergency access. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. No Impact (Sections c-d & f-g). The proposed project is a street and bridge improvement project and would not affect air traffic patterns or levels. The current roadway configuration has no parking and none is proposed with the project. The project has been designed to incorporate specific features (e.g., visibility, access, necessary lanes, etc.) to ensure safety. The roadway design does not contain any sharp curves and intersection/turn lane improvements would be adequately signed and/or signalized in accordance with City roadway standards. Furthermore, no land uses adjacent to the proposed project site are incompatible with, nor would they become incompatible with one another as a result of, the proposed project. The proposed project promotes the use of alternative transportation by providing bike paths and sidewalks in both directions of travel. Additionally, no bus stops or turnouts would be impacted by project implementation. The project would be in compliance with the Traffic and Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan and County MPAH. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the aroiect• a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? . t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact (Sections a-f). The proposed project is a roadway and bridge improvement project and would not result in the need for wastewater treatment, new stormwater drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, require long-term water supplies or result in the need for long-term solid waste services. The construction contractor will be responsible for demolition and construction debris waste disposal for the proposed project. A proportion of demolition and construction debris will be recycled at a local facility. Asphalt and concrete debris from the existing bridge structure and road may be recycled at the Granite Construction Company in the City of Palm Desert. Current storm drains in Eisenhower Drive serve to drain runoff from the roadways to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and would continue to function in the same capacity. As part of project design, the replaced curb and gutter would also have storm drains installed to City of La Quinta Department of Public Works standards. Therefore, no impacts to utilities and service systems are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 35 17. 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 rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the. major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community or reduce or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area that is already built out. No habitat suitable to support special status plant or wildlife species exists on or adjacent to the project site. Construction of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on fish or wildlife populations or plant or animal communities. Substantial historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources are located within one -half -mile radius of the project site and may occur on the site. As such, the project may result in an impact on important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. However, mitigation measures 3 through 5 in Section 5 of this Initial Study would avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a level considered less than significant. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -teen, environmental goals? No Impact. The proposed project is being constructed to achieve the long term goal of reducing or preventing traffic congestion in the project vicinity and the City circulation system. No long-term impacts are anticipated with project implementation. 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) ? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a roadway improvement project that has been anticipated in the General Plan and County of Riverside Master Plan of Arterials and as such, its effects have been analyzed and approved on a region -wide basis. Construction of the La Quinta Village Apartments is expected to be complete in early 2004. Additionally, construction of the Calle Tampico Elementary School is expected to be completed in April 2005. Grading operations for the Tampico Elementary School will be complete prior to initiation of grading operations for the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the proposed project is not expected to occur concurrently with other projects in the immediate vicinity. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant. The proposed project may result in nuisance air quality, noise, and traffic impacts during construction. However, these impacts, although adverse, are considered less than significant due to their temporary nature and short duration. 36 SOURCES BonTerra Consulting (9/18/2003). Biological Constraints Survey for a Street Improvement Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, Califomia. BonTerra Consulting (10/17/2003). Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment. Eisenhower Drive Improvement Project, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, Califomia. City of La Quinta (2002). Master Environmental Assessment. City of La Quinta (2002). Comprehensive General Plan. City of La Quinta Municipal Code. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) (2003). Draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Department of Mines and Geology (2000). Seismic Hazards Maps -La Quinta USGS Quadrangle. Environmental Data Resources (EDR) (2003). EDR Radius Map Records Search with Geocheck. Site Visit conducted by Sam Stewart, Project Manager for Bonterra Consulting, on September 18, 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2002). URBEMIS Air Emissions Model, Version 7.4.2. The Nature Conservancy (1985). Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Steering Committee; Chaired by the Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, 155 p. R:XProjectsWoffatt00071J SMND-040604. DOC 37 APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS LETTER , 7e. 0/? C O N S U C T 1 N G September 13, 2003 Mr. Oscar Orci City of La Quinta ` 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Biological Constraints Survey for a Street Improvement Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California % Dear Mr. Orci: This report summarizes the findings of a biological constraints survey on an -- approximately 2.8-acre site (hereinafter referred to as the project site) in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate any potential biological constraints that may be present on the project site. The project site was surveyed by Sam Stewart, BonTerra Consulting Ecologist, on September 12, 2003. Prior to conducting the survey, the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2003) and the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database !- - -� (CNDDB) were reviewed. Project Location and Description The project site consists of Eisenhower Drive from Avenue 50 to approximately 700 feet north of Calle Tampico in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The project site encompasses approximately 2.8 acres, primarily within existing right-of- way (ROW) for the roadway easement. The site is shown on the U.S. Geological Society's La Quinta 7.5 x 15-minute topographic quadrangle map as a portion of Section 1, Township 6 South and Range 6 East. The project site topography is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 35 to 55 feet above mean sea level (msl). Survey Results Vegetation Vegetation on the project site consists of ornamental and ruderal vegetation types and disturbed areas. Ornamental vegetation consists of landscaping that is typical of recreational and residential urban environments in the Coachella Valley and consists of plantings of non-native and native ornamental shrubs and trees. Ornamental shrubs observed on the project site include ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), fuschia (Fuscia sp.), chuparosa (Justicia californica), oleander (Nerium oleande> olive (Olea , sp.), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), and rosemary (Rosemarianus sp.). Ornamental oe; ✓4 trees observed on the project site include palo verde (Cercidium sp.), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), palm (Washingtonia sp.), poplar (Populus sp.), locust bean (Robinia sp.), pepper (Schinus sp.), and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) Ornamental trees on the project site are less than 20 feet tall, with the exception of rows of palms on the east •err -N r0- "1 and west sides of Eisenhower Drive. Ground cover in the landscaped areas consists of non-native turf grasses. Vegetation in ruderal areas consists of non-native species Mr. Oscar Orci September 13, 2003 Page 2 including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and puncture vine (Tribulus terresria). No natural drainages intersect the project site. The La Quinta Channel is concrete -lined and contains no native vegetation. Therefore, no riparian habitats, waters of the U.S., or wetlands occur on the project site. Wildlife The proposed project is a roadway and bridge improvement project that lies within a fully urbanized environment characterized by a mix of recreational and residential uses. There is no vacant land on the project site with the potential to support any special status native plant species or habitats or special status wildlife species. Common wildlife species potentially occurring on the project site include primarily non-native species or common native species that have adapted to urban areas within the Coachella Valley. Common wildlife species observed during the survey consisted of bird species. No amphibian, reptile, or mammal species were observed during the survey. However, coyote (Canis latrans) scat was observed under the bridge indicating that this species likely uses the bridge as a movement crossing. Common bird species observed during the survey included mallard (Anas platythyncos), American coot (Fulica americana), American kestrel (Falco sparvedus), mourning dove (Zenaida macrours), greater roadrunner (Geococcyx califomianus), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), cactus wren (Campylorynchus brunneicapillus), northern mockingbird Wimus polyglottos), great -tailed grackle (Ouiscalus mexicanus), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Although the bridge may be used for wildlife movement in the project vicinity, no migratory wildlife corridors occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the La Quinta Channel's capacity as a wildlife crossing would not be adversely compromised because the channel would remain accessible during non -construction hours (from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) when terrestrial wildlife is most likely to use the crossing. Mud nests constructed by cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) were observed on the underside of the Eisenhower Bridge. At least 200 nests were observed beneath the bridge representing a substantial nesting colony. This species builds enclosed jug shaped nests on the underside of cliffs, rock outcrops, and man-made structures from March through May producing and fledging offspring through August when it migrates south to Mexico and Central America. The cliff swallow is a migratory bird species that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) of 1918 which prohibits the take or disturbance of an active nest of any migratory bird species listed under the act. Special Status Species Special status resources include plant and wildlife species, and vegetation types and the habitats they provide. These species have generally been afforded this recognition by federal and state resource agencies, as well as private conservation organizations. In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (e.g., species, subspecies, or variety) is given such recognition is the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its population size, or geographic range, and/or distribution resulting in most cases from habitat loss. Special status habitats are considered to be "depleted" habitats by the CDFG (CNDDB 2003). No special status habitats occur on the project site; therefore, the following discussion of special status biological resources is restricted to individual taxon. Special status species potentially occurring on the project site were identified during the records search .as occurring in the project region. The project region for this analysis is an approximately 250 square mile area in eastern Mr. Oscar Orci September 13, 2003 Page 3 Riverside County represented by the La Quinta, Myoma, West Berdoo Canyon and Indio USGS 7.5 x 15-minute quadrangle maps. One federally- and/or state -listed Endangered plant species is known to occur in the project region, the Coachella Valley milk -vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var, coachellae). This species is not expected to occur on the project site due to the predominantly developed nature of the project site and the lack of suitable soils in disturbed or ruderal areas. Several CNPS List 1 B and List 2 plant species are known to occur in the project region. These species may meet the criteria in Section 15380 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that if a species meets the definition of Threatened or Endangered, it may be treated as such under CEQA. Therefore, if a population of these species is found, impacts to these species may be considered significant according to CEQA. CNPS Lists 1 B and 2 species known to occur in the project region include the Deep Canyon snapdragon (Antirrhinum cyathiferum), flat -seeded spurge (Chamaesyce platysperma), glandular ditaxs (Ditaxis claryana), California ditaxis (Ditaxis serrata var. califomica), creamy blazing star (Mentzelia tridentata), slender woolly -heads (Nemacaulis denudate var. gracilis), purple stemodia (Stemodia durantifolia), and Mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata). These species are not expected to occur on the project site due to the lack of suitable soil types. Federally- and/or state -listed Threatened or Endangered wildlife species known to occur in the project region include the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) and Coachella Valley f ringe-toed lizard (Uma inomata). Neither of these species is expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat (i.e., permanent water or windblown sand, respectively). Several federal Species of Concern and state Species of Special Concern are known to occur in the project region. These species may meet the criteria in Section 15380 of the CEQA, which states that if a species meets the definition of Threatened or Endangered, it may be treated as such under CEQA. Therefore, if a population of these species is found, impacts to these species may be considered significant according to CEQA. Federal Species of Concern and/or state Species of Special Concern known to occur in the project region include the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), northern red -diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruberrube�, prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), Coachella giant sand treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum), cheeseweed owlfly (Oliarces clara), Nelson's bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsons), Palm springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), flat -tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcalli), black -tailed gnatcatcher (Poliopala melanura), vermillion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel (Spennophilus tereticaudus chlorus), crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale), and LeConte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). None of these species are expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Conclusions/Recommendations The project site currently supports a rather large nesting colony of cliff swallows. In California, unlike some other states, a permit is not required to remove nests under construction that do not contain any new eggs or young, or nests abandoned following the breeding season. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts to the cliff swallow: MM-1 If feasible, bridge construction should not occur between the months of February and August. No limitations on construction shall occur at any other time of the year (i.e., September through January). Mr. Oscar Orci September 13, 2003 Page 4 MM-2 If construction during the cliff swallow breeding season (February through August) is unavoidable, all existing , nests shall be removed by a qualified biologist between October 31 and January 31. All traces of mud shall be removed from the underside of the bridge to prevent swallows from rebuilding old.nests or the remnants of deteriorated nests. The qualified biologist shall conduct weekly site inspections, or as often as deemed necessary by the biologist, to inspect the bridge for nesting activity and repeat nest removal practices if necessary. MM-3 If construction during the cliff swallow breeding season (February through August) is unavoidable, all existing nests shall be removed by a qualified biologist between October 31 and January 31. All traces of mud shall be removed from the underside of the bridge to prevent swallows from rebuilding old nests or the remnants of deteriorated nests. Flexible material panels (e.g., fiberglass) shall be installed in all right angles between the eave and walls or columns forming a smooth, concave surface in order to prevent access to right angles on the structure thereby making nest attachment difficult to impossible. Installation shall be approved by the qualified biologist who will conduct weekly site inspections, or as often as deemed necessary by the biologist, to inspect the bridge for nesting activity and repeat nest removal practices if necessary. The project site contains no special status habitat types or native or non-native vegetation types that could support special status plants or wildlife species. Therefore, no additional biological constraints to development currently exist on the project site and no additional recommendations or restrictions pertaining to biological resources would apply. Respectfully submitted, B//ONTERRA�jCONSULTING Ann M. Johnston Principal of Biological Services R:%P►0pClsW &f&,100700 ConSM Mts-121603.DOC REFERENCES Sam C. Stewart, IV Project Manager/Ecologist Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes I, II, and III. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Abrams, L. 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volume IV. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. [AOU] American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check -list of North American Birds. 7 h ed. American Ornithologists' Union. Washington, DC. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity (RareFind) Database. Califomia Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2003. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Mr. Oscar Ord September 13, 2003 Page 5 Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2002. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles and Crocodilians. Fifth Edition. Publication of the Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence. Iv + 44 pp. Hickman, J.C. Editor., 1993. The Jepson Manual Nigher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Sawyer, John O. and Todd Keeler -Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Sibley, John. 2000. Birds of North America. Audubon Press. Los Angeles, California. Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians - 3rd Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT LETTER 1 � T I N G October 17, 2003 Mr. Oscar Orci Community Development City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment: Eisenhower Drive Improvement Project, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Orci: BonTerra Consulting has completed a preliminary cultural resources assessment for the Eisenhower Drive Improvement Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the assessment was performed in support of an Initial Study (IS) for the project. Introduction The project is located on the western edge of the Coachella Valley in the northern area of the City roughly 5.5 miles south of Interstate 10 and 2.5 miles south of State Route 111 (Exhibits 1 and 2). This location appears on the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quadrangle in the northeast quarter of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 6 East (Exhibit 3). The elevation of the project area is approximately 40 feet above mean sea level (msl), and the topography is essentially flat. The project involves widening and other improvements to Eisenhower Drive beginning at Avenue 50 to approximately 700 feet north of Calle Tampico Avenue. Widening will require acquisition of new right-of-way along -both sides of Eisenhower Drive, affecting private properties such as the Haciendas at La Quinta, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Country Club, and La Quinta Resort and Club Mountain Course. The La Quinta Channel bridge on Eisenhower Drive will also be affected. Cultural Resources Records Search A cultural resources records search was conducted on October 10, 2003 by the 5 _i 1�os Sri w Eastern Information Center (EIC) at University of California, Riverside (Appendix A). The EIC is the state -designated repository for records concerning archaeological and Su�i�t3 historical resources in Riverside County. The records search provided information on known resources and related studies within a one -mile radius of the project area. Cos;o� To augment the records search by the EIC, BonTerra Consulting also reviewed published accounts of cultural resources in Riverside County, such as Landmarks of C�(Tort52 Riverside and the Stories Behind Them (Patterson 1964), Guideposts to Histo ry Coachella Valley Edition (David Otis 1977), Riverside County Place Names (Gunther .7 + , 444 91bg 1985), Harvest of the Sun, An Illustrated History of Riverside Count Brown 19 and Guide To The Historic Landmarks of Riverside County (Jennings et al. 19935}, `ti V .Y' . `il G!'.`� (••"C f.:i � ; ii �' i it is .:. C; f!"! Mr. Oscar Orci October 17, 2003 Page 2 This assessment has been prepared by RichaFd S. Shepard, M.A., Cultural Resources Manager at BonTerra Consulting. Mr. Shepard is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) qualified under Secretary of the Interior standards (Appendix B). BonTerra Consulting is recognized by the County of Riverside as a qualified environmental contractor. Records Search Results The results of the records search showed that 18 archaeological sites and five isolated artifacts have been recorded within one mile of the project, but none are recorded within or adjacent to the Eisenhower Drive project area. Fourteen sites are prehistoric in nature and four sites represent. historic -era trash deposits. The 18 archaeological sites are summarized below in Table 1. TABLE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT EIC Designation Date(s) Recorded Archaeological Description CA-RIV-151 1960, 1972 Prehistoric ceramic fragments, lithic toots, bone CA-RIV-296 1963 Prehistoric lithic/shell/ceramic artifacts, human cremation CA-RIV-1179 1972, 1984 Prehistoric habitation area, fire -affected rock, fish bone, ceramic fragments, several human cremations (cemetery) CA-RIV-1180 1972, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985 Prehistoric burned rock features, ceramic fragments, fish bone, shell ornament, flakes, ground stone fragment CA-RIV-1983 1980 Prehistoric flakes, ceramic fragments, ground stone tool CA-RIV-2827 1984 Prehistoric ceramic fragments, fire -affected rock, metate fragment, shell, bedrock milling feature CA-RIV-3676 1995 Prehistoric bedrock milling feature (metate) CA-RIV-3677 1989, 1999 Prehistoric bedrock milling feature (mortar) CA-RIV-3678 1989, 1999 - Prehistoric bedrock milling feature (metate), ceramic item CA-RIV-5972 1997 Prehistoric ceramic fragments CA-RIV-6074 1998 Prehistoric ceramic fragments, flakes, fire -affected rock, metate fragment, fish bone CA-RIV-6177 1999 Prehistoric bedrock milling feature (metate) CA-RIV-6178 1999 Prehistoric bedrock milling feature (metate), ceramic frag CA-RIV-6179H 1999 Historic trash scatter (primarily glass fragments and cans) CA-RIV-6180H 1999 Historic trash scatter (primarily can fragments, ceramics) CA-RIV-6181 H 1999 Historic trash scatter (primarily cans and glass fragments) CA-RIV-6182H 1999 Historic trash scatter (primarily glass fragments and cans) CA-RIV-7039 1 2003 Prehistoric hearth features with artifacts and faunal bone The nearest recorded site is CA-RIV-5972, a wide scatter of prehistoric ceramic fragments located roughly 1,000 feet south of the intersection Co' Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive. Mr. Oscar Orci October 17, 2003 Page 3 The results of the records search also showed that nine built -environment resources (buildi structures, and other -constructed features) are located within one mile of the project. None are recorded within the project area. The nine properties are summarized below in Table 2. CONSTRUCTED RESOURCES RECOTABLE 2 RDED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT EIC Designation Date(s) Recorded Built -Environment Description 33-7254 1981 Residence khown as "La Casita", ca. 1930 33-7255 1981 Office building, first real estate office in La Quinta. 1936 33-7256 1981 Office building, former grocery and post office, ca. 1945 33-7257 1981 Community center building and grounds, 1939 33-7258 Quinta Hotel complex and grounds, 1926 33-7259 419971La Residence, early development in La Quinta, 33-7260 ca. 1928 Residence, early development in La Quinta, 33-8165 ca. 1930 One -mile segment of "Old Avenue 52" roadway, ca. 1930 33-8308 1981Ranch house, early development in La Quinta, ca. 1930 and Possibly an earlier adobe house and shed One of these properties (33-7258) is located near the northwestern terminus of the project and corresponds to the 1926 La Quinta Hotel complex located north of Avenue 50 and west of Eisenhower Drive. In 1997, the historic hotel, 20 associated casitas (cottages), and landscaped grounds were determined to be a significant local resource and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district. The importance of the La Quinta Hotel is reflected in published accounts of historic resources in Riverside County. The EIC reviewed the Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Property Data File (HPDF) for Riverside County, which includes listings for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest, but no additional historic properties are known in proximity to the project. The 1904 USGS Indio 30' Quadrangle indicates no circa 1900 development in the area of the city. In contrast, the 1941 Toro Peak 15' Quadrangle shows the developing city and early alignment Eisenhower Drive, including a building along the east side of the project area. Presumably of bridge was in place for the roadway to cross the drainage now represented by the La Quinta Channel. The 1959 Palm Desert 15, Quadrangle shows much the same image, but no buildings adjacent to the project area, indicating that no properties of historic age (i.e., those 45 years and older, according to the Office of Historic Preservation) will likely be affected by right-of-way acquisitions for the project. However, based on USGS map indications, the La Quinta Channel bridge may date to as early as 1941 and may represent a structural resource of historic age. The EIC reported that at least 22 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within one mile of the project (see bibliography in Appendix A). Two of these studies (Berryman 1977 and Love et al. 2000) involved portions of the current project area, but no resources were identified or adjacent to their respective coverage of Eisenhower Drive. According to EIC records, more than 60 per cent of the project alignment has not been formally surveyed for cultural resources. Mr. Oscar Orci October 17, 2003 Page 4 Constraints Analysis No cultural resources . are known within the project. alignment, and only one resource has been recorded in relative proximity to the project. The historic La Quinta Hotel complex, located just northwest of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, has been determined to be a significant local resource and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. As such, it is also significant under CEQA, and any impacts to the property should be avoided. Although the boundaries of the resource originally included the northwestern comer of the intersection, a smaller area of modern development (Santa Rosa Cove Townhomes) is now present at the corner, and the hotel complex appears to be situated behind (northwest of) the modem buildings. Furthermore, no project -related improvements or acquisition of right-of-way will take place at the northwestern comer, and the project will therefore not encroach upon or affect this significant resource. Based on USGS map data, no buildings situated within the properties from which new right-of-way will be acquired are believed to be historic, and the project is not expected to compromise the integrity of any known historic properties. Although the La Quinta Channel bridge is relatively recent in appearance, no date of construction is available at this time. The age of the bridge should be established and documented to determine whether it represents a historic structural resource. If so, it may require evaluation by an architectural historian prior to project -related impacts. Mr. Shepard has not undertaken a field inspection of the project area, but has reviewed 29 digital photographs taken on September 13, 2003. Much of the project area appears to be developed or otherwise disturbed, but open soils are present in some areas. Given the area's sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological materials (Table 1), the presence of additional materials is possible. Recommendations To proceed with the project, BonTerra Consulting recommends 1) a formal survey of previously unsurveyed areas of the project by a qualified archaeologist familiar with the characteristic prehistoric evidence of the region; and 2) establishing the date of construction of the La Quinta Channel bridge to determine whether it represents a historic structural resource. The results of these efforts will determine .if any further cultural resources constraints must be addressed. A technical report presenting the results of the new field survey should be prepared to meet CEQA, County of Riverside, and City of La Quinta standards. Please contact Sam Stewart or myself at (714) 444-9199 if you have any questions Sincerely, BO T RRA CONSULTING 11490. n Richard S. Shepard, M.A., RPA Cultural Resources Manager Attachments `" ern "fit. '~' ti y ~ 4{`• r`'i`� ,�.. Y {ti+.. K r .�: �. �• ^'roi T- [�-*- : •�.-ny�l� •�?a1 �S. �C 35° 1 .7rL3,-i!•\:. .Ili:lr .�C-• r < • _yam '4 .r- a yr y c ' - I. _ � ELF' .� � Z J '•n-�Yylr '� _ . O t r y IL re CL Alm rA 16 ' aOP r ! re IL +. 'b r.Z OF c � Z 46 - E lop k a - t Y oc '+ l la6uv so y W 0 U w Mae., ti AMR- 77777774� Ci L M F. V. I t'O"ALANAL.T.ra Scums; US ensue Bureau TXM 'd Local Vicinity Exhibit 2 Eisenhower Drive Improvement Project 025 0 0.25 03 Mks C 0 N 5 U I T I N G + SiM-EWWft%40ftGAW_LV_1G1403.W I Y'M T. well Z.l `: ,tit »O- Wi ter ':r�.� \ i �/ f :..ice _ - .. .:. `� � s ,' ' : � •M ; , ►,•�` tir WOM Water 1 ` Project , 7.- - � lzr- Location ✓ ,, 1, j I _;� Water• 1. '•1. •r' • . � 'r •. � , aG I�r. 'l • i' •6 I 58 J. �"r�c,� � i j � I• • ••i � i 1• ��t � 11•�`•a.•'1� :.••� '�,Iaat�� — - --'•��`.jt,--.�` 1 L � Y' t 1 �G(_ • 1 1• 1 r�l `) 1t �\ 1 ;. 1 s. t, ''• •i 11. •h..�:a�... r`I -•y-h' __,. t ^' }� �. ,. �Z.,•rf.. ,;w�..,. r'•l'� �.e�w'.�+t^ �.�.� ,1• •.• • �• �: 1 II• : (t.• • � �i`.� t l I':. • 41 ��• j , l �_ � .> � Irk � �. a • : :• M•su .. � (� /; ..} f .� \ i1� � t /'14r: -+1� 1,� � j �.,� • I T'�^� � - .�-•: Ott � .`�{�. f� • i�- ' II r J: 1~,• � ` j �f`" : ( hr � ` • ,.,f • • ' . I ,� • 1 t II `j 1-. Y " f . _ � — t,/ .s rt �)���t % 21� 82- r 'r \ ��- `•• lam._. _ r �' �`.�-..��`+T�Y4.•'`�•a. I ' .-.� `.r : �• i� •U_ U S 1. i •.a, I� '� '�. • •I, Source: USGS Topoynpttic OwdrarpM. V Oulrlfa USGS Project Location Eisenhower Drive Improvement Project 1000 _--- 0 1000 - _ 2000 Feet Exhibit 3 1 C J N S U l 1 1 N G S'aS ExhbbW1aMW-Ul OuW_101402,W k i K t APPENDIX A Cultural Resdurces Records Search s ' 1 fi 1� f i • , i .. a . � 4 u r t CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION tYSTENI Richard Shepard Bonterra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7969 Easwn intomtiauon Cantor Del whmnt Of m t wology Unh+sr* of coomfa RNerside, CA SZ21-041B Phone M) 787-5745 Fax (DM) 787-54CO October 10, 2003 RS # 2994 Fte: Cultural Resources Records Search for Moffatt J007 La Quinta Dear Mr. Shepard, We received your request on October 8, 2003, for a cultural resources records search for the Moffatt 3007 La Quinta project located in Section 1, T.6S, R.6E, SBBM, In the city of La Quinta in Riverside County. We have reviewed our site records, maps, and manuscripts against the location map you provided. Our records indicate that 22 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a one -mile radius of your project area. Two of these studies involved a portion of the Project area. Three additional studies provide overviews of cultural resources in the general project vicinity. These reports are listed on the attachment entitled "Archeological Reports" and are available upon request at 15�/page plus $30/ hour. The KEYWORD section of each citation lists the geographic area, quad name, listing of trinomials (when identified), report number in our manuscript files (RI #), and the number of pages per report. No cultural resources properties are recorded within the boundaries of the project area. Our records indicate that 28 properties have been recorded within a one -mile radius of the project area. Copies of the records are included for your reference. The above information is reflected on the enclosed map. Areas that have been surveyed are highlighted in yellow. Numbers marked in pencil or blue ink refer to the report number in our manuscript files (RI #). Cultural resources properties are'marked in red; numbers in black refer to Trinomial designations, those in green to Primary Number designations. Additional sources of information consulted are identified below. National Register of Historic Places (03/12/02): no listed properties are located within the boundaries of the project area. Richard Shepard October 10, 2003 Page 2 Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (01/06/03): no listed sites are located within the boundaries of the project area. Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (01/06/03): no listed properties are located within the boundaries of the project area. The 1959 USGS Palm Desert 15' and the 1904 USES Indio 30' topographic maps do not indicate the presence of possible historical structures or features within the boundaries of the project area. However, the 1941 USGS Toro Peak 15' topographic map shows historical structures or features present within the boundaries of the project area. Copies of the relevant portions of these maps are included for your reference. As the Information Center for Riverside County, it is necessary that we receive a copy of all cultural resources reports and site information pertaining to this county in order to maintain our map and manuscript files. Confidential information provided with this records search regarding the location of cultural resources outside the boundaries of your project area should not be included in reports addressing the project area. Sincerely, Emile Jackson Information Officer Enclosures 'ATES.: = THE ARMY TO 1 lINEERS Qr 15 ell i 1990 000 I 9 ii —� �,1 12 i 7 ���� - +:;:: _; :::. � 33'45 15 1 14 .q , li 18 // 17 16 FEEr +� ! t A'�+• ; eM'� 23 24 it `rr 19 1 �- .191 22 ; 11 ..,4` r-. (; 1 1 20 1 - ps_ ! - , L 121 I • 9- _ _ __l_ 1 •0 1 - R=veri I •-` T. S S. 29 ��-•s i t ^ (� 1 , 30 8M �i�"C /il� 1��!i ) ; �"`�+! ,�� J �'��4r+t �. �-�' • /O( � ' �\ %/ r-� , i `���` 1�..` `r- ,.. N � 'M — La tit" it t 7 1:i.1liti,) f;°I�c �-.� '.�\• � 1 "(�.•::� ,r � �. 11 (" tr-�r � � '� '`� �r, � %'%d)�t •�//�^-�/ ' ^`''f�.�,,� t it t .lI `' :�• r 11 i �� f r)I�� �i ��Il(( r�In"� �l,; I.."��'%r i ?� � J;1 ' J^` / 'r � � r � >t t• (r.l %r , j � f t � .^�.._\` � y`� � '1 � I 16 17 13 +►•..�`;`.'t,�,C� -�t �'J'� %/,''�3�'i`1. -; i ! !------- i •` \•1 • , is 1 " �.� I..I'�.`/ Ll�` �' •.t%( ;/rlf•�1nj )�t �~' f. •.� 1•��i7 ilj_- 1 �l , • , ��i`ti� ti1� ) '��-�iL � �j , V -vim`' . •,Q 12` \[�� % ,; \\\ !..'' � `{ f •d I �j3 1 j 1,1 `� , `, y - , y ` \I`} i 1►, 1 T. 6 S. , �� � 5r �. \Ji : � 1 l r ram• '\ , o 21 • v 1 ` 'i •,,��. : j' J, ��(/�,3, r,'• • S- �., t ( r i r �"�'1rZ: ! rtil �"'\`.�' �lii ( \�� l+' ' ( yY+iv U1!1 /ii .i.;' i �`t..7/l( ! ;7 =+1 •- ..-....:1.�y r. �'„�1GL�„ �t r^= � `.ram+ V� 1 r '+•ti.-. �L _..t ''i .�` ti.:_-...� -_� `-_... ...- -- tr• J% �J i;-., 1. 1.rb',_j���l .r ,�.1 �•, �!" ,'1.•I i• {t%^ !s �_=•i;. i \\�•-• l I l," ', -•.� F11�..'r`' _." �,.� Imo. ��'� Y� '~��� .cy`?ti\.-.J'�'•' I - - \��1"�1�' � �`•'' - ''', •9• iy1R\1•! � �� �+' �L_GL� � S l Mona sss:sssssasssssssssssssssssssssssssssassasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssa iP— ( ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: 001 a=ssass=ssasaassaaaaassasssssaaa:sss=atasaaaa=aaaaaasasmaaaxaraaaasssassaaasaasssas Document No.: 1080271 y _ �j Unpublished Report BERRYMAN, STANLEY R. I— V 1977 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EXCAVATION C LVNEL FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY. TOUPS CORPORATION, LA JOLLA CA. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE (COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT). UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 06/25/2003 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 10/04/1988 Keywords: RI-0213 (6), 33 PP (7), 120 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUADRANGLE (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), 33-0119 (CA-RIV-0119) (8), 33-0158 (CA-RIV-0158) (8), 33-0208 (CA-RIV-0208) (8), 33-1178 (CA-RIV-1178) (8), 33-1180 (CA-RIV-1180) (8), 33-1770 (CA-RIV-1770) (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1080392 ( Unpublished Report BOWLES , LARRY L . �; 33 3 1978 ENVIRON4ENTAL ASSESSMENT - NEAR LA QUINTA, COACHELLA VALLEY. AUTHOR. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521. Last Update: 06/05/2003 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 10/09/1988 Keywords: RI-0333 (6), 13 PP (7), 700 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUADRANGLE (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), 33-1176 (CA-RIV-1176) (8), 33-1177 (CA-RIV-1177) (8), 33-1838 (CA-RIV-1838) (8), 33-3027 (CA-RIV-3027) (8), 33-3322 (CA-RIV-3322) (8), 33-6866 (CA-RIV-5773) (8), 33-6869 (CA-RIV-5771) (8), 33-8422'(CA-RIV-6141) (8), 33-8425 (CA-RIV-6144) (8), 33-9517 (CA-RIV-6392) (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1080558 Unpublished Report VAN HORN, DAVID AND M.J. AASVED 1979 SURFACE COLLECTION AND TEST EXCAVATION AT RIV-152 IN LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, LTD. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE•. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/11/2000 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 10/18/1988 Keywords: 100 ACRES SURVEYED (4), 123 PP (7), CA-RIV-0151 (8), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), MF #0451 (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1080703 Unpublished Report LANDO, RICHARD — �, �'`: W 1979 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE (STAGE II) OF FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED FOR THE WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT, U.C. RIVERSIDE. SUBMITTED TO U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. CONTRACT NO. DACW09-79-M-1034. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 xsxsxssoxs=ear==sasaxmr=seassz===sffiraxxsaxa=sarsaar=mass=oxr=sxax=a=rxsars======_== ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: '002 ==s=====a.=o=acaas===a=====_==cx=s==car===sx==asxaraaxssarsrssrrrsarrxrs::arxx:s_s= Document No.: 1080775 -� . Unpublished Report JERTBERG, PATRICIA 1981 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SALVAGE INVESTIGATIONS OF CA-RIV-1180, LOCUS H AND OTHER LOCI, ON TENTATIVE TRACT 14325. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/11/2000 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 11/02/1988 Keywords: 82 PP (7), CA-RIV-1180 (8), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), MF #0647 (6), NO ACREAGE SURVEYED - DATA RECOVERY ONLY (4) ---------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1080776 �A-- Z — Unpublished Report JERTBERG, PATRICIA V` 1982 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SALVAGE INVESTIGATION OF CA-RIV-1180, LOCUS 12, ON DUNA LA QUINTA PARCEL. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/11/2000 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 11/02/1988 Keywords: 68 PP (7), CA-RIV-1180 (8), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), MF #0647.(6), NO ACREAGE SURVEYED - DATA RECOVERY ONLY (4) ----------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1080777 Unpublished Report SWENSON, JAMES D .� -- n 7� 1979 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF 225 ACRES BETWEEN AVENUE 50 AND AVENIDA NUESTRA, EAST OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.- ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT, U.C. RIVERSIDE. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/11/2000 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 11/02/1988 Keywords: 125 ACRES SURVEYED (4), 9 PP (7), CA-RIV-1180 (8), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.51 QUAD (4), MF ## 0 6 4 7 ( 6 ) --------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1080960 Unpublished Report SALPAS , JEAN A. — ( ;&) / 1980 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF 82 ACRES OF LAND IN LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. AUTHOR (S). SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/31/2000 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 11/14/1988 Keywords: 19 PP (7), 82 ACRES SURVEYED (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4) , MF ##0823 (6) , NO RESOURCES (8) . =ssaaazssssssssassszzasasssssss:ssssassssssszsssssssssssssssssssssssss:zsssssssssss ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: 0.03 i sss=s=a=ss=sssssaseas====ss=ssmasasassssssssssassssssssssssssassssssssssssssssssssa Document No.: 1082156 � f ' 0,1 Unpublished Report WILKE, PHILIP J. o 1984 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BURNS RANCX AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES, LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT, U.C. RIVERSIDE. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 Last Update: 04/25/1989 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 04/25/1989 Keywords: 61 PP (7), 580 ACRES SURVEYED (4), CA-RIV-1179 (8), CA-RIV-2822 (8), CA-RIV-2823 (8), CA-RIV-2824 (8), CA-RIV-2825 (8), CA-RIV-2826 (8), CA-RIV-2827 (8), CA-RIV-2828 (8), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), MF #1948 (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1083565 �` .�� Unpublished Report DROVER, CHRISTOPHER E. l 1990 AN -ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LA QUINTA HILLSIDE PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AUTHOR. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 Last Update: 10/15/1990 Cataloged by: WOR-CA-04 on 10/15/1990 Keywords: MF #3243 (6), 12 PP (7), 6.2 ACRES SURVEY (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), NO RESOURCES (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1084731 Unpublished Report CHACE, PAUL AND CHARLES REEVES rZ �� 1994 REPORT OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SEASONS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, TRACT 28019, CITY OF LA QUINTA. THE KEITH COMPANIES. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT UCR, EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 Last Update: 08/16/1995 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 08/16/1995 Keywords: MF #4199 (6), 11 PP (7), NO ACREAGE SURVEYED - MONITORING ONLY (4),-LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO CULTURAL RESOURCES (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1084792 Unpublished Report CHACE, PAUL AND CHARLES E. REEVES .---L 3 C `' I 1995 A CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR LA QUINTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NO. 2, DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. KEITH COMPANIES. SUBMITTED TO DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/18/1995 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 10/18/1995 Keywords: MF #4245 (6), 21 PP (7), 9.33 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO RESOURCES (8) ==scsraaxsx�==r=xx==x=e=ss=�=xxxs=sx=axxrx=smm -_ _�-- a ( ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query ( Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: 004 Document No.: 1085050 El — L+ 3L Unpublished Report CHASE, PAUL G. AND CHARLES E. REEVES 1996 REPORT OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE TERRACINA APARTMENTS TRACT, CITY OF LA QUINTA. THE KEITH COMPANIES. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 09/26/1997 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 09/26/1997 Keywords: MF #4417 (6), 8 PP (7), NO ACRES SURVEYED (4), MONITORING STUDY (1), LA QUINTA 7.5- QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO RESOURCES (8), CUP 96-023 (6), PP 96-571 (6) , EA 96-311 (6) ------------------------------------=------------- Document No.: 1085121 �,�� ! [0; , f� Unpublished Report BROCK, JAMES 1997 HERITAGE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 28409 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP. SUBMITTED TO CITY OF LA QUINTA. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 04/21/1998 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/21/1998 Keywords: MF #4455 (6), 11 PP (7), 8 ACRES SURVEYED (4); LA QUINTA 7.51 QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO RESOURCES (8), TT 28409 (6) ---------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1085160 � Unpublished Report BROCK, JAMES FC._ t' 1997 A CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF 30 LOTS IN THE LA QUINTA COVE AREA, CITY OF - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA (SELF HELP GROUPS 3, 4, & 5). ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 04/24/1998 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/24/1998 Keywords: MF #4479 (6), 19 PP (7), 03.44 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5, QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), P-33-8061 (8)1 P-33-8062 (8) ------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1085161 Unpublished Report BROCK, JAMES 4i-i L 3 1997 A CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF 27 LOTS IN THE LA QUINTA COVE AREA, CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORINA (SELF HELP GROUPS 6, 7, S, 8). ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 04/24/1998 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/24/1998 Keywords: MF #4479 (6), 19 PP (7), 03.1 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5, QUAD ss:szssss:aaaazssssssssssasssssssssassss:szs:sraszzsssssssassssss:ssssssssassazssss ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: 005 4 sass=raasaar=naaxxxs=xs=sossxarest=ssssssssss:sassassassssssassasassssassssssssa:sa Document No.: 1085201 `�'_._ 0, 434 Unpublished Report CHACE, PAUL G. 1996 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORT, THE OLD AVENUE 52, CITY OF LA QUINTA. THE KEITH COMPANIES. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 04/27/1998 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/27/1998 Keywords: MF #4504 (6), 36 PP (7), 01 MILE SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), P-33-8165 (8), TR 28470 (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1085219 Unpublished Report LOVE, BRUCE, AND BAI "TOM" TANG �` L+CA-C 1998 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT WATER AND SEWER PIPELINE RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-I, NEAR WILDOMAR ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. CMR TECH. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 9252 Last Update: 04/28/1998 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/28/1998 Keywords: MF #4519 (6), 22 PP (7), 06 MILES SURVEYED (4)', MURRIETA 7.5' QUAD (4), WILDOMAR 7.5' QUAD (4), CISMONTANE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (4), NO RESOURCES (8), CRM TECH CONTRACT #306 (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1085392 �.7( --�� Unpublished Report BROWN, JOAN C . Cell 4 � � k;' 1999 A CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE FOR THE LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB REAL PROJECT, LOCATED IN LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.. RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 11/04/1999 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 11/04/1999 Keywords: MF #4662 (6), 21 PP (6), 106 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), CA-RIV-3676, CA-RIV-3677, CA-RIV-6177, CA-RIV-6178, CA-RIV-6179H, CA-RIV-6180H, CA-RIV-6181H, CA-RIV-6182H, Pt33-8670, P#33-8671, P#33-8672 (8), RMW PROJECT NO. 98-1254 (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.: 1085395 Unpublished Report BROCK, JAMES, AND BRENDA SMITH E l - L 411 1999 PHASE I AND II CULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED LAKE EXPANSION AT LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB, CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. AAG. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 s=aassasaa=.asssssasaaasaria:xasaasazsssassasas=saazzzzscz=====s==sx====__ ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query ` Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: 006 rzx Document No.: 1085396 (` t � � Unpublished Report BROOK, JAMES , AND BRENDA D . SMITH r`--� ` 1 1998 REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR THE LA QUINTA RESORT HOMES PROJECT, CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP. SUBMITTED TO CITY OF LA QUINTA. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 11/04/1999 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 11/04/1999 Keywords: MONITORING (7), MF #4665 (6), 12 PP (7), NO ACREAGE SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO RESOURCES (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document No.. 1085469 �zl — ` M W Unpublished LOVE, BRUCE, TOM TANG, HARRY QUINN, KATHRYN BOUSCAREN, AND DARCY WIEWALL Report 1999 ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND SITE EVALUATION REPORT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29436, CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. CRM TECH. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. CONTRACT NO. 421. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 08/22/2000 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 08/22/2000 Keywords: MF #4663 (6), 77 PP (7), 87 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5' QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), CA-RIV-3678 (8), CA-RIV-4168 (8), CA-RIV-5512 (8), CA-RIV-6241 (8), CA-RIV-6242 (8), CA-RIV-6243 (8), CA-RIV-6244 (8), CA-RIV-6245 (8) , P-33-8761 (8) , CRM TECH JOB #421 (6) -------------------------------------- Document No.. 1085566 ----------- Unpublished Report BROOK, DAMES v l —� p 2000 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF APN 777-075-020, LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. CONTRACT NO. 000611. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA '92521 Last Update: 09/26/2000 Keywords: MF #4785 (6), 17 PP (7), 1 ACRE RESOURCES (8), JOB #000611 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 09/26/2000 SURVEYED (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO Document No.. 1085742-------'�--------------------------------------" LOVE, BRUCE AND HARRY M. QUINN 1�.---��� Unpublished Report 2000 LIMITED ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29909, CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. CRM TECH. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. CONTRACT NO. N/A. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 Last Update: 10/24/2001 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/17/2001 sssxasaazssssss:ssssassazaaaass:asassssssss:ssssss:ssssssssssssss:sssssssssssssssss r� ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS NADB/Query i Printed: 10/09/2003 Page: 007 =ssssssss:sassax=ssssssssassasssssssssts�sssssssssssssss:ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Document No.: 1085745 LA4� 0 Unpublished Re 1� P Port LOVE, BRUCE, BAI "TOM" TANG, HARRY QUINN, MARIAM-DUHDUL, AND ADRIAN SANCHEZ MORWO 2000 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND TESTING REPORT, VISTA MONTANA DEVELOMENT, EISENHOWER DRIVE AND CALLE TAMPICO, CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. CRM TECH. SUBMITTED TO PRIVATE. CONTRACT NO. N/A. UNPUBLISHED REPORT ON FILE AT EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER, U.C. RIVERSIDE, CA 9252 Last Update: 05/04/2001 Cataloged by: WRO-CA-04 on 04/20/2001 Keywords: MF #4919 (6), 24 PP .(7), 33.1 ACRES SURVEYED (4), LA QUINTA 7.5- QUAD (4), COACHELLA VALLEY (4), NO RESOURCES (8), CRM TECH JOB #619 (6) ==cxaa=x=x�a==a.:xx=axxx�n=axe=xxc�scaasaxxoxszassszs:ssss=:�ass:ss:s:sssszaszaazss EISENHOWER DRIVE BRIDGE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS SCH No. 2004071144 Prepared for: City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact: Oscar Orci Planning Director Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 444-9199 Contact: Kathleen Brady Principal of Technical Services September 17, 2004 Eisenhower Drive &idge and Drainage Improvements EISENHOWER DRIVE BRIDGE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The City of La Quinta prepared an Initial Study for bridge and drainage improvements along Eisenhower Drive pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et. seq.). The project would involve improvements Eisenhower Drive and to the existing -drainage system that extends beneath Eisenhower Drive. Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080(c)(2) a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The document was circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 28, 2004 to August 26, 2004. Two comment letters on the project were received from: -• Native American Heritage Commission (dated August 26, 2004) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (dated August 19, 2004) Public Resources Code §21091(f) and the CEQA Guidelines §15074 require that the lead agency must consider the Negative Declaration, together with any comments received, before approving the project. The lead agency has no affirmative duty to prepare formal responses to comments on the Negative Declaration, but should provide adequate information on record explaining why the comments do not affect the conclusion that there are no potential significant environmental effects. The City'of La Quinta has elected to prepare written responses to the comments. The comment letters and responses follow. P:wr�e MTC_oM204.aoc 1 Responses to Comments Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements Comment Letter from Steve Smith, Ph.D. South Coast Air Quality Management District PAProiectSWOOMTC 090204.dm 2 Responses to Comments �. • • South Coast Air Quality t Management District P 11865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bair, CA 91765-41 TIC (909) 396-2000 - www.agmd.gov FAXED! AUGUST 19, 2004 August 19, 2004 Mr, Otcar Hai City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 Ls Quints, CA 922S3 Mitigated Negative Dec.Lsration (1 W) for the Propased Blsenbower Drive HNdge and ri page ImprmIgNtl — City of IA Old to The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-,ncationed document. The following conun=t is meant es guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorpomud into the kcal Iviltiaaud Nd getive Declaration (MND). In its review of the Draft MND, it was noted that the information perWning to the . URBEMIS 2002 computer model used to estimm project air queiity impacts was not included in the Draft Ml\TD, In the Final MNb and for'future projects, the lead agency should include the URBEhUS 2002 model inputs, assumptions and output sheets used to estimate applicable con&uction and operational impacts for the proposed.project. Since the URBEMIIS 2002 outputs were not included, the SCAQMD could not confirm the results, Please provide the SCAQMD with written response to the comment contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, The SCAQMD would be happy to work with the Lud Agency to address these «sue® and my other questions that may arise. Please corttact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist — CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3202, if you have any questions regarding chose oommenta. Sincerely, r3t�� tie-ry �p Steve swith, PlI D• Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development & Ares Sources Attuhment SS.CM RVC040723-07 Control Number AQMD-1 Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements Responses to Comments from Steve Smith, Ph.D. South Coast Air Quality Management District P:�ProjectsWofFarilRrc 090204.doc 3 Responses to Comments Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements Response to Comment AQMD-1 Your comment is noted. The URBEMIS 2002 model inputs, assumptions and output sheets used to estimate applicable construction impacts for the proposed project are hereby included in the following as Appendix C of Final MND SCH# 2004071144. p:Vxmi@ vAof IMTC_090204.d= 4 Responses to Comments APPENDIX C URBEMIS 2002 EISENHOWER DRIVE BRIDGE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS Page: 1 URBEMIS 2002 For 4 Windows 7.5.0 File Name: C:\Program File3\Project32k2\Ei3enhower Drive.urb Project Name: Eisenhower Drive Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 2003 "' ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 11.33 97.32 77.73 0.00 4.79 4.76 0.01 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 1.25 50.38 10.51 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.01 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2004 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 12.43 86.96 83.62 0.07 3.71 3.70 0.01 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 2.25 44.88 8.52 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 Page: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\Projects2k2\Ei3enhower Project Name: Eisenhower Drive Project Location: South Coast Air On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 Basin (Los Angeles version 2.2 Drive.urb area) DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) Construction Start Month and Year: December, 2003 Construction Duration: 6 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 0 Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi -Family Units: Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial acres 0 Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) Source ROG *•' 2003*** NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTAL PM10 EXHAUST PM10 DUST Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 10.03 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.13 Maximum lbs/day 10.16 - 85.07 0.00 0.33 85.40 68.42 0.00 3.09 71.46 - _ 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 00.0.000 0.011 4.19 - 418 0.0 00.00 4.18 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.01 1 0.01 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust _ Off -Road Diesel 11.20 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.13 Maximum lbs/day 11.33 _ 96.99 0.00 0.33 97.32 74.69 0.00 3.04 77.73 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.78 .. 0.0000 0.01 9.79 - 00.0000 000 4..78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 9.12 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 70.61 0.00 - 66.21 0.00 _ - 0.00 3.11 0.00 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 9.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 11.33 97.32 77.73 0.00 4.79 4.78 0.01 *** 2004*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust _ Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust _ _ Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 . _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 9.12 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 67.88 0.00 _ 68.25 0.00 0.00 2.89 0.00 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.11 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 1.90 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.28 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 12.43 14.55 9.53 0.01 86.96 14.15 1.05 0.17 83.62 007 0..00 007 0.14 0. 0.00 3.71 68 0.13 0.13 3.0 .70 0.0 0.011 0.0 0.0 1 1 Max lbs/day all phases 12.43 86.96 83.62 0.07 3.71 3.70 0.01 Page: 3 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Dec '03 Phase 1 Duration: 0.3 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0 Miles per round trip set to zero Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Crushing/Processing Equip 154 0.780 1 Graders 174 0.575 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Dec '03 Phase 2 Duration: 0.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 , Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Graders 174 0.575 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rollers 114 0.430 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Dec '03 Phase 3 Duration: 5.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Dec 103 SubPhase Building Duration: 5.1 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Bore/Dull Rigs 218 0.750 1 Cranes 190 0.430 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 �---^ Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May 104 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May '04 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 2.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 1 Rollers 114 0.430 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.'0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 Page: 4 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction Phase 1 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 1 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 1 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR.) has been changed from off to on. Page: 5 ORBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\Project32k2\Eisenhower Drive.urb a Project Name: Eisenhower Drive Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMPAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: December, 2003 Construction Duration: 6 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 0 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi -Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST **• 2003*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 10.03 85.07 68.42 - 4.18 4.18 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.13 0.33 3.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 10.16 85.40 71.46 0.00 4.19 4.18 0.01' Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 11.20 96.99 74.69 - 4.78 4.78 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.13 0.33 3.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 11.33 97.32 77.73 0.00 4.79 4.78 0.01 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 9.12 70.61 66.21 - 3.11 3.11 0.00 �-. Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - I I Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 9.12 70.61 66.21 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 11.33 97.32 77.73 0.00 4.79 4.78 0.01 *** 2004*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0'.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 9.12 67.88 68.25 - 2.89 2.89 0.00 Bldg Coast Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.11 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 1.90 14.55 14.15 - 0.68 0.68 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.28 4.53 1.05 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.01 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 12.43 86.96 83.62 0.07 3.71 3.70 0.01 r-- Max lbs/day all phases 12.43 86.96 83.62 0.07 3.71 3.70 0.01 Page: 6 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Dec 103 Phase 1 Duration: 0.3 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0 Miles per round trip set to zero Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Crushing/Processing Equip 154 0.780 1 Graders 174 0.575 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Dec '03 Phase 2 Duration: 0.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Graders 174 0.575 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rollers 114 0.430 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Dec '03 Phase 3 Duration: 5.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Dec '03 SubPhase Building Duration: 5.1 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 218 0.750 1 Cranes 190 0.430 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May '04 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May 104 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 2.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 1 Rollers 114 0.430 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx CO Son *** 2003*** Phase-! - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - _ _ _ Off -Road Diesel 1.00 43.90 6.84 - On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.13 0.33 3.04 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 1.13 44.23 9.88 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - _ _ _ Off -Road Diesel 1.12 50.05 7.47 - On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.13 0.33 3.04 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 1.25 50.38 10.51 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.91 36.43 6.62 - Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - _ _ Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - _ _ Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.91 36.43 6.62 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 1.25 50.38 10.51 0.00 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Dav 8.0 8.0 PM10 PM10 TOTAL EXHAUST 0.00 - 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 - 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.05 PM10 DUST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Page: 7 *** 2004*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions ` Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 O.bO 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 z - 0.00 '0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.91 .35.03 6.83 - 0.03 0.03 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.11 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.19 7.51 1.42 - 0.01 0.01 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.03 2.34 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 2.25 44.88 8.52 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 2.25 44.88 8.52 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 Construction -Related Mitigation Measures Phase 1: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 1: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) 4r--- Phase 1: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily a Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 50.0%) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0€) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOr. 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PMlO 85.0%) Phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 9.5%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.04 NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0$) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) r� Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Dec '03 Phase 1 Duration: 0.3 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0 Page: 8 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0 Miles per round trip set to zero Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Crushing/Processing Equip 154 0.780 1 Graders 174 0.575 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Dec '03 Phase 2 Duration: 0.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Graders 174 0.575 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rollers 114 0.430 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Dec '03 Phase 3 Duration: 5.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Dec '03 SubPhase Building Duration: 5.1 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 218 0.750 1 Cranes 190 0.430 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May 104 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May '04 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 2.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 1 Rollers 114. 0.430 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 Page: 9 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages r-- f Changes made to the default values for Construction Phase 1 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 1 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 1 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation.measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been.changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road -Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust:. Use diesel particulate filter has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) has been changed from off to on. Page: 10 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\Projects2k2\Ei3enhower Drive.urb Project Name: Eisenhower Drive Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles'area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) Construction Start Month and Year: December, 2003 Construction Duration: 6 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 0 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi -Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (tons/year) Source *** 2003*** ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTAL PM10 EXHAUST Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 0.03 0.28 0.23 - - 0.00 0.01 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Worker Trips Total tons/year 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 0.07 0.64 0.49 - 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Worker Trips Total tons/year 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.51 0.00 0.03 0.03 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.01 0.08 0.07 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - _ 0.00 Arch Coatings worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - _ 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.11 1.00 0.82 0.00 0.04 0.04 *** 2004*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.50 3.75 3.75 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - _ 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 _ _ 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.05 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.51 3.81 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 Total all phases tons/yr 0.51 3.81 3.80 0.00 0.15 0.15 PM10 DUST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 11 ►-- Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions j Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Dec '03 Phase 1 Duration: 0.3 months f Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0 4 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0 Miles per round trip set to zero Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Crushing/Processing Equip 154 0.780 8.0 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Dec 103 Phase 2 Duration:.0.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building.Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Dec '03 Phase 3 Duration: 5.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Dec '03 SubPhase Building Duration: 5.1 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 218 0.750 8.0 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May 104 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May 104 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 2.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (tons/year) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2003*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.14 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.01 0.33 0.05 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.0a Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.01 0.33 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.04 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '~ Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.01 0.51 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 12 *** 2004*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road'Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.05 1.94 0.38 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 .0.03 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.05 1.98 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.05 1.98 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction -Related Mitigation Measures Phase 1: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 1: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 1: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 50.0%) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0..0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 9.5%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0%) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use diesel particulate filter Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 80.0%) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation(EGR) Percent Reduction(ROG 90.0% NOx 40.0% CO 90.0% S02 0.0% PM10 85.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Dec '03 Phase 1 Duration: 0.3 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0 Page: 13 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0 fPm ` Miles per round trip set to zero I Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Crushing/Processing Equip 154 0.780 8.0 1 Graders 174 0.575 6.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Dec 103 Phase 2 Duration: 0.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Dec '03 Phese 3 Duration: 5.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Dec 103 SubPhase Building Duration: 5.1 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 218 0.750 8.0 i Cranes 190 0.430 6.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May 104 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May '04 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months r Acres to be Paved: 2.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114- 0.430 8.0 Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage improvements Comment Letter from Carol Gaubatz Native American Heritage Commission P:1ProjectsUNoffattU2TC 090204.doC 5 Responses to Comments NATWE AMERMN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPriOL UML. ROOM 384 SACF�AMENTO, CA 9=4 p"al 655-4m (916) aS1-0110 —Fax Ault 28, 2004 Mr. Oscar Ora City of Le Qtdtrta 78495 Calve Tartrpioo L,o Qukrh, CA 02253 RaK Negion peclsmdon; Eisenhower Drive dridpe and Drainage improvements SCHO 2004071144 Dear Mr; Oros Tho* you lbr the appn ! _Ai Y so oorrartenl on the aboveom a w ionsnt. The Commission was aW to perform s record search of its Sacred Lands File for ftm pre ject ensa, which failed to Indio #w presence of Native American cuftni rssounose In the immediate project apes. The obealm of specific site information in the Sacred Lands Fite does not indicate the absence of cultural raoourcrc in any projed areo. Other sourove or cultural resources should also be ow6csed fbr Inlbtmation re9ardfg known and recorded stms Earl aansuhsti a - with Vibes in your v - Is the bait war 10 evold amend oted discoveries on. a project is u nda way. Enclosed is a Be or Native Ameltsm irndividualsloMankol orts that may have knowledge of cutanal reeourvsc in the prgect arsrr. The Commission rteKae no a reoarnmandation of a single individual or group overanof o Phase dadall those listed; If they canna, supply you with specific WonT a*m, they may be able to recommend others with of ! III' krwwledge. Sy contacting ati those listed, yow orgy Ondion wi/ bob tier able to respond to claims of failure to omrautt with the appl opriais tribe or soup. If you have not received a response within two weeks' time, we rreommend that you.foilow-up with a telephone call to make aure that the ir4ormation was received. Lack of wrl4ce evidence of arcl wologicat rveouroae does not preclude the eAssterm of archeological resounoes_ Lead seeress should includee proatsions for acadentaNy diecovened of%4 FIROWqdW.0ml nesour+oes duriM construction per Califorrtia EnvbcxN, m tW Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code V W54,3 (0. Haab and Sated Code 67050.3; and Public f4esotu+aes Code "W7.9e mandate the process to be fo awed in the event of an accidental d"®eavery of any human remains in a bcadon,other then s decked care simy and mould be Included in all envherrnet W dacwnenta. K you homm any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-6251. mete".It_ C6-. 8! do Ctea fthouse NAHC-1 NAHG2 Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements Responses to Comments from Carol Gaubatz Native American Heritage Commission P:1PrgedslMoffattlRTC 090204.doc 6 Responses to Comments Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements Response to Comm ent_NAHC-1 As indicated in the MND, the project site encompasses approximately 2.8 acres and is located almost entirely .within the Eisenhower Drive right-of-way. (ROW). The project area and many of the surrounding land uses have been subject to_previous earth moving activities associated with construction of the Eisenhower Drive and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, implementation of the existing drainage network, and construction of surrounding residential uses; therefore, the site has been historically disturbed. The portion of 'the project site outside of the existing roadway ROW consists of approximately 8,930 square feet of land that was disturbed by construction of adjacent residential uses. It is likely that any cultural resources present within the area would have been previously unearthed and removed or discarded. Further, project - related construction would include limited grading and excavation operations to implement the proposed roadway and drainage improvements. These operations would occur in previously disturbed areas and would be minor in nature. The previously disturbed condition of the project site, the limited amount of earth movement associated with the project, and the lack of records identified in the vicinity of the project site creates an unlikely scenario for cultural resource disturbance. Additionally and as identified in the MND, implementation of Mitigation Measures 5, 6, and 7 would sufficiently mitigate any possible impacts to a level considered less than significant. For these reasons, additional records searches, consultation, and/or an archaeological surrey are not warranted for the proposed project. Response to Comment NAHC-2 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5 and 6 in the MND require the presence of an archaeological monitor during pre -grading meetings, initial site grading, and drilling activities. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 in the MND specify the provisions for accidental discovery of archaeological resources or human remains during construction. No additional mitigation for archaeological or cultural resources is required. P:wrajKUWoftMTC_000ta.doc 7 Responses to Comments MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE EISENHOWER DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for: The City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Contact: Oscar Orci Planning Manager (760) 777-7000 Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Contact: Sam Stewart Project Manager (714) 444-9199 April 7, 2004 Mitigation Monitoring Program 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 21081.6 of the State of California Public Resources Code requires a Lead • or Responsible Agency that approves or carries out a project where a mitigated negative declaration (MND) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes, to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements MND and, therefore, is responsible for implementation of the mitigation monitoring program. The MND has been prepared for the Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements project which addressed the potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, a mitigation measure reporting and monitoring program is required for the MND to ensure that all relevant mitigation measures that have been adopted are implemented. Section 2 describes the roles of responsible parties in implementing and monitoring the adopted mitigation measures, and generally describes the program procedures. Table 1 in Section 3 includes the list of mitigation measures and identifies the timing of the implementation or verification of each measure, the method of verification, and the party responsible for verifying that the measure is complete. The City is responsible for the implementation of each measure, and the City representative is responsible for verifying that the measure has been satisfactorily completed, and/or written evidence submitted to the City, which verifies that the measure has been satisfactorily completed. 2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.1 RESPONSIBILITIES The mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) for the Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements project will be in place through construction of the project or until all mitigation measures are implemented. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project. If required, the City will be responsible for designating another responsible agency to take responsibility for implementation of portions of the MMP, if and when appropriate. The Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta is primarily responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation measures listed within Section 3. 'The Director of the Community Development Department serves the primary role of coordination and verification of compliance for all parties involved. All parties, or designated assignees, are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are completed, and are vested with the authority to act accordingly. 2.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES The Director of the Community Development Department, or designated assignee, will be responsible for the overall management of the MMP. Assignments of responsibility are included in Section 3. The above -noted designated "monitor" shall oversee elements of the MMP and review compliance through the use of procedures developed by the Director of the Community Development Department. The designated monitor shall ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measure and ensure proper action is taken on each measure. If it is found that an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the Director of the Community Development Department shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. CADocumm s and So&V$%AdmnsascorYD"MopWMP.122303.00c 1 Eisenhower Drive Improvement Pried Mitigation Monitoring Program 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX A matrix of mitigation measures for the Eisenhower Drive Bridge and Drainage Improvements project is provided in Table 1. Column one identifies the section of the MND in which the mitigation measure is found, and lists the number and specific text of the mitigation measure. Column Two identifies the timing for mitigation implementation. Column Three lists the party responsible for monitoring and verifying that the measure has been satisfactorily completed, while Column Four lists the funding source of the measure. The City position level listed in Column Three (Responsible Party) would generally be the individual responsible for approving the mitigation measure. However, there would be circumstances that require a higher level of approval than available within the lead agency. CADocuments and Settings%Administrator%DesktopWMP-122303.DOC 2 Eisenhower Drive Improvement Project C� I) 02 12a aCD H W 1% 2 a. >Z 0 -. �� Wca0 Q = Z Z 00 W ~ 00 H W LU C O a L � � m ATa ow S o g.E 0 E� . p�1 U a a. n �_•� f? d ci �° o a 0c...Ce`a Leo ra N `no moa 0 4=cI= 2z o� EcEo � M o> � EEo $ � ma. o cE cc N.0Lco Cc-0 ° W wL " w y ca 0 0- CE > C W Cf o 41 a. en�i >° o= ` of E a c o N°° $ 3 y Qa�� `° a °—Q— o ao $ c `o = Et N of — o t eo �c.� V cvm w• �g 0tm eo= y° N—_ c �.� m C� E 0� vS CD C C E �' a 0 ` 8- E Cc �o c° Z''> �ra�>o 0 = c La L'�c �dm BEN �� ovE 9.9 Q'L0 �a� _cy.�CD �3cco 0� N� 0 c c �w�.a"•� 0-Eti E.0 E"v-6 ESA 00 0 c °cam �o °" M (A �.. „t,, C .fl 0) 0 ko �— N tm L R C N K�6 o `°�0 �oco��c r.r a>'v,eoN ... � '� 0 O HN ccoa E N-a ? a0oCN 2a vx L-D0 y cNE o v,c�co 0— cVLL)o r0Nam 8�cO E=%-u)co8t5�0 o aora 2 H VE t3 °c° -0 oayav��r-.c 0 ui c E 0 E N y_ y > C O) c= Cc a�a E a� C> 2� C N lC °' ° N o� 0 0 2Q' Uv�� co 0 Ana o.. ... rn c "2 °�.S, .Q 0ccoc�0 c H °°C1'� c A —Vc C L) O Cf� Q (n N M L6 A C W O cm H c C 1p y O C Q 0. ` _ a .'c O � t m a o. � t� o m= c a=� o c .0 °� .0 °� a o E E� E� E O o'CU dot) M — .c M= M= Q a am oa am oa _ 0 O O t . C .. a) U C O N U �% : O— .c c U) E o H �o >Owc�°�M30M o>> o 0 o U t y "' U a>' a) d Qaci�EcvO,NovNi = O a) N N cQ ' a Q' ca H m o o M T E U- w % w > g> > •. 0 °ww a� o c wcE v �0 0 0 w o0 on�`ypcc� .- 0. c .:. �'§vi 'E m c c E of Z'o�u-m �wZ' v, co w.� .a?rn� cc E EL Mo�c�OE�uch cn v li.. 0$°L rn° °�� - M (D iia�°iv0^0(Da)aoi�o c�rn0E cc -6.E O c w o U 0 cc O --�OrnN).M C> O E a) N W° (� p O " 3 E�aci Y? ocNc� a�i� O =p «• >' E o w- rn c a� MQo�� E�E`� m _ �' �.� c aCDN 0 M o � a � N ��' �� €? >-5 ai c� c as m c°� °� �_a =v Eo c o0.EUo ° o �= �v E �c n aN� :no-oo M M a, a ao.c •a o ... 0 E oQ �� 0 c a o c_ o 0 O 0-.- N C N a EO w 7 2 N O N 0 �� .8 E 3 a) U C a a) 0v 2 c° _ a�w, 0 E c 0.0 U) c c 5° o o c 0- o n °n 3°'OaisM0 0 E`av�met0Eo ° oo o-N�a�t:,�coc0U E �Lc�oass�Ea� 0 �o-20�oNrnN MacoU $ `8 0.ocaO°a 'E_ �'`' c 3`°v,ca`��9ccoc°> '�Nc0Z3w.=ai Ccc r-v,v,co2' -v c °$� our.-�0oc nEa� c° co oo.-. ��0> -0r-MC a ...o�Eccm=cam 0 �M a� a)� O c m� n CL-t5 `r3M2cSc°�°v' U U c Z` 0(D 0 aa) m e- 0 c 0c�0:500 a� W ca O ;� N a O u� ? w n�ccn— .�°.°M N 0 c L O .o N axi c>c O— U 0 ago 0 cM0 rn' o w 0p C U �CL on r-u) a'u.(D�aic� r- C O O O N E c0 .c � n°i M " a0°i c m O 'X E o w lC 'N (D ° rn � (uM.0 vim M a� C w CY)N 0 C Oa A? d 0 -0 - E C N N 6 := O` D w - O c O >, C > E d 0� C o y c ° 0 U)L) ai o o.E,,acc' �? °� o a>i aiZ 0 w � o o 3 � 3s a>> ��tn� 3U�5 v,rp ca oE� 2 DM-0 W. a c �y"00-c�.. L C otcflc c�E O y C O C .` o` O> U L,0a c mw pp — > lC U �tV M �Lt)(p t` 00 y ,a)rna 0 a� t:<U) cgc>oc°-o(D cr-c� v� = OM O.0 M O C c d _M O p� C _ M O E ~ N° O a ) c v c v O U M U c 0 2 0 2 o. •c 3 ° O ` .) � c .`O ` �. O U) c aM 'ma8 a3 d C C U H � Va W 00 a, s ZZ r W O m > HIx0 CL 2 2 Z LU 0 �a 00 W 0 Z co W -E C w � ZIC O1 V M a C C'Z C C E E� E3 E� a� o c o V Way as a;a CL CL 0. �a' �a �0.. �(L L. 8 .. co CD�0� G y.C.r Q�3 �� !off N V N cG �«. € .. N N U a "0— Z C N C 3 C w N �, L L C C /o C N O E C c8 •- co c G... 5 C d c H O C O N a1 Cf to °aNia.a g'w 0 O� ,� .o ��� co arn C 0 MM.U) w a� cam; a ev >.a'�.0 pw cc �+�«N. E c OLCCN LE2y W$O0�vi o—C 0NCC N N L O- .O. co—, N C_ G Y C G fZ aL 2 7 0 0 0 LD 0 0 M Nt_ eo 02 c — io c'�i N'2�'aac.� L E a� E E E c•E o p _ 8' y co>8w Lo� � copte,"0� L�> NO*amFo co c8 Le CL W a> - CM E o c E ° E o I K`- 8—° o L oio xp o sc8c L cie' O5.-8'0° N N N� C N O fJ C Of L N d C G •- , C •p C :E 2 0 r Cp�� N .O.. N O f� 'Csi 0. LD 2 l0 N J M O O _O C C C fa W O d N L > >, �M. 0� O c N �,E c co vi Lu ,•,.vaN E o ea o ed �� p" � 0. = �E o c��w 8 c E Nc LEc w>.LMvyyi >� Ul) . 0o MMcx °fz�cv rn�3 m O >' Ny 0 C 0 (� ) y ` N S C N 'C C C Q N Y "' y> C >. _ 22Fn N w O w a ii E tC C O N O l�o O N L a.0 G ° co i._. NNNNN`0 :08o4)MN'E NCN�ow-£ 0C �ad20 p cr3 t8 E E Gin N 0 0— " G (Nn >' > M:..— QO d L Z N �O«. M N�� O co- U M C OM'- N v, 8y rn� S'am o o�° EaM c`°��a�a�i eo L p = E O M ?. Q N N y� a _Ncr c yoeoa� c Y °'L�i c°n a M �� a0i ° c c«- E N a� v ,� �rw? °mow rno c �� o° or E� o 2 y N N c CL m 0c° �o•>acocos...a ..0 a Noy mccaW °g 0 �� �•° Q°�1E v,c8 �' $ 8 0LLo. w o cam- $ co- L_ N w V Jr. LZ't �'� �� Qo� € Eo c yet �w F - aEtio c�v°��v3� c�Cja�a�M cock od a,.o�Ti c vs � c a :� � c M �_ � o o,t � � n•LL O eo �l .p N N .0 N`0 IV C cow E Vj 2 C 2 �' a C�4)tM c�og'ca :: -CY °c�oa�'�0 cone cEv,cL oL=°vo, QE'red06 ��oEm ��8Q.08 Ucii�� �Ud�'0oc n v 0i c j co c _c o2 .a E o c c o E o c c off, 8 eon cot ... 2 vM S 2 v� 2 c ` N a c b H c Q c 0 it o a8 z° 08 a8 C c ULU H Q U� 00 aaa zz �w- -jw0 a0Z Hw0 w0 � Q W 0 Z W W 2 rnrncv c c 2 cc) O C O a c a m cca o c m t -co CD o-� m o o 0 C U E o •o 8 c C a mm -a m E o'er E ao o •s >, m m 0 J •0 Soma 0 Jo-U c m � t w E N -� ) O t5 m Z m ES co