The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 01 17 CCJ??o 4 S(p atblZ City Council Agendas are Available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Regular Meeting January 17, 2006 at 2:00 P.M. Beginning Resolution No. 2006-007 Ordinance No. 426 CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Council Members: Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, and Mayor Adolph PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. CLOSED SESSION — NONE NOTE: Time permitting the City Council may conduct Closed Session discussions during the dinner recess. In addition, persons identified as negotiating parties are not invited into the Closed Session meeting when the Agency is considering acquisition of real property. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, DOUGLAS R. EVANS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111 AND LA QUINTA CENTRE DRIVE. PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATOR: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. City Council Agenda 1 January 17, 2006 .t 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, (1) CITY OF LA QUINTA V. EUGENE T. FEACK AND CAROL A. FEACK, ETC. ET AL, RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. INC 041885, AND (2) CITY OF LA QUINTA V. SUPPER CLUB GOLF LLC., ETC ET AL, RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT INC 045225 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a). 3. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, ARTISTIC ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC DBA FESTIVAL ARTISTS WORLDWIDE V. COACHELLA VALLEY ARTS ALLIANCE, ET AL, ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 05CC12907, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a). 4. CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, THOMAS P. GENOVESE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE. PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATORS: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC AND EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA RECONVENE AT 3:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT At this time members of the public may address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or matters that are not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. Please watch the timing device on the podium. For all Business Session matters or Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "request to speak" form should be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council beginning consideration of that item. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA PRESENTATIONS - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE City Council Agenda 2 January 17, 2006 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved by one motion. 1 . APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED JANUARY 17, 2006. 2. RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 30, 2005 AND INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEND THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS TO BE HELD IN ANAHEIM, CA, MAY 13, THROUGH MAY 18, 2006. 5. APPROVAL OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, THE CITY OF INDIO, THE CITY OF COACHELLA, AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO SHARE THE COST OF A LADDER TRUCK COMPANY. 6. DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY NORTH AMERICAN ELITE INSURANCE CO. - DATE OF LOSS MAY 25, 2005. 7. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATED ITEMS FROM THE JIM MURRAY SilverRock CHALLENGE. 8. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT MAP NO. 32279, MIRAGE AT LA QUINTA, STANDARD PACIFIC COACHELLA VALLEY. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF RECIPIENT FOR THE DESERT SENIOR INSPIRATION AWARD PROGRAM. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTI -SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION. City Council Agenda 3 January 17, 2006 REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1 . ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (HENDERSON) 2. CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. CVAG COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP/INFORMATION EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (OSBORNE) 5. C.V. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (PERKINS) 6. C.V. MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (SNIFF) 7. C.V.W.D. JOINT WATER POLICY COMMITTEE (ADOLPH) 8. JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (OSBORNE) 9. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (HENDERSON) 10. PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESORTS CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY (HENDERSON) 1 1 . PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION (NANCY DORIA) 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DESERT LIBRARY ZONE ADVISORY BOARD (HENDERSON) 13. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (HENDERSON) 14. SAN JACINTO/SANTA ROSA NATIONAL MONUMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) 15. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY/SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP (ADOLPH) 16. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2005. 17. ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2005 18. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, AND 27, 2005. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1 . CITY MANAGER A. RESPONSE(S) TO PUBLIC COMMENTS B. REPORT ON ACTION REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS PERTAINING TO AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SilverRock RESORT MOUNTAIN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. C. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 2. CITY ATTORNEY - NONE 3. CITY CLERK A. REPORT ON UPCOMING EVENTS 4. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 2005 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 2005 6. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 2005 7. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT - NONE 8. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 2005 9. POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 2005 10. FIRE CHIEF'S QUARTERLY REPORT - NONE MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS - NONE City Council Agenda 4 January 17, 2006 RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECESS TO 7:00 P.M. 7-00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three (3) minutes. Please watch the time clock on the speakers podium. PRESENTATIONS LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL ART WALL PRESENTATION PUBLIC HEARINGS For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "request to speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the start of City Council consideration of that item. The Mayor will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta City Council before a public hearing may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the public hearing. 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-838, CONDITIONS NOS. 35 AND 40(a) APPELLANT: WASHINGTON 1 1 1 , LTD. A. RESOLUTION ACTION 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS, REPROGRAMMING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR FY 2006-2007. A. RESOLUTION ACTION City Council Agenda 5 January 17, 2006 ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to be held on February 7, 2006 commencing with closed session at 2:00 p.m. and open session at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting of January 17, 2006, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin boards at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas and 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, January 13, 2006. DATED: January 13, 2006 JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's Office at 777- 7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the City Council, arrangement should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 777- 7025. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the City Council during a City Council meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the City Clerk for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 3:00 PM session or the 7:00 PM session. City Council Agenda 6 January 17, 2006 .J 0W 1-o �� ,'� AGENDA CATEGORY: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Demand Register Dated January 17, 2006 BUSINESS SESSION CONSENT CALENDAR I STUDY SESSION PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDATION: Approve Demand Register Dated January 17, 2006 BACKGROUND: Prepaid Warrants: 66712 - 667291 580,356.26 66730 - 667301 914.00 66731 - 66743 } 26,170.47 Voids} (923.90) Wire Transfers} 245,443.58 P/R 33103 - 331201 159,235.57 P/R Tax Transfers} 50,707.02 Payable Warrants: 66744 - 668601 981,864.04 $2,043,767.04 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Demand of Cash -City $1,479,950.35 Demand of Cash -RDA $563,916.69 r I John M. Falconer, Finance Director CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK TRANSACTIONS 12/29/05 - 01/10/06 12/29/05 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 01/03/06 WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK 01/03/06 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 01/05/06 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS HEALTH 01/10/06 WIRE TRANSFER - VISTA DUNES TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS OUT $14,325.09 $130, 868.37 $355.20 $62, 894.92 $37, 000.00 $245,443.58 c- ti 1 1 I 0 to I 1 N %0 0 �D O 0 %0 O N O O \ t Y J l p p 00 In 0 00 Irl 00 O 0 00 in 0 �O I U Q I W W r- U') N1 � to 00 1 N O O 1 w F- I 0 0 %D O I x 0 1 . 1 H 1 r- 011 O c- O` 0� 0 In M 0 w N0� I U F- I O 0 00 M M M 1 N u'l (J W I I > > \ a co I I ti d £ I 1 Oz I 1 1-4 1 I w af 1 1 d O 1 I Ow I F-Z I Of I ZFq I ► I O Q I -K -x K -K K K K K x x K F- 1 0 F- I Z I£ W I I I I I 1 00 00 100',r01-ON r- \0�0 00 \0 \0 00 00 %0110 00 K)0%(V 0000 00 M O I \1 00 00 ,0In0'',InO0c-(7,W Ln Ln 00 ww K1M wW 00 00 NIn00 0Ln0tn 00 1 UI w U 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . v I V (n 1 00 00 0000 K) (ON In O� to tV cV 00 %0 ti ti In In K), N1 O` O` In In 0000 1 0 1 O N O N O O O Q I Z►+ I Ln Ln 0MNON11 a �r- 0, as O`O` OO MNIn c-ONt+I OO �0 N c-N \0Noulr- LA Ln I F- IL I c- N N N r` 1 ►+ 0 1 I £ I t W F- I I OC W 1 I Z I 1 v I I 1 t 1 1 1 I I O O ON%OOc-OON Ln N 00 1 O 00 00 00 0 ti I I O M �O In M 10 M rn �0 O K) N to 00 O O M K) �D ID \D O 0 1 I I I I I i I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I In 0 c- O O M 10 1 c- �0 10 � c- r- 0 1 w I 1 1 N 1 --t .t It 1 1 It It In M 1 Ln 1 M O K1 M Ln Ln ►A M w I I m 1 F- I N N0�0�' In In 00 c £ I z I In N MMMtn" r- r-- � N r- M Ln M N NN 000 N M 0 I 0 I M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nl 1 1 ti ti ti N Z 1 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I U I N O �D In In N In 00 00 In c- 1 N M 1 In 0 1 1 N N N O M Y 1 U I M G 000OIn000 O to O O O O 0 Ln Ln 000 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O 0 Q I I In ti 1- ti M Ln In In r 1 In to In In (71 0� O` 0 ti m I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I > 1 I O O 00000000 O O O O O O O 00 -It -t1 O 0 CD I 1 1 c- c- c- c- c- N N N I � I I W I I V) I I r-r I I (7 I I10 W 1 I In to \0 \0 ID �0 0 0O \O �D �0 �D 1.0 10 �0 \0 �D �0 �D (D 0 �D I 1 O O 00000000 O O O O O O O 00000 0 0 0 I 1 O 0 00000000 O O 0 O O O 0 00 000 O O Y I I N (V NNNNN(VNN N N N N N N N NN NNN N N u1 I F- 1 Q` M 00000000 O O O O O O 0 00 000 O O 2 I Q 1 N c- W I I O 00000000 O O O O O O 0 00 000 O O J I I m 1 1 Q I I >- 1 00 1 Q 1 • Z I d 1 d I 1 I N I I F- I I Z 1 I O� 00 �t �t �t �t 1 �t 1 �t �t �t 1' 1 to ti 00 Ln L0 In O �t I w I In 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � In to � 1 1 In to �O 1 O 1 2 O 1 In �O 10 �0 10 10 \D 10 10 10 %0 �O 10 �O 10 10 \D \0 %0 \D %0 U I um 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O 0 U 1=3 1 O 0 00000000 O O O O O O 0 00 000 O 0 10 1 O O 00000000 O O O- 0 0 O 0 00 000 O 0 1 > I 1 1 U £ I I N Q I I ca W I I cn V J 1 t C7 N Z J W I I Z W r v) . U I I H U Z W 3 �1 > I 1 O ►+ Z O O N W I I = w to 0 F- W H 1 I v) z ► F- w Q F- I I LL. w V) H Z > W Q z £ a 1 I 0 w > Ix N a 0 a >- 0 a 0 w z U p p m U N 0 1 Z I O W I F- Z W -i CC Z Q O O LL .. I p£ I Z Q [C W W in . Q J N N H �O O Y I Z Q I ui Z w F- u1 U N Z In LLz l wz I £ U a a .. I -I a 1> I F- w U 3 H a H O 00 J m I I ix w N £ W F- ix W F- Q I I Q > w m = O 0 (D J I w J W U O 1 1 d J t-- F- Ll) U CU H Z J O 3 H p (D I I w :D Cl J £ CC F- Q rI ► I 0 Q \0 �= I I p U a a a a a a CO m m m m U O QQI I O HLLI 1 CV J Z I I O V) Ln I` �D ON r- O 00 N O PC) O` 1 c- In 0% N 1 0 c- 0% O In 1 O 1 J 1 0 1 ti M N N �t Nl K) M K) O` M O J I p 0 1 c- N r N N r' \£ w I Z Z I �(7Q3 I LU I O J I > I p •- I I K K £ IL 0 1 1 N O� 1 In �O r- OD O` 0 r N pn 1 In w � Q 0 0 1 1 M N 1 1 1 1 1 1 In In Ln Ln In tn Q= I ]C 1 00 1 ti ti r r ti r• r ti ~ ~ ~ ~ d (7 >- ]C I v I 1 \D �O \0 �O �0 10 \0 NO 1.0 \0 �0 \0 W O F- Z I W 0 1 \40 .10 `0 10 �D 110 %0 110 `0 %0 CC=► -IQ I =Z I d d U m I U I N r- -t O tfn �o 0 0 W N w (7 W Q m la- 0 z H Ct F- W CL' a. O 0- (D W Z CC w W C17 7 Z Y z a m m w LL F-- N H (D W ]L (U w S U W J m a a a cn F- Z O U V Q Q .O H �t Z .. CC �O O Y to t+- Z .. H Q 00 J m a U O . (7 o as O LL- r,j J Z \"0 H (n 0It:3J �M0_j \M: W �C7Q3 O J dn .. LL f ti 0 W Q O 0 Q w C-(.7>-Y WOF-z CLCLUm W F- Q 0 100 •Z I CL f` O N O O ti 0 K- N O O N O O% 00 -t r- ao to O r- r o NO po 00 r O N c- -t \0 0 to t` ON .t M O 00 M 00 O M to 0 .t rn to N N) M N -K * .c -K * -K K -K is -K 4c -K 4c -K 00-411-00 �o�o(NJ 000000 00 r-r• 00 r- r-- �000t rnM�o 00 to to r r• 0%Q` 0000(V 00 N1`0 woo-toN 00 ONO, 0000 .TI-T IOr•� wLnM 00 0000 rnM 0000 000� 0000 tntn� OO�O�DNtn 00 r r r r 00 NI00� r M� MM ter- r f- ID NO N10NNO MN1 N- 00 N00MNc-r- 00 NN it tntn0 0NK1 tntn 00 -t-t f+1M (V r-- r-- rnK) r-Mtn V-�N MK) MM cm cm r- r r N 0 K- 00000 M 0% N �o (V N N c- N It �0 r- 000 0 Pn 00000 O c- 0 .t NN I 00 I I O I M I O I o I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I M .t N 'o I M 1 M I �D I M 1 'o \O �O , O M M 'O -t -t It to �t to O 0000 to to .t to to to to 00 It to to Mtn NNNNN M tfn 1 c- NN ro M M M to � N N N N N 10 T- to c- r- r- M N to (V vl .t M M M N1 M to to to 1 I 1 1 I to I I I 1 1 I -tM-t I \0 I 1 r N I I 1 1 I 00000 I I N 1 M I 0 00 �o \0 0 't 000 O MO 00000 O O O O 00 00 0 O O 0 000 0 r 0 00000 O O O O 00 00 O O O 0 r ti ti ti to to to to to \O I I I O I 00 I I r to 1 I M I O I c I to 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I NNc- 000 O 00 00000 O O O 0 00 00 O O O 0 to to to � c- c- to c- 000 0 00 o0000 0 0 O O 00 00 O O O 0 000 O 00 00000 O O O 0 00 00 0 0 O 0 NNN N NN NNNNN N N N N NN NN N N N N \\\ \ \\ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ 000 0 00 00000 O 0 O 0 00 00 O O O 0 \\\ \ \\ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ 000 O 00 00000 O O O 0 00 00 O O O 0 I w 1 � �o .10 00 \O r- 00 00 00 00 00 M �O 00 ti r ti r- -t s I W I -.t to to to It -t to to to u1 to \O to to to -t to to to Nt to .t to 10 I S O 1 NO \0 %O NO lO %o %O �o %o �o 10 NO \o 10 1.0 NO �o O O s0 lO O O 10 O O 10 O 0 I U Z 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 O O O 0 1 M I I O 1 000 000 O O 00 00 00000 00000 O O O 0 00 00 0 0 O 0 I > I I I d ti I I V) I I Z Z I I Q O (n Z I I tL ►+ J 0 I I H S Q Q H I I > ►L (7 > U WF- I 1 w O H Cr W Z (7 Z Q I 1 W Z (n W Z ►+ Z W J 0r W J (n H Q CC W 0 I I a W O W to F- S H CL I I W > 0 w O z v > Z w I I Ct o 0 a CL O W X F- > Q 0 I CC 1 0 S IL Ct_ U) U 1 0 LL1 1 W Q Q Q H Q H H J Z W Q CL CC W . F- I n f 1 Z Q I H z H Z H Z Z Z F- tL F- Z Z I W Z I O w CC w LL- (n > Q U H W CC ►� 0 ix I> I O O O 0 U- W O f tL LL- tL LL- z H O (D Y (n z LL- a 1 I W .-i H . i H 0 0 a V (n Q 3 Q I I 0 J J J J Z CC Ck-, 3 W Q W Q ~ I I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q L] S J J Q I I I 1 U U U U U U U U U U U U U o I 1 1 1 ON O N 00 �O r- M Q` I ac I � M K) K) o N1 N N N to O to r 011 r,- to NO r- 00 O� O c- N M I�t to �o r- 00 to to to to in NO %0 NO NO \0 10 10 \0 \0 r- r r r- r r N r r- r r N r r �o .0 10 O NO 10 NO 10 \O \0 10 %O �D NO \O \O %o �o �o .0 �o �o 10 rn 1` 't O Ln \ O O LLJ N (> LLJ a m a X: 00 Oz w LLJ an 7) Z Y Z Q m m LLI F- (n H f) LLJ Y v LLI _ c.J w J m Q Q d (n F- Z O v U Q Q H �t Z .. CC .D O Y (n LL- Z .. P--1 Q 00 J m Q �a O C7 No .� O QQ O F- u- N J Z \� H (n 0ItDJ M O J \� LLJ c- C7 Q 3 O J p.. LLJ M Ii 0 IxQoo Q� a_C7�Y LLJ OF-z d Of H Q d dUfY] I LLJ I F- I Q I � I • 1 00 I z 1 IZ w O in O Z Z W > I Y Iv I w O 1 S Z I V o No O ON O M r- f` �o O� O IJl o 0 \D M .o 0 M O 0\ d` ON o` � .t d` L D` ti O Ln 00 tn i N In 00 Wl O� -K * -K -K -x -,IK -K -x OO •D•o cnLA0 0McVN00�0� -tN%D 00 00 OOOOOOOOOO"D�o ID 10 0000 0 00 OsO- %0%0rn IDwr`u1NN1%0(is cnLn 00 't�O-t0"w0 oO o�o�oLnM V) rn 0000 0 0` a, ON as ON ON011 OO�It' 00\D-tr 1l- 00 0M00�DI-00 LnLn1l-MT-00 NN 0Ln0in M "oa,.V1 -�T �T Ln Ln timP- 0ONONLn 00W r--�o 0 ti \0Npl 0000 'tNNNO-t MNMPn N�M C\j 0% 0% � ON OO NNNNNN OO O 0 �V-�T-�T-V-T-r-T-r- r- t r- 0 o � lnullnLn Ln(n rl- O O Oo000000000 O 000 0 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I to M V) rn -.0 10 .0 10 �D 10 cV N 0 O Ln Ln to In u1 ul N Ln u1 Ln u\ N1 N N N 0 In In Ln In � In M M O K) ul u\ u1 u1 u1 ul Ln V7 u\ u\ u\ u1 M M . O Ln 00 c-r rn V) MMMMMc- tn MKIMMNIM K) V) N N \D\O.0.D`0�or- M MMM N u1 to u• � -t Nt M N It It It It It -t -t -t 't It Irl I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I l l l f l l l l l l I I I I I Nt N 00 cn(ncnItItUl NN O O N O M O O O 000000 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 f� O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o �t 00 P.- P- ti ti c 0 N fV .D .D N N s0 'D �o \0r- 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -t c- Ln Ln c-T- c-�c-� mac- T T-c T-T- O O 00 000000 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 0 O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 00000000000 O 000 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \\ \\\\\\ \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\ \ O O O O 000000 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 -- — — � r- r- \ \ \\ \\\\\\ \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\ O o 00 OOoo00 00 0 0 00000000000 0 000 O r r. r.r r-rr r- r- ti -4 NNNNNNNNNNLA It 1-1`f` �t u1 to Ln Ln LL l in Ul ul LL1 VN UN u\ \0 \O 10 �o \0 �o 10 NO �o \O ID .10 -t Ln LA in \0 �o 10 -t -.O .0 10 ID �o 10 .D 10 \D �o 10 %D .O O %0 %0 10 10 %0 \0 .o -D %O 10 00000000000 �o O 0 0 0 0 O O o O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 00 000000 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v H cn w V OU J z LLJ > z r •-I O H Z H H F- �- J H o (3 Z Q V V d n j J .Z-a d � LLJ 0 o Q o 0 o N z = N Zp o F- N w V) (n Q U LLJ[D J m F- H F- J - i Z p (n w N H o! z Z Q O N O U O co O U Z w F- V 0 N CL H V) H F- LLJ J m LLJ Z LLJ O F- Z O x ~ N V) LLJ LLJ ::3 m V LLJ tL w VJ N U H Z O Z F- F- F- LLJ = (n Q' IY w w w F- U °- H > W cn LLJ (n W to W N W (n W cn W LLJ (n W LLJ H N H J O Q 0 W 0 W 0 LLJ 0 W n W i= 0 0 Ln N 00 .D ti O 00 NO h 00 N N 00 M r` M N f` -t c- o N N N r- O% 0 N M �t u1 00 f- Cl r` ti ti ti ti t` f` t` f` �D �D \D NO .0 \0 .D \0 .D \D 1.0 \O �o 0 O Ln \ O O W N a (D W Q m CL E p � O Z F- Z 0 U v Q a W m Z Y Z Q m m a W F- (n H W a Y U LLJ 2 U W J ca Q Q a (n F- Z 0 U v Q 1 I O O N O O 0 Y J 1 O 0 O O 0 L) Q I Lu H 1 M c- c- 0 111 O = 0 1 N `D L)c- I r � � Q 1 .0 H I %0 O Y I Ln LA - co J m I Q I U O 1 O I %0 . a 0 QQ O F- LL I (V J Z �M0_j i \x: W �C7Q3 0 J p.. LLJM:LLO a000 Qa d (D Y W O F-Z a a H Q CL 0-Um C W -Q uz 0 00 f` PO N 0 0 0 c- O rn Ln 00 N M � N 01% 0 Ln N Ln 00 N a` 00 O\ N N in M 't -K iC -( -K -c -K -K is -c -K 41: -x -K 4c 4c O OO NN OO OO OO Mr-0 00-tN OO rl_ r`It 0ON00all V) 0) NN ITO� OO 0000 O 00 rl-rl- 00 00 00 000N00 M100 00 cmNln 0.t00 -t It r- r- Ln In OO Ln VI OO LnLnc- 00 - OO 1-01� LnMOLnNI \0 %0 Lnln O`O` -t -t `0`0 Ni` NN c- Ln U') "O\0 r- V-- 'tNIl- MONl LnLn -t00N O\r-0,01.0, 0000 M 01-0, (V N c- N c- ro ON 0% 00 N N c- Ln N1 M M M O� 0 c- O 1� rl- O� O N N 00 00 ''T O O O 0 --t O O O N N Opt O Ln Ln I 0 00 00 ID I I I I to 1 I 1 I 1 M I �O I O I Ln I 0 I I �O .O I I Ln 10 I 0 I �O �0 Ln rn M M M Ln Ln M Ln M Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln Ln 't Ln M Ln Ln in - Ln Ln r c: 00 1 1- c- ON 1- N) c- Ln to c M N N Ln M N M M Ln c- ma c- Ln It It .t V- Ln M N �t �t rn Ln It N It I I I I I 1 I I I N I V) I 0 1 I O 1 I NN 1 I \0 V) I 0 I I M000000 0 O 0 O O 0 00 NO 0 00 N000 O O 0 Ln 0 O O O O 0 00 r`0 0 00 rl- 000 O O O r` (n 1 I I N i I i I I I O I I` r-- 1 I � Ln Ln Ln I 1 I I O I I 1 I O O O O 0 00 00 0 00 0000 O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 00 00 O 00 0000 O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 00 00 0 00 0000 O N N N N N N N N N NN NN N NN NNNN 0000 O O O O O O O O 0 00 00 0 00 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\\\ \ \ \ \ O O O O 0 00 00 0 00 0000 O O O 0 00 rl- 0 1` 1` 1- 00 rl- rl- -T ti ti ti t` ti ti 00 ti 00 �? Ln Ln .O Ln It 10 Ln Ln \0 10 Ln Ln .10 \0 -t \0 Ln Ln ID NO Ln Ln Ln Ln NO �0 \0 \0 Ln �O Ln \0 Ln �0 %0 �O O NO O 0 %0 O O 00 00 0 00 0000 O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0000 0000 O O O O 0 O O O O 0 00 00 Q J O O (, H H Q I CL a O N J N LU Cl U w v 0 U O O H 0 z p Z O a H > H F- Q F- W C7 W J Q a cn a a W U 0 z Q Q U) x W H H W Z a W Z (n a F- V) a D W W J E CO 0 N a W (D O Q W V) N a 2 m m Q H F- W X: W J g Q H N C] Q W J U H Z 0 H l.L N W g U O 2 U N W 2 U U z O F- Q z _ Z cn p Z p a O (n U Lu p W H (7 > 0 J H Q 0 N LL_ cn W N Q a CL (D Z H a (n a Z Q Z Cr 2 0 a Q Z CIO Z O J O > 0 > a Z J t> X H a W H 0 O O -7 0 -� p p p p W W LL (D 2 2 2 m �t 00 00 Ln N1 C- � Ln ti Ln N Ln Ln M Ln 10 N r�- P- -t Ln .O It (V O 1` Ol M L!1 00 M M M -7 c- M O` � N c- N N N O, 0 c- N rn 't Ln 00 01% 0 0� r O` N O` M 0� r- 0o 00 00 r` 00 ti 00 ti 00 ti 00 r` 00 r` 00 ti 00 ti ti ti ti r` t` %0 ti .0 ti NO .0 10 \0 I'o \0 \0 \0 NO .0 .0 NO �0 .0 �0 .O .0 �0 �0 s0 �0 .0 N0 110 �0 %0 MqI in ti -* I 1 O Ln I I O 00 to O CD CD Ln O CD�n O O O d` Co \ I Y J I O M t` O O 0 ti O O O ti �0 I U a I O I W I- I O r 00 O -t O O N I'0 N Ln In O ti O 1= O I O N N Ln M O c- O In NO r In N W f V w I U F- 1 M M ti M -t M M t VI N L7 W I I Q m 1 d I I N O Z 1 I H I I Q� F- I 1 w = I I a O 1 I (7 W I F- Z I -K -K -k -K is -k -K F- 1 O F- I z IM:w1 Qw 1 00 amw inun 000 00 00 OLA00Ln 00 00 Ln Ln 00 00 00 D`O` 00 O 1 \1 00 0N1M 1`N 000 00 00 OI`toun1- 00 -t -t tit` r- 00 00 �T- r-ti U I LJ () I v I V(n 1 000a0 000 00 in000�V)� 00 NN �0\0 NN tnin inUl 00 titi Q I ZH I 00 ONN NN 1n0Ln MM 00 oN�Or- 00 LnLn %0�0 c- 0%0` Into NcV I a� I c-� OMM MM f-Of` rnpn -41 r- c-M rn rn pnrn NN I F-LL I -ttnr- u1 "0 rn rn I H O 1 NN �t�t I � I I LLI F- I W I I Z I I v I 1 I I I 1Ln I I titi ti titi N O NNN00 O -t N M O O r- i I O 00 M 00 O 0 LnLnLA00 O 0 O -�t O O O N I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I vl in \0 N N M \0 rn O M .10 Nl 0 O\ Ln � w 1 I rn in Ln ►n rn M rn M Ln in M 1` 0 �t W I m I F- 1 It M M c- c- M 00 N N N 0� 00 r N M �n I Z I N c- N1 r4) M c- N N N N c- N � Ln It U N It It N In �t Z I 0 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I U I M M Ln M O V% In to 00 0 c- M N O O M N Y 1 V I O 00 0 00 O 0 intn Ln0 O O O Cl O O N 0 z 1 a I o 00 O 00 o O 0000 0 O O 0 0 0 1` O a I I to c- f` ti ti 0 in to in L O N Nl M M \0 r m O 00 O 00 O 0 0000 O O O O O O O 0 mc- 1 � 1 1 W I I H I I U) 1 I H I 1 (J 1 I W �0 \O �O \O \0 \O �O 1101.0 -O \10 NO \O %O NO �O I 1 0 00 O 00 O O 0000 O O O O O O O 0 1 1 0 00 0 00 O 0 0000 O O O O O O O O X I I N NN N NN N N NNNN N N N N N (V N N cU I W I \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W I H 1 0 00 0 00 O O 0000 0 O O O O O O 0 r r � r c- c- w I 1 O 00 0 00 O O 0000 (D O O O O O O O J 1 1 m I I a I 1 r 1 00 1 a I z I a I a I I 1 V) I I Z I -4 't 00 ti N ti 'T 00 00 00 ti � f` I W I It NO %0 to Ln to to 'T -�r -�f ? -t 't an an Ln to to -�t Ln O 1 S 0 1 10 �O �0 10 NO \0 10 \0 \0 %0 %0 �0 NO \0 10 %0 SO �0 10 10 U 1 UZ I 0 00 0 00 O 0 0000 O O O O O O O Cl v I 1 O 00 0 00 O 0 0000 O O O O O O O 0 a 1 0 1 0 00 0 O(D 0 0 000(D 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O I > I I I CL' V U 3 N I I O > > F W W 1 I v o O ix F- w 1 I 0 m N = U H Z I I <n w Q u.. W w F- I 1 N d 1 u O V) Z I I W Z Z O S W H W I 1 F- O J O w > > I I V) H a H 0C o w (n O a F- F- F- w w F- w w w 1 I V) a Z U m O Z CL >- w V F- I I v w M 7) 1 J F- Z F+ F- S w O Q a CC W J -,0 ► I d' I Q 0 O (n v o > H (n w !n a H w O W I 0 E w Z Of w M: F- Z F- I n= 1 H O Q a a Q J O . 1 F- H a .10 O Y I Z Q 1 J O > V F- F- F- W S J u. O f (n to ►L Z I W Z I Q U Z Z Z Z (D LL- - a I> 1 H 11J to Z N Q O Ix W w 00 J m I I U m > > > N a - S (n W J J Q I I H W (9 m C'i a C3 w W (n H n H H U O I I Z Z -4 a to 3 1= F- m m C) I 1 H H a a a O 0 0 a Q U 0 0 \0 = I J J J J J E 2: Z: M: O Q Q I I O F- L+ I I N J Z I 1 00 Q` Ln Ln in �t \0 00 ti 00 O �t N 00 \�O H (n 1 I r- ti � � � ti N ti c- rnN D` m �O �t 0-4 0 J 1 0 1 N 00 M M IK1 N N M N1 f� N c-V)0_j I nO 1 N N N N \M: w I Z Z I c-C7Q3 I W I O J 1 > I o •• I I w ►L 0 1 1 � �O ti 00 O` O N M -It �D ti a0 W a 0 0 I I O, O\ D` 011 O O O O O O O 0 O a = I Y I ti ti I` ti ti ti 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 d (D �- Y I V I \0 10 �O 10 10 1.0 \0 10 \0 \0 NO 10 \0 w O F- Z I W O 1 `0 NO `0 NO 1.0 `0 `0 110 H Q I S Z I O to O O w N CC (' W Q m CL O Z H Q' F- ww a 0 a. (� W Z � w W m £ Z Y Z Q m m cc w F- fN H w Q' Y v w 2 U w J co Q a a V) H Z 0 U v I w I F- I ¢ 1 � 1 00 I Z I CL Q I H 1 Of Z 1 O w ck: I £ ID OY I ZQ If) LL Z I W Z .. "Q I > 00 J [� Q I v O (D O as O F- LL N J Z \�HN Opt OJ M O J \£ w �C7¢3 O J p.. W £ LA- O m Q O 0 WOF-Z daUm O t` CD00 O O M O N O K1 O In N in O in �O LA O 00 N 00 O �0 00 Ln . N to N -K * -K _K -K -K 00 1`N 0000 0K-NoT-M 00 000000000000000000000000000 N)V) 00 NN 0000 NC\jrl- rn 00 LnLnLnLnLn0OLnLnLnOOOOOOOOOLALn00 LntnOO �� inLn 00 0Ln0U-% tnLnLr% NNNCVl-tnO(VI`Il-00OinLn000ONIl-0inNrl-0Ln NN NN t-�t ►n1-00 O00N0\O NLn�oN\0.0�OQ1u1Mr-0Nf-UninLnLni-00ON\ONO�0 0000 NN1N00 I-1OlV00Ln Mgt Mc-Min00MNtn�tO%-tl--tM00MNtnc- ON It-�r . . . . . . . . . . . . M to c- M c- N c- N N N to O til`N MOOD M 000000f`001`I`0c-�i�t�t�d�t��t�t�t�tt`I� �t 000 000 0 ��r'�r �O0MMV)rnrnf+114)MrnV)n00 O t I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N M NNN �000 M NNNNNC\jtn tlLn U-iMMMMMMMMMMMviin U-A Un MMMMMMMMMMMM-tMMMMMMMMMMMMM �t pn ��r-�c-c-K-�c-rrr r-K-r'r V- T-r'T- V- c- Ln C- N N N M IK1I"n N1 c- Ln inLn Ln into Ln M Vn to to Ln Ln M M M M MM M M MM M Ul Ln VIA �t to -t -It �tNNN Lr% LnUnmini)in'TUlLntnLnin-tt-t-t-t-t-t't't't''InW% vl I I 11 1 I I I I I I I t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I r O .tNt000 N In NM1ONO-tNM00NLnMNNNNNNNNNNNIt-.0 �t O O 000 0000 O 0M-4tMNItIt0NItLnNN00000000O00U-ALn 0` O O 000 0000 0 1`tit`tiP-N- 0I`Il-1`1`I`0O0000000O0 1- �0 M 0 LnLnIn 1`000 I-I`1-1`f�l�l�t`I`I`c-c I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 �0 LnO O O 000 O M rn -�f O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Ln c � ti l` t` c- -.t 't -i �t --t -t -4 r -t -.t 't 't t O O 000 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 000 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O 000 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c- O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -t -t 1` -t 'T -t N N N N NO \0 \0 �O to In to In In Ln In to to In In In In to In In In to In In Ln to to In In In In -t .t to .t It It .O �O NO .O .0 %0 .0 \O \0 \O \0 \0 \0 1�0 \0 \0 %.O NO \0 110 \0 \0 �O \-O \0 \0 1.0 \0 \O 1%0 %0 \0 1.0 \0 .0 \0 \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O U O > N � N oa F" Z oa Z 0 w W V W W H F- L) Q F- 00 Q J ¢ U Z 3 O Q Z Z d w w o ►� ¢ O H U Q a z H z Q N 1, £ F.,.I H d Z Q W O d W F- . U U cx: Z Q '"'� '"'� 3 0 0 O r 0 Z > Z > Q w Z £ M: X: £ £ Z Ln 0 CD ~ .t 00 N N 00 in ~ N .0 N N r N N M �t 00 00 00 00 co 00 00 110 �10 \O .O \0 �O .0 \0 \0 \0 \O .O ti ti --t I 1 tr 00 -It 0 O Ln I 1 O O to 00 \ I Y J I O O ti to N O 11 \0 I U Q I to to N 0 1 w F- I to N rn t` O O O I S O 1 d` N - M NO 0 L Lr% vi LLl N ck' I U F- 1 00 Q00 ` (7 t1J Q m I I K) d M: I I in = I I O Z I 1 •-� I I ix w W I I 0-0 1 I 0- 1 1 (,w I HZ I ►� I O Q I F- 1 O F- I Z I Z: w I 1 Q= I 00 0000000 OOOtnOtn 'tlnc-MM O Nc-�DN 00 0000 �t0� 00 O O I \I 00 0000000 IntntnN01l- Otn-Ol+ltn 0r-"DN 00 -t00-t MOM LAOtn 0000 tn0 v I 111 U 1 ' U I UN I tntn Il-rn'17- ON tnM 00N�001- tntn00 00 .p.ttntn tnOtn C; NN tn�0 Q I :z" 1 O,O� I`MI`NM00N 0pn-�T001---�t -t'tM�M �NN�O 00 mwMtn O-t't MNtn tntn 1 Q Nl r- 00 0 c- '0 00 re) 0) CY, to M 00 M1 M 10 I HU- I Nc-MON O`00ti � � M 1 —0 1 I f i 1 w F- I I W w I I Z I I � I I I I I 1 I I I O 0001000 `I`N O MMM NN O` 1 I O NNtnNNN MMMMM 0000 000 00 tntn N I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I O� NNMNNN MMMMM tntntn10 �0%0`O N MMM �-V �� \0 N1M I I 0 �t�t�t�t�t�t MMMMM MMMtn tntntn M MMM MM tntn to It IT w I I I Nl c-c-�O�ONc- c-c �e-c- c-�c-� MGM �c�c- MM �� Ifl tntll E I Z 1 tntnM��tn MMMMM tntntnM �0c-� to tntntn mac- It It to to to .t �t �? It In Z 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I U I O NCVtn0000It NNNNN �t-t-tN �c-N O NMN NN Mtn N NN Y I v I O 000000 00000 0l0N0%0 000 � 000 00 00 0 00 Z I Q I O 000000 00000 %01.0%00 000 ti 000 00 00 0 00 Q rnrn LntnM MMM m I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I > 1 I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co CC I 1 w 1 I F- 1 I N I I ►-t I 1 C7 1 I w I 1 110 %0 NO NO \0 \0 \0 110 �0 IO \0 �O �0 1.0 �O 10 \0 %0 �0 �0 �O NO �o \O 10 %D �O 1 I O O O O O O O 00000 0000 000 O 000 O O 00 O O O I 1 O 000000 00000 O O O O 000 O O O O 00 00 O OO Y I I N N N N N N N CM N N CM N CM CMN N N cm N CMN N N N N N N N N N w O 000000 00000 0000 000 O O O O O O 00 O D O v I 1 \ \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\\ \ \\\ \\ \\ \ \\ w 1 I O O O O O O O 00000 O O O O O O O O 000 O O O O O O O J I 1 m 1 I Q I I r 1001 Q I • Z I 0- 1 a I 1 I F-0 Z -.t 't -4 to to 00 00 00 00 00 0% 0` O, t I w I NO It It It It It -It to to to to to to to to to -t \0 .10 -t %0 \0 \0 110 �0 to to O I 2 O I �O 10 10 %0 %O �O \O %0 \0 �O \.O NO �O �0 -O \0 10 10 �0 \0 \0 %0 \0 %0 110 %0 \0 \0 \0 NO U 1 v Z 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a 10 1 0 000000 00000 0000 000 0 000 00 00 0 00 I > 1 W- .4 Q I I w = 1 I J w U Lu I I H > ►1 U I I U O Z 1 I z v w Q N z 1 1 oa w N H I 1 I I w N L.) a F- U U I I H J Z = t1 0 1U ►t I I CC O . F- L) I I w < Q I I CL F- F- U O Q !n �O ► t i I O w n O Q to CL It Z I O 3 w W I w .. w I o E I n v Z O w = Q 0 w 0 �O O Y I Z Q I Z ► I CC o o N Y m to tL Z I tL Z 1 O H (.7 el- . Z 02i U t Q I> I Z w w Q LU H a >- J co 1 w Z w Of U J Z r a w 00 I I d W H F- � ►� Z Q v 0 I I N -� m LL- > Q Lu ui 2 C7 I 1 H O O O a. a � a aL O Q Q I I O F- tL I I r .fl N J Z I I N O 00 00 N M N �t I w I r- �0 `0 ao M O` p 0 J I O I N Q` N c- 00 M tf1 �MC1'' J I o0 1 � N N CM wI==I w I O J I > I wM: LL- O 1 1 �0 f` 00 0` O c N M Q O O I 1 r N N N N N 00 00 Q 00 00 w I Y 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Y I \0 \0 �0 \0 .10 NO \0 w O F- Z I w O 1 .10 NO `0 \O �o C C M" Q 12 Z I Cl. aum I U I 00 1- � I 1 O O OUl L i o CD It ti o 0 0 0 0 -t O \ I Y J I O O� O O O O O .o IUQI o 0 O I w F- I Ln O M O O \O 1 M O O I 0 1 1.0 N Ln O M O I` w(Vck� I VF- I M O ~ Ln O LLI I I (V O Z I 1 H I I Of F- I I LLI W I I d O 1 I IL I �. I (7w I F-Z I H 1 O Q I -K F- 1 O F- I Z I Z: W 1 O I Qw 1 00 00 It-4 Nr-N1NI-10�01- 00 00 00 000 000 LnMW0-,t�0OOO-T0 O O I \I LA OO \0,0 Wp-ow"WO0N 00 00 00 000 Lntn0 0w(MIDLnS0ID-T�0-t 00 v I LLI U I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U I (.)(n I (V-t LnU% 00 -tOwItMItwPO 00 00 �O�0 1:C), Nl O�PO 14)�000llLn00It O 00 NN Ln Ln ONr--t0`f"DN� 00 rnpn 00 Kl--tl- O,G�M ON�M0,WPn-tN-tfl- 00 NM r-r-� 00 -t -t 'DAD c- %0T-Lnr-ONr- \0II- ONr- Ln Ln F- I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ F- LL- 1 NM �t�t �� r'r' 0I`1`r-.01-1-1`0L/1N Lnr-'NM� �c-M 1 -4 0 1 N � I M: I I LLI F- I I Cr- W I I Z I I v 1 I I 1 I 1 I O% r' �D O� -1-4 �� O%OMulNUn I I 0 OOOOOOr- M �t c- 00 00 OOONr-Nc-r-ON O 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 M Ul r- �D M \0 M �O M 10 r- M M 10 �O �O �O �O 10 �O 10 \O 10 0 I I d In LnLnnLnMLnLn Ln Irl MM Lnln MMMMMMMMMM M w I I . . . . . . . Ln r- M c- � c- �O Ln Ln 1t 1t 1t In T- N1LnNLANNc- K N NN NON NNNNNNNNNN N I 1 Ul �t �t �t �t Ul �t �t �t It t -t Nt d' -4 -t -t -t -t -4 N Z 1 0 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I V I N N1 �t N c- �t c- -t \O N (V O 't c- N N 't -t -t -t -t -t -t -t It 0 Y I V I O N O 00Ln0Ln0O O O 0 00 00 LnUllninlnlnlnlnlnln O Z 1 Q I O t` O 0000000 O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i` K1 Ln M Ul Ln -t O Ul Ln In \0 Ul Ul Ln U % Ul Ln in Ul Ln Ln Ln 0 lT] I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I r T- o O O 0000000 O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O 0 m I I c- r-r- r- �T- � Ln I Of I I LLI I I F- I 1 (n 1 1 H 1 I L'U I I W I 1 10 \O �O �O \O �O 10 10 �D �O 10 \O 10 �O 10 10 �O �D �O �O \O ID \O \O %O �O I 1 O O O 0000000 O O O 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O 0 I 1 O O O 0000000 O O O 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O Y I I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LLJ W I F- 1 O O O 0000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl 2 I Q I r- T- r- r- � c- r- r- K- T- T- r- � r- c- c- r- r- r- c- � � r- r- r- c- r- V c- � c- c- r- r- r- c-- r r- r- c- r- C- r- w I I O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O J I 1 m I I a 1 1 >- 1 00 1 a I •Z I tL 1 a I I 1 V) I 1 F- I I Z t I Ln Ln 011 Ln Ln O1 ON O` ON 011 1` Ol. ti ti t` O` 011 N ti Imo- I w I - Ln 'T'tLnLnLnLAUI .t Ln -t -tit Ln Ln -tit-4-t-�t-4-t-t�T-t Ln O I = O 1 10 %O 10 10 ID 10 �O 10 10 NO NO 10 \0 \O 10 NO \O %O �O %0 10 \0 �O 10 \O �D U I V Z I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O v I I O O O 0000000 O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Q 10 1 O O O 0000000 O O O 00 00 0000000000 O I> I w O a 1 I I I U U Li O N i I > LL. I I O W LL. I I LU F- v H I 1 w h V H �+ i I = Z 0 LL_ LU I I V F- F- H LL I I L) Z Z Q O V) 1 I Z H F- W N I I ►L W Z M: F- I (n V a wF- Q 1 I (n n Q 0 H W Z Z Z '.0 • i I tY I W J u 0 U U U w �t Z I O W I 3 (n Q a U a X •• I E I O 3 Q W W W W W Y �o OYIZQI 00 Ul U- Z I w Z I CL z W 0 W H H H H Q I> I >- V) H > W O (n V) N \ 00 J m I I w or F" ix w z w w Q I I Z W W Z W H W W W LLI W V O 1 1 F- 3 3 to F- > > > > 0 (7 1 I ►� O O W W W 10 W 1 I a CL a 0- tr o tY 0 as I I O F- Ll. I i 00 N J Z I 1 10 O� N In 00 Ln r- N �O N \�D • L Ln I ix I 'T PO 0 cm Ln 00 00 Ln r 1 0 1 N 00 00 M N N O r- r- rn 0 J I n O 1 c- \Z: W I Z= 1 c-(_7Q3 1 W I O J I > I n .. I I .O LU = LL- O 1 1 00 O` O c- N K1 Ln Q 00 1 1 N N N N Nl In M PO M1 M M Q in' I ]L 1 00 00 00 00 00 OD 00 00 00 00 00 2 0 Y- Y I V 1 �O �O `D \O `0 `0 10 \ �o w O F- Z I W O 1 NO `0 `D 110 �o \O \O \O ��Hal=z1 n.tLV[D I V 1 f� IT Imo- � I I O Ln 1 I O cV O O \ I Y J I I� In � O O O O I LLJ I N 00 1.D 011 (DI= O 1 � Ln 00 N to W N QC I V- (D W 1 I Q m I 1 M 0 :3 1 I O Z I i 1-1 I 1 Q� F- I I w 9= I I d O 1 I D- I �. I 0 W 1 F- Z I ZCe I z1-+ 1 1 =:) Q I -k -K -K K i� F- I O F- I I Z I £ W I O I Qw I 00000000000000000000 NN MIl-MNLn 1nu') 00 00 �O�MO�Ir�o00NM�n O I \I 000Ln0000000000000001n tnln c-\0-t1-ON 00 00 00 -4011wICr- nvio0ti,tr U 1 LLI U I U 1 uU) I OOONOOLnOInOLnOlnlnOOLnOOCV 0000 �1DN\0\0 �� 00 00 Lrir OI`O, \Of��O`DN Q I z14 I Ovn'tMtn'i'c ulr-ON�DI`MLn0CDWO� Ln Ln N0001l-00 NN Lf►tn 0%01 Nc-N'7'tM-TO�M M I Qn I I-N100rnV)K-0M0'T�o-VI0�DM� NN r' I F- I . I � 1 F- L- I c- r N N N1 N1 t r10 1 I � t I W F- I I w I I z I 1 1 i 1 I I I I 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 Q` NNNN f` M 00 �Nc--c-��r'�r' I I NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN �t LntnlnLn O 0 00 00000000000 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I MMMMNIMMIMMMl+1MK1MMMMMM 10 10,01,010 N M M �O�O�O�O`0`��0�0`�`0� 1 I MMI+')K1MMMKiK)KiKlI+1MN1N1MM1+'1M In InLnanan ti L Lr%LnLnLr)LnL'�LnLnLnu'�Ln WI I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -t -T -4 It c- r r c- r ON r IZ c- r r Un M NNNNNN(NJ NNNNNNNNNNNN M MPe) MN1 c- UI r- MMM�%0�oNNNNN Z I O I I t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U I NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN M �t�t�t�t CO 00 `0 r--�� Y I U I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000000000 Z I Q 1 O O o O O O O O O O O O O o O O o O o O 0000 O O O 00000000000 Q I I In In In to In In to In to In In to In to Ln to In In In ti f` ti I� ti In M Ln ti tit` -t �0 'D in In Ln In Ln m I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I � I I 111 I I N I I 1-I I I W I I 10 \O \0 �0 10 �0 �D %O �O 10 �0 �O %O %O 10 �O 10 �D \0 %D %O \D 10 �D 10 %D �O 10 10 \O \O \D 10 I 1 o O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O 0000 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O O O 00000000000 ]L I I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U I LU I \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ W I F- I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 00000000000 = I Q U I o I \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ W I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J I I CO 1 1 a 1 1 r 1 00 1 Q I •z I a. I a 1 I I � I I F- I I Z I IY 1 (`tititif`t`t`titiI`tiI`i`titit`tit`ti 01,O1O`011 0\ II- ti1`titif`titiI`0\ I w I It It --t -t -t -t -t -t It It Nt -t -t -t to In to In to Ln --t 't 't 't 'T 't 'T -t -t t -t to �O \D \0 %D \0 %D ID 10 \0 \0 I0 \D \0 \0 10 %0 %D �D 10 \0 %0 .10 %0 N0 %0 �0 10 �0 �0 U 1 cU Z l 0000000000000000000 O 0000 O O O 00000000000 U I I O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 O O O 00000000000 a l0 1 0000000a0a000000000 0 0000 0 0 0 0000000000o 1 > 1 v I I W .1 Q I I V Z ~ 1 I > O U Z I I V £ Z Q ►-4 > I I W p 1 I N Q -4 U) Q I I C7 LLJ d Z Z I I z a N N I I 1 (n U O m N I 1 LLJ V) Z tL £ LLJ I W £ 1 1 r1 Z Q i 1 W Q oa .D •-+ I CC I z w a a N W 1 -4 w (D U I o£ 1 0 . a Q F- CD �0 O Y I z Q 1 Z 0 ► I £ z In in u.. z l w z 1 w v a ►+ Or LLJ N W 3 W -Q I > I 00 -1 co I I Z Z Q I 1 O O F- z F- F- d U O I I X X:: ►-4 Q C7 I I Q -4£ O O O t- �D .(D I I N In V) N N N N 0 << I I O t- L� 1 I00 00 NJZ I I r' 't M Ln \\O ►4 V) I Of 1 c- 00 %0 Q` O� i 't O It D J 1 0 1 %0 c-MG'iJ I DO 1 \£ W I z Z I � (D =c I W I O J I > I in •• I I Lu 2:: tL 0 1 1 00 0� o N M W QOo 1 1 M K1 M Q gy- 1 ]z 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 d (D r Y I V I \0 10 N0 \0 N0 \0 W O F- Z I W O 1 NO �O �o W = " I = Z I d a V m I U I o ti -�r V- O Ln \ \0 O O ui 1' LLl Q m Q � O Z H Q' F- LL Q' Q O Q (D LL) Z w H F- Z O v U a CY LL m Z Y Z a m m W F- N H (' W Q' Y U W S U w J m a r a Q V) F- z O U U Q Q �0 H �t Z ,�O O Y Ln LL Z 00 J m a U 0 c� O Q Q O LL N J Z O.t O J c- rn 0 J \m: W V--C7Q3 O J p.. W E LL 0 �Qoo a� W OF-Z QQvto I u.l I H I Q 1 � I • 1 00 t •z I Q w O o O Z Z W > 0, O ON 00 N O O �O Ln 0 .t O O O N C) ti c- c- O O O Ln O 0� �O O O Q` c- 10 O N r" to O O O 00 O O 0 �O 00 O ti 011 c- �O M 0% .t 00 c- c- -K -K * -K -K 4c -K * -K -K -K 4c -K at11�-MOOS 00 (71ON 00000 NN 000 00 lo%o OlnLn 00 00 V-- 00 00 01`0000OlNLn 00 .t.t 0000 000 00 NN 00000 00 00 Ln Ln 00 00 11- oOtnO 1`ti 0%0` O`Nc- 000 00 00 in\0 0000 00 titi O`O` 00 M1.t1-MNOM �o 10 It It NK1�0 .T.t .tK-Ln OO OHO, cVO%� %0%0 MM 0�0l .t.t OO N N1N�0 00 00 0�01 OONO -t.t 00 0� 00 c-� K-K-r-r' 00 Po 01, O� 1.010 \0 M O N N r- � c- � c- � c-- O .t .t 10 00 0 .t .t 0 00 00 t` 0 NO .t c- c- OOOOOOM O O ItLn 00 O Ln 00 O 0 .t 0 00 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 10 �O \0 �0 �O �0 10 't M %0 �O cV .t .t O 10 O O N N M M Ln u1 to Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln M Ln Ln Ln M M M M Ln c- M 00 ? Ln .t .t c- Pn Ln to Ln M Ln c- c- 00 1 .t .t M N r' M c- �O c- %0 N1 M M K1 to Ln N K) M M .t Ln Ln Ln Ln N .t N N .t M Ln .t Ln Ln 1 t I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I t I I I r �N to V) K) N MO1 O M 00 O O N MM O O O O O O O O O O O O N M 0 O O O O O O O N N 0000000 O O 00 O 1`- O 0 00 O O O 0 f`ti N ti ti f` O ti O O Ln 0tn Ln c- c- I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I O O O O O O O O O 00 O 00 O O rnV) O O O O 00 .t.t c- T- Nti c- Ln c- .t.t 0000000 O 0 00 O 00 O 0 00 O O O O 00 0000000 O O 00 O 00 O 0 00 O O O 0 00 NNNNN( . N N NN N NN N N NN N N N N NN \\\\\\\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ 0000000 O O 00 O 00 O 0 00 O O O O 00 \\\\\\\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ 0000000 O 0 00 O 00 O 0 00 O 0 0 0 00 i I D` O O O O .t .t O� O� O` O` 0` 0` 0` r- O 10 0 0 %0 10 O %0 10 10 10 %0 %0 I to 'O �O 'O %0 �o �0 Ln Ln \0 Ln Ln \0 NO Ln \0 Ln Ln \0 \0 .t NO \0 10 �o �0 \0 %0 %0 �O I \0 NO 10 \0 10 \0 ID 1 0000000 \0 O 0 00 0 00 O 0 00 O O O O O 00 00 I 0000000 O 0 00 O 00 O O O 00 00 0 O O O O O O 00 I 0000000 O O 00 0 00 O I F- U I O I Q N � W z w z H 1 1- 1 z w F- p Ln w S F- x:: Q W 3 > H Z H Z H W > F- Q (J CC W > w N N V) Ln W Ln w O V) p Z H S W 1 to Q 0 W Q N Ob N 1 w Q U W Z o Z H S (n J Q' W w I Z pa F- Q Z W Z Q 1 V) 1- V) (D J Z } F- Z F- Q' 3 O I O I m OC M LL 3 tY Q Z W W U W Q Q N U m coX Q . Y Q z v) I N I W Z Z O Z W F- � 0 Z �- tY W W J - W J W N _ w (n W Y W F- Q [m W J F- w F- I a > w o N Q W Q H u H J U N w H 1 a I 1- 1- S O tY F- F- F- Z O Ln O Q > U > LL 3 S 3 S 3 N V) F- F- I I I 00 ti N 00 ON (` M .t O M 0` O O Q` NO 00 00 O V Ln Lr1 Ln ti M M 01� M M M .t Nl N M 1 1 M N L N N N N N 1 I 1 I M � to 00 011 O Ln c- In N Ln M Ln .t Ln Ln Ln �O Ln 1 00 00 00 00 00 .t 00 .t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 I 1 �D \0 \0 NO NO \0 �O �0 10 10 �O 110 10 \0 `O 10 `O \0 I �O \0 �O \0 �O 10 10 %0 \0 o in �O O O W (V w c� W Q M IL E o D Oz H d' F- W IY a. O d ('D W Z cl� F-i F- M 0 U v Q c: W [fl z Y z a co m w W F- N H (7 W w Y v LLI S U LLI J m Q a a F- z O v U ¢ � H �t Z .. tr %0 O Y II) LL Z 00 J Cfl a v O (D Of o as O F- LL N J Z 0-t:J .J \� W �C7Q3 O J p .. LLI X:u-O w Q O O Q w 0- (D W O F- z Q w H ¢ n mUm 1 00 I Z I d O o -T ti o o .r 'T O O O O O O 00 .t O O O N N r' to NO `0 -t N 00 00 00 00 O` 0, 0 �t OO CD -t �t O 00 ID 10 00 00 O 0 0 0000 � 0 0 0 0 00 00 O N N N N T- � In In O` 0` 00 00 011 a` U'N 0� 00 O N c N O I I I I M PO c- �t �t K1 O VN Ln �t r N LA I I I N N 1 N 0 O o O O O O O O 't I I un v% 1 O O O O �D �O %0 NO O O O O O O 0 O N N N N O O O O r r r r O O O O I ti �o %0 10 -t �O ID 110 �O O O O O O 0 (D O O O O O U Z H N1 W lc-- C) U > H In > N Ix (D Z U W O O Z (n Q H H W U ¢ W S z F- W a. ¢ ¢ O z W d' 3 d H N U (D O (n O Z to V) U W - W � W J X (D N uw o z a H cr K J S H W O N 3 3 X >- 00 M %0 r M 00 lfl 00 (D I� M r- N M (V N .10 I- 00 0` O 00 00 00 00 00 .10 10 10 NO NO �O �0 �D \O \D � I I I p 1 I W I I =:) F- I 1 N z I 111 1 ►-4 0 1 (D 1 O 1 X: I Q I p Q I CL I F- Z I I U- Q I I W 2 I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I 1- 1` o o O� O,, 't ti �0 "O O O �D �O O O O O �O �O O O M O� N 0 0 0 O Y I Ln 0 r- O Ln O` O� '.0 00 Lf) in O 0 00 w rn M w 00 O O O O N Ln 00 O In 0 to UF- I . . . . . . . . 1 w Z 1 0% N N Ln ON to W M I0 ti ti ,n Lr% K) Or Ln Ln w w -t 0 -4 O N O N I = O 1 0 (V O\ M N -t _t �0 -t r- 0% 0` O O � 0` 0` ON 0` O O M (\j in � O CV M I V O 1 N V- (V o0 N) M c- r r r N) M N) N N �O \.O in ti I E I N N ti t I I I I O 1 I O 1 I N I I \ I O I I r 1 I \ I I � I I O 1 I t I I LLI I I F- I I Q 1 I F- iC H 00 I I v I I Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q 00 Q a W 1 I F- F- F- F- F- F- F- W F- U () F- N N N F- = I I O O O O O O O CL O J J O W W W 0 F- U I 1 F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- Q Q F- U V U F- W \\ H H H N I 1 tY w Ix O > > > � J 1 Z I E E Z O O O O O 0 O O 00 O a: Of 0:0 �O I 0 1 w w w w O W w W p p V) p p in CLp p 00 in W W W p J O I " 1 F- F- F- I- H F-- F- F- Z Z 3 Z Z Z " Z Q Z Z Z J J Z N N N Z Q O 1 F- I N Cn N N F- N N N W W Q W W W M W d W Q W (33 m W W >N I m:CL I )-r>->-ar>-r > N >. w > > N > a > w > v > > r} r > O\ 1 WH I NNNNJIn(nN W p W W o:: I (7(D F-F-F- w o I F- CC I J H (n H \ p Z Z H H H CLr I HU I �Z��QEf f J p J F- d Z HH �wcr_ 0-\ 1 N I W W W WF-W W W CL O w a Z H YY >> a�- I w I aaQaNaaa IL O a LL. 00 u u U O I p l J J J J Z J J J J Q Q 0 W 00 W W W W 1 I QQQQHQQQ N CD CL N W CL' 03 NNN � •• I I U- I I HO 1 1 00C) %ONO N r Ln N 00 -4O �� H I I M N) M �O �O to \O Nl O M N to 00 O O M V) p N I I 11 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ZQ 1 I C-r- rn000c- \0 `D � `0 M -4 c- ul I It to In O I+) M Ln Ln Ln d I I X I I c- O� O% N 1 to r to c- r r N c- N) N) M W 1 I inr- c-NMN)MM c- N K M to M N NN 000 Nt -t t M -t It ti ti I` I I I l t l l l l l I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I F- I N00WNLntoin�0 S N fn -t Ln O NN 1 Z I 00OtnOOOO O Ln O 0 O o O Ln Ln 000 I O I O O O o O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O Z I t+) In In to N N N ti In M ti u1 to to Ol 0� O% 1 U I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 11 1 \0 �0 t a t oOCD000o0 0 o O o 0 0 o Oo -t-4-t NNN I I I 1 1 I 110 I W 0 00 O O 0 1 10 �0 10 �O �0 �O \0 �O �O �O \0 �o NO �O C0 �0 I M I O o O o O O O o O O 0 O o O 0 0 I in WI O o O O o O o O O 0 O O O O O O O 000 1 ---F- 1 NNNNNNNN N N N N N CV N NN NNN I Y Q 1 \\\\\\\\ \ v \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ I V p I O o O o 0 0 0 o O Z O 0 0 O O O 0 0 000 I W I ��c �c-�� •�c- c- r �c-� H 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W O 0 O o O O 0 0 OOO 1 Y I N V J I Z I N O o O O O o O O O w O O O Z o 0 O o 0 "000 0 I [� I WOOOOOOOO 0 �O O o ►i0 O N O OO a l I U Z W 3 CV H I I •. Z I I > U Q J K) w I • 0 1 w H Z O O N N O I O Z I w N 0 C ~ w ti I I N Z '-� F- w Q ~ Q Z 00 F.� 1 0- I W N F- Z > H Q J I I N Q O Q >- O Q I wIxO 1 F--t-t-4t-,t-t-t-t--t Wit Zit Uln pti in00 CO-t�t U\0\010 (/) V I X: LLJ Z 1 H-4�T-4-1't-4--t W't Jet a,: Ln In In ZLA Q�t 4 Otnlnln 0 10 I a = 1 w \0 �0 �O �O 10 10 %0 �O �0 (u �O W 10 p �O 'NO a %0 J 10 �0 N �0 �O �0 N 0 ZU I OOoo0o000 O ZO a:O F-0 WO VO OrO 00 NOOO 0 Q I = I V O O 0 O O O O 0 O Q O "0 Z O F- o Z O O X o o Q O O O � N F- I Of0 1 WO0000000 O vo 30 0 QO 0 �O 000 000 \ J Z I O> I N U H to F- �' W J O Q` H I p I w O (.7 1 W J� c- K) M I Z I F- F- W U U F- Z J O 3 \K) Cr 1 W I p J m of F- 0 Q H H O M I> 1 a a Q Q a Q m m m Co C13 o(Da I I J I 1 J W 1 0"000M-,t N Ln w E u.. I O U I tfn K) 4 -4 -4 It M l- �t I` �0 0" wl ti r- 000 00 N 0 M M Q O I Z H 1 c- 't -t 't -T �O -t 't 't in ON N N -t 00 011 011 c- Q` �O O Ln 't aC I 00 1 OMMV)rn0VIMPr) N\0 NIt rM -t It M00 Opt MO MAN N) all d(D? 1 p>Z I OK1N)PK)M00MMN1 �00 O� 00� C) - NLn 0T- N-.t orc- r-Vn0"00 r' w0E- 1 ZZ I OPe) IK)f+)MONK) )M 00, OM OM 0V- 00 Oti 00 Otrltn 0N100 0 Qw ► (JJH I oONO\011 0�1-011 0�01, oN 0� OM 00 0� ON 0� O--tIt 0Lr)-�t'0 0 aCL I > 1 0OOOOO000 0-It 0N 0Q 0� 0 - 0N 00 0�� Olntnin 0 N I I I 0 1 I W I I D F- I 1 N z l W 1 O 1 C7 1 O 1 X: I Q 1 O Q I CL I F- Z I 1 LL- Q I I W 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Y I 1 U F- I I W Z I I U O 1 I � I I Q I 1 I I I I O I I O I I N I I \ I I O I I � 1 I \ I � I I O I I I I I W I I Q 1 d= I I Y I I U I LLI I 2 I I F- U N H I J 1 Z �O I O J o 1 ►t Q 0 1 F- > N I Z: a O\ 1 w H 0�0 1 n.K-- I ►+v CL I N Q c- 1 W O I W I tL 1 F- O 1 H I 1= N I z Q I W I d 1 X 1 W I I I I F- 1 Z I 0 I O Z 1 U I 0 I Q I I 1 I W I � I o W I \F- I Y Q 1 v o 1 W I = I U I I Y I Z 1 OD N ►-� I •• Z I M 1 • O N O 1 O Z .. U- I 00 H I d J 1 Q I W 0C O U I W Z X 0 1 zU w O \J Z 1 O > O ON H I in r-- M I Z \rn W 0 (D I J I W W Z: tL 1 O U w Q O 1 Z H Q Ix 1 00 WOF- 1 ZZ Q' Q' H 1 W H CL d U I > O O Pr) 00-t 1` O O 10�O N 00000 O O o I` I` O 0 1000 It O o --t0000 N O O P-- a N O O ON O� a0 00 `Ot` O O O O O O 00 00 to to c- 0 0 \0 ID, N to O O I�- Il- Il- 1�- 0 O O 0 10 \O N N \0 fK1 M r- 00 N W rn N I� O O N N � � -t -t to to 0 In to c- N c- M Pn M to F- K is is -K Z o W aL F- F- F- F-- F- F- F- QF- W O O O O v U U U U O O O a O O O Z Z Z Z F- (n F- F-F- J J J J J J Q Q Q Q Q W Z of H H w U U U U U CC =) d' Of O w H O F- F- F- F- O O Q Q O O o 0 C7 O ►-+ O O O N Cl Z Z Z Z cl 0 F- F- F- F- F- o 0 2 n F- C�l 0 0 O Z W W W W Z Z Z H" H H H Z CL Z U Z Q Z Z Z d W w w w Q' W W F- F- W F M: M: X: X: W H W W F- W W W W > > N > 2= > w w w w w > 2 > F- > > > N N > o M: M: M: X: W c7 c7 W W W W W N U O W W w U: 0' = H H H d C- d d CL CC Q W H H 00 O O J Z Z W N 0- J J J LL,LL,LL,LL CL JJJJJ m F- z W dd W H H H H CL W W 00000 M Z Q W 0-0- Z) >> 00000 W O 3 M tl = =3 N 00 d CL d d C1. E U F- fN N N 0 r- N-�0 OOoOO M Ol N 10 NN O 0 0 0 0 O M O O O O O O o N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 to M c- -t N \O M M �O \O K1 It It S It to to -t 00000 to -t to Ln to 00 �- �- to N N N N N M to c- N N N MMMM M c-tn NNNNN to �C- N tn MMre) t+lN1 to tntn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O MM-t't NIA- 00000 r- N pn O 00 O o 0 0 0 O O M O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0000 O OIl- OoOOO O O O O 00 O I- I- -4 to to to to to \O O O I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 NN O 0000 O 00 O O O O O O O O O 00 to tntn Z �O O 11O NO �O \0 Z �O \O \O �O NO \0 \O %O H "O \0 \O 10,10 0 0000 00 00 00000 F-O O O 0 00 O O o 0 0 ►1 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O o 00 N NNNN F-lV NN NNNNN NN O 0000 0 00 00000 M O O 0 0 0 0 c O c- c- c- c- c- O o 0000 z o o O 00000 Z o O o O 00 Q O O WOOOO =C) OO 00000 ►+O o O O OO O 00000 F-0 F-oO 00000 F-O O O o 00 H = Q > LL. V, > U W w O H w W Z O LU Z N W Z H Z N H Q CL W O t1J N F- 2 Z W > O w z U Q LC a O rL tL O W X N O O -�t �O 't 1.0 00 Il- \O 00 00 00 00 00 M 10 X: 00 Imo- X: --t i,- W O .D ►L .t to .t to Q to Q -t -t Q to to to to to Q %O to H to to z -t to N �O " �O \0 H \O 0 �O H �O \O *.O \O 'O H %O ID J �O \O cr- �O �O W O =000O zO zoo zO0000 z0 O O F-O u,OO F- ,o 000o wO Ixoo w00OOO wC) 0 tL0 No >00 a 0� 0 0000 O O 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 o O O 0 ti 0 W O O O O z W F- t1 U- ti u- Z H c9 Y J W H H H H O F- in J J J J z 3 W n Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a o = (n U U U U V U (> U V U M O c- c- N 00 NO I` O` N M �t r-- 00 00 c-\O Moo M"0�0'0No\0 rn�o OM MNO N NO-t N 0�0�0 0110 r-N(V �00000 �O c-tn NCO 0%0 ONM O c-� O�00c-00 r-tn 000 otntntntntn oo, oM 000 00 000\ O 0NO OI`-tI`It 00 Oc-� 0O0O00 00 00 OI- ON 0tn00 0 ON ON-tN-t OT- 000 Oc-�c-�v Oc- 000 CD 00 ON OM:Z O OO00 Otntn 000000 00 otn ON ONl 0>> O M I 1 I I 1 I I o I O C)O O 1 W 1 O O O O I D f- I I N Z I 00 00 00 00 1 N 1 Ln to W 1 0_ ►q O I r- C7 I O I I Q I O Q I 1 LL. Q I W S I I I 1 1 I I I f i I I I 1 I I � N I I M O O Ln cn 1` ti N O O� O� O O K) 0 %O �O Ln Ln Oc- I Y 1 Ln 00 M O O 00 00 M M 14, O 00 W O 0 W O Ol O` �O �O M Ln N 'O W ti ti ti .D . W Z I M I� c- M M r- r- ti ti 10 %O 0` 011 10 Ol O% O` O� C', 00 %O O Q`It It 11 I SO I NO M to to O 0 -t -t M M r- r r ON �T00~ K- 1 V O I N M M M M N N N (\j I I 0� 011 :TS 1 I I I Y Y U C)I 1 w w O N 1 1 U U \ I O I I \ I 1 O I I I I I W I I F- I I Q I I o I I -K I I J U I I Q Q Q Y Q J Q Q Q a Q Q a w I 1 F- F F- o F- a F- ►- F- F- F- F- ►- S I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F- F- F- m F- H F- F- F- F- N F- N N F- I- N I 1 \ Z W w W H 1 I U V CL' LC CC Z CC Q tY CC 0 w H H w CC J I Z I >> O O O O O 1 O O O O W O Q Q O O �p I 0 1 N N 0 0 H 0 F- G G Q 0 CL CL 0 Z Z Z Z N Z S Z W W Z Z Q O I F- I 0 C7 W W W H W W W W W W W U W = w W W > N I E d I Z Z > > > > > > N > > W > > > N N N N N N > 0\ I WI -A I HH F- i- W F- u W WW WWWWWW w0 1 F- of l �� J I Q H Z (g JJ HHHHHH Clr- 1 H V I W LLJ Q ca CL J W rl Q UU JJJJJJ LL\ I N I 33 F- J E Of d Nl HH dddddn- Q r- I W I N N Z W H W CL i- W 2 2 d d d d d CL O 1 0 l Z Z W W > =3 Q d > W W »>»> W I 1 Q Q LL CC O N CL (n O >> (n In N N N N � •. I I OLL. 00 F-0 1 I r-N N NNNNNN H I I 00 O M 0 O O 0 r- -t-t Intntntntnull Z Q I I r- O PO M 0 10 Vl to N1 M M �O %O %O %O NO `O 111 1 1 In to 00 �t Ln -t -t In Vl ill to to ul CL I I X 1 I �O r- c- r- M N �t r- r• to r c- w 1 I N M Ln r- N N Ln in c- r- r- M K) K1 M M rn to cn cn Ln I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \O �O c- O 0 ti cV 00 -t to to Ul to I Z I 00 O O O O O M M O 00 000000 I =3 0 1 00 O O O O O ti ti O O O O O O O O O I O Z I cn ti K1 0 r- Ln to r- c- 00 ti I` ti N ti ti 1 v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t 1 1 I Q 1 00 O O O O O O O 0 00 000000 ►n r- r- r- 1 r- Ln inr- I I 1 I I 1 } I W I \O 110 \O �O \O Ln �O 10 F- Ln �O 10 \O \O 10 %O �O 10 \O I I 00 O O O O O 0 0 O 00 000000 1 MLLIJ O O O O O O O 0 z o 0 00 000000 1 \F- I cmN N N N N N N N N fVN NNNNNN I Uo I 00 O O O K) O UO mod` O 00 000000 I W I r- r- r- r• Z r- O Nr- I W r--r- 1 I 00 O O 0 r- O ZO Oa WO >00 000000 I Y I O Z ►-1 >- I Z 1 00 NO O O O ZO HO 00 HO F-00 Jo0000o I m I 00 JO O O O 00 F-O z0 SO Oo0 0.o00000 \o Q I I Q H U ► U E C- N H I I Lu F- d F- ZD N Q O :D Z I I (D Z Q w 0 F- N M 1 • O 1 Z LU J cc F- O 0 N 0 1 O Z I Q W W O N S N Q U ti I I S H a Z N 00 ri 1 a.. I V Z w O w W N J I I X H >- Q W O U O z W H Q I w W 0 1 w1l_1- m1t ON nIt Z00 C-) ti (71 HI` Htil` (-)P-N -Nr- ` U I w Z I to cn Q 't = In Z cn Ln o Ln F- r- N In F- in In w ►n to in ul Ln Ln \O I Q S I W I'O NO d � W \O cn F- %O W so Z c- :D �O H �O %O J 10 %0 �O 110 10 \0 O F-00 0 ZO o0 O ZO WO WO coo U00 wo0000o O a1 1 Q00 UO wo W0 �o HO w0 X:O 0 00 000000 N F- I w0 1 00 HO O 00 Oc0 wO \O F- C) F 0 F-00 F-000000 \J z 1 0> 1 Y N z W w a N O CC OD`H 1 o I U N Q 3 > O w W W c-M I Z I W Q W Q J F- > d0 N N N I L J I S J J GC M Q Q W M W w W CM r- r- r- r- N r-E I> I U U v U V 0 Ch oM n n 0000000 0 0 0 1 I 0 000000 0 MCVOOKO J I I 0 O in .. I I WALL. I O(-)v I MMM M Lnti N Of- Nc- 00 I`r-r--4-4-t w Q O 1 Z H I N O O In O to In -.t In N r- r- \O 0 0 I` 00 00 -It M N N1 In In tfn Ln to Q00 1 Oc-r- N)-t r- MO MO 't0 P-0 ON OMM 0\0-tO�0ll al. 0N CLOD I o>Z I 000 0Ln OHO 000 NO Opt c-in r-0 OM Ntnln Oc- r- =T-r-r- WOF- 1 zz I Ore) tn O1� ON ON OM Or- 00 0un ON 000 0MIMN1N1N1N1 w = H I W H I o1-r- Or- Or- ON Or- OM C) - O N O a' 0c V- Or-r-= -r-r OLaU I > I ON1M cal OX 0r- 0r- 0r- 00 Ow 0Q 000 ONcncnvnNN ti N 0 0 O O 0 � I I 1 � I I W 1 I D F- I I (n z I w 1 Cr -+ O I (D 1 O 1 = I Q 1 p Q I CL I LL Q I I w 2 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I �D 000 O O O O O N N -tN %0 O O O O �00000000000 �O �O Y 1 MLA to 0 0 Ln It �O N w It 0 1.0 I'D ID %0 N) I+1 M 000 O O O O o ti N 1 wz I Lrl 0% ti ti O O 1ON1ti00,00"0Ln, tntiN1 00 N N 0Lo0 Ln rn M r- 1 = O I OIA Ln -t -t to u1 0*1 ti 0% ti M �O \0 tit- O Ol Ln 00 00 r -O 0 r - N N c- c- I UO 1 SON 0� 00 W a'TNNc--�NN -t MI�M M N N 1 X: I I Q I M Ln "0 N c- c- I I N �t I I I O 1 I O I 1 N I I \ I O I I � I I \ I I O I 1 I 1 I w 1 I H 1 1 Q I I F- p I I x Z -x ►- �c is is 1 I w z Y I I J M: J J J J J W J J J U I I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q F- Q Q w I I F- Q F- (N I- I- F- F-F- 2 I I O a 0 p O O O O Q 0 w O O F- w F- z F- F- F- F- CL I- X: F- F- N 1 I W w }. H I I w > 0L li- CC CL' w w w Q Q' J t z l V (U O O O W O O O J J J 0 > 0 n. O O �D 1 0 1 >> p p w p p o Q Q Q p O o 0 0 J O I H I N (N z J z z Z Z F- F- F-- Z Z CC Z Z Q O 1 F- I W m W CL W w (1J z z Z W J w 0 w w > N I � a. 1 F- F- > > W > > N > W w W > C13 > F- > N > 0--I W H I UU I o ul ixww I V u! w0 1 F-W I QQ p ~' p d I H U I CC ix Z p J CL a. d Z w J CL \ I N I F- F- Q� I W 1 ZZ LA- w N N N(n(N N N N N(N(n CL LL- N CL O I p l 00 W H p Cl p p p p in C] p p p C i a o w z W I I U U L+- Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N w w W H N [r • • I I M LL I I F- 0 1 1 00 O O rr- rC- r'rrrrrC" �r-r O M O� H I I c--c- O O 00000000000 O 00CD O -t -t p N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I Z Q 1 1 N N O O In In to to In Ln in to to to Ln K1 N N N O M �O W 1 1 M M 0 M to VN in in <n t►n Ln In Ln to to M M M (DM tn o [L I I 00 Mc-MMMMMMc- w I I M MM N N c- �O �O 0 "0 �O \0 M M M M N to M rn I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I F- I NN O O O N to I Z I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 O O 0 I C O I 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000 O O 0 I OZ I titi O �NNNN�O�O�D�O�O�O ti tititi K1 f� I V I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I Q I CD 0 0 000a0000000 0 000 0 0 0 I I I 1 I I 1 w NO \O %O �D \O \O �O 10 \O \O 10 �O SO �O \D \D 10 I = I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 2 0 O CZ) I p w l 00 O O 00000000000 O 000 N O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N N Z N 1 Y Q I \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\ 3 \ \ 0-- 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 w O O H O 1 W I U I V mac- c- O�c-c-c--�c-��c-c-�CCc- 1 I Z O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 J O O 00 I Y I ►+ `� CL I Z I 00 p0 O 000000000000 Z O 000 QO 0 wo N I co1 (1 00 F-0 o z00000000000 QO 00CD F- CD 0 00 J �O Q I I > w V 0 N 1 I N = p O •• Z I 1 Z Z CL • O 1 H H OU 0 w Q N O 1 O Z I LU CD J H _l U m F- F- H H w 00 H 1 CL I z Q O N U m z J I I 0 a 0 D O N w c7 Q I LUM0 1 Ni-1- w It (nNNNNNNNNNCM CL -t wtitif` f� w00 M: H V I X:: w Z I W In In O -t Z \O \O �O �O 10 ID NO �O NO -t F- N <n to -t J to Q (n N �O I Q = I w �O �O w %0 F- \O 10 10 10 NO 10 �O %0 �O 10 %0 10 S 10 N 10 10 10 N �0 \0 1.0 w O I Z U I il. 0 0 = O N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O Z O O (D -0 '0 p 0 0 O Q I =) I 00 O O 00000000000 "0 0000 z o N O Z O N F- I w0 1 F-00 F-0 F-0 F-00000000000 CEO 0000 ►40 QO 00 N \-t Z 1 O> I w w w CC w = J - O O� I p 1 W W W W F- V CL (D M Z c- M=3 I z I N (N N N W N J =3 M Z w I w w w w H H O O w O I> I p p p p G] C] p p p p 00Q 1 I toK)N1K)K)K1MK)MN1M1 J 1 I 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 p I w I LnK)nPnP1MK)MMN1N1 lllM:u. I OU 1 N O 00 c- tn-tIt It 00 00�0 to OfQO 1 ZH 1 N 00 Ln N c-c- �t-c- K-Ln ON't0NOVn N11O O� 011 QCC I 00 1 0r-c- MO MO N�O�O1O�O10\010\0ID%0 Tto I--t00 0 00 I`Ol Kl CL C7i I p>Z I ONO 0400 NO ONNNNNNNNNNN O� c- -t-t-t 00 O-t 0 Ln N w0E- 1 ZZ 1 0O\Ol 00 0Lr% 000000000000 OM 0Lr%LnLn ON 00 OHO 0 CCw I wH 1 0N1M ON 0Orl 0O000000000CD OM OOOO ON O� 0011 O da- I > I OW1M Oc- ON 000000000000 O10 0tnLnto 0� 00 0M 0 Ln I I I p I I W I I D F- I 1 cn z 1 1 N =) I W I ix H O 1 U 1 O 1Z: I a 1 pQ 1 o I ►- z 1 I W S I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 O O O O O O rn P- O --t 00 N O 0 r- r- -t 011000 Cn M M N N O, ON I Y 1 O O O O O O w Cn o0 0 rn O O O N N Ln -t 0 0 0 -t -T It 1`- r Ln Ul U F- I I W Z 1 o O Ln Ln O O Ln u1 1 O O 1 O O r- O r• Nl o Ln Ln M "0 Ln Ln 0% 011 I S O I Ln Ln --t CV r O M M Ln Ln .t 00 N � ON 0, 0, 011 00 00 011 0% I U 0 1 c- N c- M 0� 00 N N r- Ln M N1 -t -t I Q I N I I M M 1 I O 1 I O 1 I N 1 1 \ I O I I I I � \ I i I � I O 1 I I I I W I I a 1 1 p �- I I Y I I J J W f J J J J J J J J J W I I F-F- S I 1 O o OL O O O 0 0 o O O o F- U I I F- F- m F- (n (n F- F- in F- F- F- N F- F- F- N I I H I I F- Z Ct m LLL > w W W H H w w Z M ix CL' 0� H w Ct Q' J I Z I W 0 O O O J J O o LL- O O O Q O O O �0 I O 1 p p In a. a- p p W p p W LL LU LJJ p a_ p p p J O I -L 1 J Z n. Cl- Z U Z v U V U Z W Z Z Z Q O 1 F- 1 Q W W m W O:D W > W W W Z Z Z Z W w W W (D LU > N I a 1 a > > > (n (n > (n (n > a. > N !n > Q Q Q Q > p\ 1 WH 1 a' I W W W W ZZZZ W E 0 1 F- Ix I W p W W H w p H H W W W W J CL I H V I > Z W W J F- J J F- F- F- F- v = a\ I (n I 0 LL.LL. a_N Y a s ZZzz V Z Q r I W I I fn LL. LL LL. a. Z ix a._ a. H H H H S (n p 0 1 p l J p W 00 =) 0 Q M Q Q Q Q W J W I 1 co Q U U N U a N N > Q � •• 1 I LL- F- 0 1 I O O r r ON c- O N N 00 00 -t � O H I 1 O O O N N -t O O Ln Ln 00 00 \0 o Ln I O I o I p(n I I Z Q I I I O I Ln I o I I %0 �o I I "0 Ln 1 0 I I 10 �o I I i I LKl K1 M Ln M Ln c- W t 1 O Ln O Ln in Ln t M Ln Ln -t It �t Ln Ln a I I X I I c- Ln Ln r- c- 00 O` M W I I N c- N c- Kl Ln N M 1+•1 r c- Ln c- M t I M -t Kl -t It Ln N I -t 't 't Ln 1 I I I Ln I 1 I I I I F- 1 I 0 1 I O I I N N I I N1\0 I 0 I DO DO 00 rn O 't I Z 1 O O O 00 ON O 00 000N o 0 0 1 =:)O 1 0 O 0 00 or 0 00 OOOr O O 0 1 O Z I N �t � r c- O r ti Ln Ln Ln V- O I c- I r I I v I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I a 1 o 0 o Oo oo 0 00 0000 O O 0 I I I 1 1 I I W \0 %0 10 I'0 \0 \O 10 \0 1.0 .10 NO I � 1 O 0 0 00 00 O 00 0000 O o C) o F- I p W 1 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o O 0 0 z I \F- I N N N N N (V N N N N (V N N N N N N W I U p I O O O 00 Z O O O 00 0000 O O o LU I W 1 1 S 1 c- \ \ \ \\ Q c- � a \\ c- \ \\ \\\\ \ \ \ Q 1 U 1 1 0 O 0 00 �� 000 0 V ZOo 0000 O 0 O Q I Z I (n0 O O (n00 00 o 00 o000 p0 O 0 I m I J O 0 O W o o Z O O O Z O O 0000 Z O O O > \O Q I 1 O U O O 0 v N 1 O LU l 1 a > F- a F- = O M LY I • O 1 N V Z Q N 0 1 O Z I ix Of W 0 Q O = V W .. LL_ I I W W to N H t7 Q W 00 H I d I Z CC Z F- :D W _J M: E J I 1 a I WCt: 0 1 0 H o O p r- Q W r- W V r- 00 (n z r r ► (t` r r r r r m 00 m Q r- H F- 00 W U I X: W Z I N Q Ln J �t H Ln Ln O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Z Ln J Lf) Ln LL- 0 10 I a s I W .0 M: �o (.) �o 0 %0 \0 U .o �o r� \0 S NO .o u 110 1.0 �o 10 O •o H �o � �o 0 •I z() I po =0 o Soo 00 WO (-)00 z0000 F-O QO z0 O Q I =) 1 0 00 (n0 U00 WOO p0 WOO H0000 C70 >O 00 -1 N F- I w0 1 (n0 Wo (n0 00 F-oo Zo F-00 0000 ZO QO (n0 Q \ J Z 1 0> I - Z W F- H Q p H ►- N (n Q Z O ON H I p I Z H N Z Z S ix Q Z m Z M rn I Z I Z a_ Q W C7 H O 0 O O 0 \1+•1 C'1 I W I c- X: I> 1 0 p J W X LU H LL_ ck: (D 2 S S = O(D Q I I J I I ti p •• I W I W E LL 1 0 U I Ln \O M c- � c- Ln Ln Ln in �t r w Q O 1 Z H 1 0` Ln Ln 1 00 Ln rn Ln "0 r- 011 10 r- Ln N) rn rn %0 r- N) r- Ln 00 Ln O` QCt 1 oo 1 Mo ern MO oc-� O\0Ln 1+1\0 -t ON o01%O,--t00 r- Ln V)�o CL 0; - I p> Z I N M c- 0 N M C) -t 't CD - %0 N 10 O r• 0 1- \0 r- r N N o 0 O 10 0 c- o W O F- I Z Z I O N 01 o c- O Ln Ln O S Ln O Ln 0 �o r• o c- 0', � � o r- O c- 00 r O,(V oaf 1 WH I ON 0� ON 0 10 \0 0-tN ON 0 ONO Ln \0 N0 OLn 0It 0\0 0,c- 6s a a. V I > I oc- 0c- 0� ornff) 0X-N 0 -- 0 0-t-t-t-4t 10 W O Q a_ J �O J 0 Qo > N O \ Q� 0 a_ T,-- a_ \ Q r- 0 W F- 0 H p N zQ W a_ X W 0 1 W I N Z I N � 1 Oc01 O 1 E 1 p Q I F- Z I LL Q I LLJ S I • W i 0_ O O O O OW W Ln Ln 00 O O O O O O O Ln O Ln O O O O Ln (n 00 00 O O O M 1+1 ti ti 00 O O O O O Ln0tiLn ti O O �0 %0 O O 0 00 00 O O 0 O O M Ln W O\ �o O O N N �o 10 ti ti O O O N N N N Ln O Ln ►o PO O O '0 S O N � 0 O Ln Ln `0 I0 O M rn M M ti O N to K1 � K- N1 rn M �t M ti Ln c- .o M M (V N -t -t (D z H F- -k z -x -K * * 4c H (n (n J J tY J J W W J J p J J p J J J Q Q a_ Q a W Ui a Q z Q Q z Q Q Q F- F- F- F- LL LL F- I--- O F- F- =:) F- F- F- O 0 0 O O O O LL O O LL O O 0 N F- F- w Q F- F- F- F- F- F- LJ F- F- W F- F- F- W Wp zZ w W 0' ix Z Z Of 2' " H Of F- Of M m p O O .4 W O O Q Q O U O a- O F- F- F- F- 0 a O Z O O in p Q J p p M: 0 Q p W p w 0: IY p W p O in p a_ Z Z F- Q z z Z w z o Z 0000 Z o Z L-( Z Z H W N W W V W W W W W F- W W a_ a_ a- a_ W W F- W W S > z > a- > cn > n Cl- > z > > > a_ a. a_ a_ > r > n > (n > N O >- W Q Q O F- >>>> F- H W w H 110 F- H U cU C) H N fn In N ►-� a' �"� W F- O H J (n (n J J U J m Q U er p p } H W W W W H N a_ m: F- Z a_ Z Z F- U wCk!: a_ Of V m a- LLJ H Q Ln Q Q Q H H H H Q E U O (n J J U LL LL LL LL LL LL N N M tiI` ti titi N O 00NNN 0 -t N O O 00 PO 00 O 0 00LntnLn O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 M to Ln N N M O M O �O ,0 O M �O M Ln Ln Ln Ir1 rn M N1 It M M M1 M Ln Ln Ln M1 M M 00 011 N N N 00 r' N N r M M K) r N c N N N N Ln N N I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 �p N1 N1 -t Ln M O 00 Ln Ln Ln o M Ln O 00 O 00 O O OLntnLn O O O O O 00 O 00 O O 0000 O O O Ln Ln c- I` ti ti O Ln Ln Ln Ln O N M I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I O 0 00 0 o0 0 O 000o O O O W Z 10 010 NO �0 10 �o \0 �o %0 \0 .o \O N \O F-0 "0 00 0 00 O 0 0000 O o O z0 F-O 00 O 00 O 0 0000 O O 00 WN QN NN N NN WN N F-NNNN N N =N \ a \ \\ \ \\ U \ \ a_ \\\\ \ \ W \ LL.10 00 00 cn0 00 wO O u10000 O O w0 (7 c- a_ K- c- � F- T- L U c- L U c- p c c- r Q Q\ tY\ \\ U\ U Z� Or- ��- O� :D �� c-- Q O U O 0 0 p 0 m 0 0 00 O w 0 0 0 0 O O F- O O m U O (n O 00 I= O O O O Q O LL 0 0 0 0 O O W O >-0 X:O VI) OO a-O 00 U-0 00 0000 O O Z:O V W Z Z O S W W Z F- O -1 O W > W N H Q H O W L7 O (D >- F- F- F- W a' F- W cj� N Q Z U in O Z n W v W s X: Q ►1 Z Q J J F- H W f- Z z H = W O H� Nti w00 Q-t �` o -t-t 000 �titi UI-t >�fi�t�t�t M:1010 fx�Ln ZLnLn Ln 't -t-t-.t�T w Wn � LLn O .O z �O .o H \0 O .o 10 Q 10 Q I'O Q .0 .0 \0 10 Q 10 J 10 010 O JO 000 >O U00 F-0 F-0 F-0000 X:O WO SO JO QO U00 ZO 00 z0 ZO Z0000 O L90 0 QO HO 00 WO (n00 Ho ►+0 H0000 .0 z0 (n0 Z U a' m N Q H W (:J co C3 C'i G3 W W 0 Z z ►-L a_ N 3 0 O H H Q Q Q o 0 0 -> Y Y Y J J J J J J Ln 00 O, Ln Ln Ln ON O" Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 C-O O O 0 00 ti O Ln Ln ti I` -t 0 110 N (V l N O o 0 N (` r-Ln M N N OHO O Oc- N N I ooc-T- rn MIS r-NNN N1Ln NO 00 N � -t 0 0 O PO O� 0 0% 0 3l: 3t 0 0\ N 10 c- F- N \0 0 0\ 0 � O 000 0 0T 0Nl 00\(ON Oil- ODU oN 0Ln 00>> - In.. 0Ln O� O N 00 O O N O r- O -t-t 000 OY: Z: OLn O N 0=3 O U W O N O O O\ O O r o .0 o N N 000 O J J O Il• 0 O Q Z O N O T- I 0 1 I W I I Z) F- I 1 N z I I cn M I W I W H O 1 (7 1 0 1 1 Q 1 pQ1 a I F- z I I LL Q I I W m I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I Y I I W Z I I X I I U O 1 1 � I I Q 1 I 1 I I I O 1 I O I 1 N I 1 \ I 0 1 1 � I 1 \ I � I I O 1 I 1 I I LL1 I I Q I I p 1 1 I 1 Y I I U 1 1 W 1 I 2 I I cn I I H I I J I Z I •0 1 0 1 J 0 1 I > N I d I 0\ 1 W H 1 Of 0 1 F- CC I CL CL \ I N Q 1 W O 1 p W I w •• I O W I F- O 1 H I p h I Z Q 1 L11 I d 1 X I W I I I I F- 1 Z I 0 I O Z 1 V I U I a I I I I LLI I � I p LL I \F- I Y Q I V p I W 1 2 I U 1 Y I Z I m •• Z I M I • 0 N 0 1 O z .. u.. I 00 H I a J I Q I ujm0 0 I zv N F- I Or 0 \_J Z 1 0> O 0• h4 1 p �Nl D I Z W 1 > OC7Q I J I p •• I W W M:tL 1 OU Q O 1 Z H Q� 1 OO W OF- I ZZ OC X H I W H aa.0 I > O O O O O O ON 0� O O O 0 ti I` 000 O 0�•0� 00 O 0 0000 O O O 0 c- N ti O O N N 000 O NNI`N M O 0 tn000 N N to to to to O 0 f` I` to to O O O to O to .O 0 to It 1O to to N to to 0 Q` O• to to N N N (V -t -t to ti .0 00 O W N O• 0 •0 •0 0 N ti to It .t M M N N c- c - N PO N 00 Fes- •0 N 00 to M �t O• M to M is K i� -x W 4c K 4c K F- -K Z 0' -1 O J J J J J J z F- X: F- W F- F- a F- F- F- F- Of F- F- W 0 >- O W O O O O O O M O 0 X: F- 0- F- W F- F- W F- F- F- F- F- (n F- >- w w J V) W Q 1= W 1= C7 of W CC H w OC w CL' W V1 cn !n w O LC a 0 > O Z O J O m O v O O C9 cD (7 O W W W W 0 p 0 p 0 p H p H p 0 p > p W p Z Z Z p tL W W W p Cl 0: Z Z J Z Q Z E Z V) Z CU z H H H Z u- u.. L- Z a Z Y Y Y O W W W H W w W W W Z W Z Z Z W Z W H W U U U F- > W > tL > F- > W > C7 > Q > Q Q Q > H Z Z Z > 2 > N W W W U I F- Z Z W W W H H H fn W 2 2 2 p H H W J J J p w U V V V cn Z F- J Z F- U V U Q p p p W cn cn W Q z QQQ m >zzz V) Q W Z F- W H F- F- F- J w Q Q Q Z J W O Q J Q 000 oappp W W JJJ IY U V) U m J...1J JQQQ m Na.ad M O 0 T- to to O til`ti M000 M O-�t.t It �t O O O N 000 r-000 0 �fe)PO 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I M O O• to c- N M NNN 000 M Nrnr4)p1 M ti O .t .t �t .t �t .t �t M c- c u1 rn c- N M c- to c- c- N1 c- tn -t -T Ln to NNN MMMM MPe) MM �t K1 M to u't I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I N O O M N 0 -t000 N NNNN O O O N O O 0 000 0000 0 0000 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 O O O O O M M K1 0 to to to ti O O 0 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I r- O to 0 c- c c- r- O O O O O O 0 00(D OMf+)It O 0000 c- -t c- K- to r- r- c T- 1` t` ti r- V- T- T- r- NO •O NO •D •O •0 •O •O \0 •0 10 10 •0 10 NO 10 NO •0 •O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 000 0000 0 0000 N N N N N N U N N N N N N N N tLN N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ Z \ \\\ \\\\ 0-- 0 O 0 O O 0 "0 000 0000 O 0000 \ \ \ \ cn \ \ U \ \\\ \\\\ O \ \\\\ W V)c- O O O O 0 O ix 0 O O O O O O O cn 0 0000 V) V) Q O O WO O F-0 O 0 000 0000 O 0000 O O V)0 O ZO 0 oa0 000 0000 F-0 0000 .-4 W oa Z w > W W v d W CC Z 0' W U W H r W U F- Z F- (D J F- Z H Q J Q V` J F- Z J Z 3 O Q Z Z H Q H V)00 Q00 Wti H� WN F--t0-iN w-t4-t UNNNN 00 F-00000000 to to F-tn Zit F-tn Z-t >tn Q-t-It -1 z.0%0.0•0 to JLALf%ulin .10 ..O F- .O -4 •0 Q •0 �o •O V .O .O .O Q .O .O .O 10 J 10 = .O •0 .O •O Jo LL-0 OO o <n0 QO zo Hoo0 zo0oo QO cn0000 JO U-0 mO O 0 =0 "0 =000 H0000 o-O Z0000 Q O 00 W 0 W O W O O Q O 000 LL- 0 0 0 0 H O 00000 = V) W J J W F- . U U H OC Z Q H H F- m m 0 O > Z Z H Q Q v O O O O 0 > > Q f Z to to \O -i' (VNIt ti 0 O• N N 00 V% O• •O N M to O M N 10 O` 00 .0 .O O --t 00 -t •O 00 OD N N 00 �O to O O 0 0 NO MO• MO titi NO N00 %00• NMc- N NNltntntn �0 N 1 1 1 1 O.t N.O cm 't 00• OO 01� c--t OO•O•O• ON000 Oto Ototototo 00 0•0 00 OM 00 O-t Otn ONNN 0'tMMF+'1 00 00000 0� ON 0� 00 00 O-t 00 0C'JC'JCi' 0.0•0.0•O 0� 00000 00 Or 00 0•0 Or ON 00 0-1 0KiN1N1M 00 O(ViVNN �R 00 1 1 I o I 1 w 1 I D H I I to O 1 111 I H 0 1 a 1 OQ1 ILa I I w M I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn M O O O O O O Otn0 tntntnNO to ti I Y I 000tntn00tntntntn00tntn0tn0LA0Lna 0 r- T- O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 I wZ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . OOOCmwa n(\I"',1l-0ON(VtnN01,01`0 to N N to to I`rn r- tr N N1�1�-,LA OM It0Otl- M -T I =O I tnLninc-000N%0(14 a, �LnNNo�oT- LriMNO% O 00 00 O` Is Il- MOONMI` N 14l c-000�D 00 1 UO 1 Itl`Itrn00MNtn tntnNM M-t00M ON -4 I Q I c-N N N M Ol I 1 I I N I 1 O 1 1 O 1 1 N I I \ 1 O 1 I I 1 � \ I I I � O I I I I W I I I I F- I I I In Y I 1 I J J W LU J J Q U I 1 Q ~ Q F- W Q ~ Q ~ ~ L LI I I O O 0 O O 0 = I I F- F- ~ (n I 1 Ct CL' J or d' H I I O 0 ►-1 O J J J J J -1O 0 J I Z I p o u.. 0 000000 0 J O 1 O I Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Z Z Z cl C= w w= w Z Y Y Y Y Y Z w QO 1 F- I UUUUU(JUU W (n LU > u_. 0 LU > F- F-F-F-HF- Z Z Z Z Z Z W > UUUUU W W W W W > > N I CL I W W W W W W W W (n (n (n (n (n (n Cn V) (n (n (n (n (n (n W > W 000000 =____ 0--- 1 W H I =______= W W W W W W W W W W W W W H n UuUUUU UCJ UUU w0 1 F-CL' 1 UUUUUUUUCJUUUU(>UU(JUUUUU d r I ►A U I H H H H H H H H H H H H ►i H >>.>> J Z O F- F-F-F-HF- ZZZZZ d� Qc- 1 N 1 I W 1 ZZZZZZZZ:> a- NNtn NInN QQQQQ J J J J J 0 1 0 1 J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LJ W W W W LLJ W CL CL CL CL CL CL d d CL d d W 1 I Cl d Ct d Ct CL CL CL (n N (n N (n N (n In (n N N (n N N (n Q' � •. 1 I O tL F-0 1 I I 1 ��1��000000001`1-1-1`1� � O 000000� H 1 I r4)rnnNOV)V)r4)+1O00000 O O 1 NNNN(Vtn 11 1 1 1 1 MMMMM I I 1 1 1 n N zQ I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l t l l l l n pn r4) 14) V) K) rn C\iC\j .NCVNNtntntntntn 1 to Ol NNNNNrn MMMMM MMMMM W 1 I Ir1MMMt+1Pe) K)MMK)K1�t WIMMMMN1MK11+114) �t 0 -t�t�t�t�t X w I I MK)N1K) Pr) rnN1rntotototototototototototototo to to to tor-v- M MMMMM I 1 tntntntntntntntntntntntntntn to N1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NNNNNNNNtnNMMtn I O NN-T0000tn NNNNN 00000 I Z 1 OOOOOOOOONNNNMM-tIt�t-4tntntn O` 0 O 000000 000000 00000 I 00 I 00000a001`Il-f-1-1`I-I-I`I`1`1`1-1`fl- \O 110 MMMtntnr- I O Z 1 ti1`rl-1`1-i`I`1-c-r-�r�c-c-�c-��c-� I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 v I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Q 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 1 I I I 1 w I \O \D �O \0 \0 �D \0 �o \0 \0 \D �o �O �D 10 �o �o \D \0 10 \0 \D �O �O \O \O \O (D \O �O �O CD I Z3 1 O O.O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O OO I I o W 1 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I \F- I NNNNNNNCM... VNNNNN...C\i N N NNNNNN NNNNN I Y Q I \\\\\\\�\\\\�\\\\\\�\\ \ O O O O O O O O O O O I U o l O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I w I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000 I Y I Z I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U Z O O O O O O O 00000 I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O �p Q I I z 0 N N H I I U H LU Z I I Z ~ H r U M = 1 O 1 ►-� N 0 1 O Z I < Z = 00 W I I H I d I (D Z O W w w Q Q I W w O 1 F- 00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w It O M -t to t to -t w 00 00 00 CD 00 U I = W Z I J In to Ln In to o to to to to to to to to ui tto to to to to to to O --t w \0 � �t 't -i 't 't 't U \0 \0 W ►n to to to to �D �0 �0 0 10 1 Q 2 I D 1.0 \0 \0 \0 \0 I-0 \0 \0 �0 \0 \0 \0 1.0 110 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 U \0 0-\0 O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 �I Z U 1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Z O O O O 000000 (D00000 C` O Q I M I F- I CC 0 1 z0000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl (D0 H O 00 cr O O O O O O Cl Z O O O O O W N \JZ 1 0> I U a w Z W O 1 o I 3 0- (n w J O m c- rn I Z 1 H LUH O CC U W 1 Q Z Z Z Z O c- Z I> I Z coQ 0 0(D< I I MONOI,tn-tNl`M 000�0r-N J I I 'trnV)ff1MM 1 00NNN00� NNK1N1N1 1A� LU W I 1 OU 1 1 M N1 K1 K1 rn M N1 O�c--�c-c-��MM to NM M M Or N O -It l`Nr-M �D o000000 �t w < 0 1 =" I tn0000000000000000000000 1`tn %000\0*,1`�c- 000wol0`O`O` �D I I I I I O`►ntotototo N QCx CL0U I OO I - 1 o>z 1 Mil I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 0 Lntntntntntnintntntntntntntntntntntntntntntn 1`00 V-O� NO �O', Or-c-r-�� K-00000 0 1 1 1 1 N 0 LuOF- I ZZ I 00000000000000000000000 00 00 - OOOwwwo0o0 OHO 10 \D �o I'D 1 ONNNNN O cc=H I LU 1 00000000000000000000000 N OM 0-It 0 00 ODD\D CL dU I> I O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N.. N N N rn J J 0 QO > N 0--- Of 0 CL v-- a_ \ Q� 0 W Cr :D tL. F- O H p N Z ¢ W a. X L1J ID Q N -4 .• z rn cl: N O tL OC) F-4 Q U 10 0 O Q N F- \J Z O 01 H c- M C) J p .. W Eu.. �Q0 Q CY a Q WOF- = w H an.0 F- Z M O O z U U • O O Z CL 1 LLI Of 0 1 M: W Z IQx 1 z U I � I w O I O > I p I Z I W I > rn't(n� M ��ON 0, O O 000 O �ti 00 �t0 .t O O 000 O O 0 0 't -t \0 \O M O Ln �O Ln � \O 0 1- O O -�t 0 0 -t M O M Ln 0 LA W 00 Ln O Ln O O 0 M N '0 I- Ln 0 (n O O O \O (n -t Ln in 0 (n O Q` 0% N N Ln �o N Ln uIt O 0 c- -t -t M M N N c- \0 O O N1 f+l 00 to O It -t c+l N to In (n 1` Ln cn M M T- � T- r- (n M 00 rn Pn 10c- ON 00 ti r- � K1 (D (U Z Z N HH(n W I- F- W H Z Z r O O N ti ti ti 0000 I I I I %0 in cn in Ln N) M M M(nLnLA It LA Ln LA I I I I N -t -t -t O as 0� O� O �o \0 �O O O O O ��'t� r r r r O O O O U x CL Q 0� 0\ IT 0` 01% (, Ln In In In O 10 10 1�0 NO =0000 a 0 0 0 0 W O O O O GY co U O cV cnu1V--00 Ncnr--',Otn 0 00 -t 00 00 OO`000%a, OOT-00 K 4c * jc k J J J J J J F- a a ¢ F- F- F- Z Z Z F-- F- F- O O O W W W O O 0 F- F- F- X: F- F- F- ce w Q¢Q w 0: 0 O O man o 0 0 p p p p p p Z Z Z w w w Z Z Z W W W 000 W W W > (n (n N > N > F- F- F- > cn (n > N N > W W W W U U U W W W W J J J H w e r- L' H H J J a_ a. Cl-> F- F- F- > > a_ 0- 0- CL 0- m (n (n (n w W a. CL =:) =:) Z) W Z Z Z W W (nNN N HHH Nfn NN t- �c- O MMM c-c-- NN O O O It 00 1 1 cn cn 1 1 I I I I I I I \0 1.0 Ln In to M M M M M1 M in (n MMM c-c-� K1M c- \0 Ln to (n lln in 1 1 11 1 I O I I I NNM I I NN -ttn O O O c- O O O O O O O O O O t` O O O O O 00 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O O F- Z ui NO �o NO NO p NO NOD \0 \0 1010 O O O O Z O O O O O 00 000 O W O O O 00 00 NNN vN CLNNN NN NN \\\ Z \ w \\\ \\ \\ 000 ►+0 p000 p00 00 W r-�c- o O O -10 W 0 0 0 U 0 0 O O F- > H 000 =:)O =000 Cr00 OO 000 L.)0 W000 00 00 cn I oa W v> w W v a H H ¢ LL O H F- U F- U 1 O 0 N0 \0 Ln Q Ln IL O O O N \0 N N ti ti a .0 �o t Cl- -t H \0 �o 'O (n \0 \O 0- Ln to u,.o \O \0 �o x .0 \0 \O ¢ .0 10 =) �o �o 0 0 0 0 p 0 N O O O 00 Y 0 0 000 zo U�Ooo oaoo U00 W000 ¢O W000 00 ►-400 U J Z a. H F- u.r- W fx: F- u-000 > Q W W n000 0 a- a. Cr W F- Q 3 0% N I �O I N O O S O \0 O O N \ O W 0 Z O Q O z H (L F- Q 3 O W .0 w O O CL O H cn 2 d_ J J J J ¢ ¢ ¢ cn a F- F- I- p F- O O O O zF- Q 3 CY J ix Q O CL O a- O o Cl W W p H p J p Z U Z U Z Z d Z 111 Z O Z LLI Q LLJ X: (11 > ¢ H ¢ > W > W > ZF-Z I W U W J W F- W F- ¢ Z ♦- Z F- C% H O H Z Q ¢ixQ W J f a_ M: Cr CL \p \p c- 011 O I I 1 1 1 PK1 M M Ln Ln V1 (n M to (rn �1 I I I I N N N 1 M O O O N O OOO I` 0 I l t I I 0 0 0 O O NO %0 10 O O O O O 000 O O N N N N N O O O O O r r r r r r r r O O O r O r O O O O O 0 000 O O U Z WtotoLn 3 -t 't It O 10 �o �o CO000 000 >-000 W Z F- d �o NO Nt -t � 'O �o c ti NO Ln O 't In to 0 000 N1 0 0� 00 N 11 Nl (n ONNuI � 00 N Mc-c- 1nr-c- MHO NUllfn(n or- 00 O 01.0 NO N I 1 OMM NM �'-J'-T 000001l- Or OO(DO 000 00000 0-4 0000 O�c-T Ocn 000Z:)00 000 00000 0011 0K1N1M O N1 1Kl t+1 00 O 10 Q \0 O in (n O N N O I` O Ln Ln in LA N -It J O 0-0 O CC W 3 O a. in O N 011 CL In 0 00 N 0 LA 00 O pe) O c- v z H N n w 0` Q to 3 \O ¢o 0 cn 0 alf 3 O a. cV O 00 It O N 0110 O OK 000 0 \ O J �O J 0 Q O > N 0-- w 0 d � LL \ ¢ c- 0 W LL F- O H p N Z Q w d X W 0 0 a N F- \J Z O ON � � M \M c O(DC p.. W £ LL mac d(7> W O F w ww a- CL C- I I i p 1 I w I 1 D F- I I N Z I I N O I I � ►-4 0 1 1 O 1 £ I 1 p Q I 1 F- z I I LL. Q I I W = I F- Z 0 0 z v U a • 0 O Z �N�o�OMI`N ti O O O O O 0 00 0 00 0 (nr4)W0�t�0000-t O O 0 c W0W0Na0 O% O O O O O O 00 O LA Ln O OWN %Dtn-to\O-t"D �t O O 0't00-t00r4)-t M O O 0 0 �o \D c-0 �0N1100'0�tn00�t O O O �O%N%D�tI`0, O O M M O O PO-t ti O`er W ON MO\OON1-tN-tll- \D O 0 N M O 0 It It NO �D c- c- \O (n � O�"O ti O` ti Ln Ln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O r- tic- �O N I` ti 0 to N tnc-'tNM� �� M N u%Ln 00 O� \ 4c 4c 4c -0 -Fc -F( -K k 0 V- J J J J J J J J Q a a a v> (n a a a a F- w F- F- H _ z zF- 0 (D 0 0 O 00 O O 0 p 0 F- a F- ►- F- H H H F- F- z F- F- F- F- O (n 0� F- of w a s 0� w w LL O O O Z O O J J O O O W 0 p d p H p Cl 00 Cl p p w in Z Z Q Z Z H H Z Z Z Z W W W £ W (n W >> W W w IL w (n N to (n (n (n (n > p > > z > > > (n w (n w (n (n (n (n (n (n > w > LU w w wLIJW W H O 007 W W W WwW wW Ww p H H H H H H H 3 W H Z Z U V V U U U V U U U a a a a Cl- a a r w Q Y Y (n (n >>>>>>>>>> J adadaa(L F- w F- wCY aCL ww=wwwwwww w m= m 0 0 0 H 3 H Q Q Q Q w w w W W W w W w W �4 (n (n (n (n (n w (n U (n U d d £ £ (n !n to N (n (n (n <n (n (n LL- 0, N -.test mac- r- re) -tNas0MVnl-tn O 000000 M c- 00 00 000Nc-Nc-�ON 0 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 K1 N1�O N11O M -t K1 K1 .O .o �O �O �O .O 10 �O 10 O LnVILninMMtn Ln M MM Lntn t4)rnrnMIle) MMMNIM rn VI\0* UNc- �t �t�t �tM �c-��c-�c-� 00 (n(nc-NfVNM r N NN N\0 NNNNCVN(VNNN N l! 1 N I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l I 'D-t-tN N O .t mac- NN -t.t-t--tItIt O 0000ul(n0 O O O 00 00 (n(n(n(n(nLnLnLALn(n O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O 0 N1 M d' Ln Ln to ti 0 vi Lr% to to 110 Ln trn in in to (n in in Ljr) U'1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I t l l l l l l l l I 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 O O O o 0 00 O O O O O O O O O O 0 10 �o *10 �o �o �o %0 �O \O W NO %O 0 10 \O NO .O �o \0 %o .O •D \O •D •D 0000000 O O O J O O <n O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0000000 O O O J 0 0 (/) O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 N N N N N N N (V N N O N N W N N N N N N N N N N N N N \\\\\\\ \ \ \ ix \\ N \\ F- \\\\\\\\\\ \ 0000000 O O O F-00 (n00 IL0000000000 0 Qcn \\\\\\\ \ W \ \ O \\ \\ p \\\\\\\\\\ \ W UL c-V-- r-T-c-t-�c-�c-�� U 0000000 O ►-a0 O 1 00 000 (n0000000000 O �+ > w LL- > O O O O O O O 0 w 0 O 000 w 0 0 u..O O O O O O O O O O 0 w 0000000 0 w 0 O F- O O v 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w LU (n U H = Z p LL W F- F H :D LL = Z Q 0 (n Z F- W (n H W Z £ F- r r r U D IL tY F- F- F- W Q 0 H W Z Z Z LLI _jtnO�O',rnO�Or, Ln UI` =:)0� n.ti UI`ti U0110` Utititititil`titititi Q` Z �o 10 \10 �O �o .O .o Q 10 w �o w .o w .O .O w 10 �o w \O .o .O \O 10 ID 10 .O NO .O Y .O (D 00000000 O O 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ►-(0 Z Z0000000 w0 00 w0 H00 -400 ►-10000000000 mO w H0000000 >0 w0 nO (n00 N00 (n0000000000 0 w Z w w CC . Z Z W ►4 W W W W W O H (n F- > > > > 3 X W W W O Q N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O M J 00 In N0000000000 00 'TItr".n-t Nun to 00 00(n(n Ln �0000000000 0(nl`I-ON(/'nN� MO N O 000 N .t0000000000 OIL 0WW-41`I-0ll00 000 O 0011 0-It re) 0011OS 00000000000 0 ONNNNN.. ON O 0't ONN ONN 00000000000 O11D O O(n(nLr)Lf) VNVNLr) ON 0 ON 00OtK1N1 OS=S2====== ON 0 00000000 C) 000 ON O0LALn O<n(n(nww(n(n(n(nN O0 ` r I I r I o I I W I 1 N Z I I (n = 1 W I W " O I C7 I 01 M: 1 a I oQl I u- Q I I lL = I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 0000000000000000000 O N N rnr-M0 N to to in O O O O O0 I Y I 00oLn000000000000n 000 Ln (n (r%O-.tl` ON O O O O O O �0 0 1 U H 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 W Z I 00ONOOtnO(nOLnO(n►nOOln00 N 00 00 r�0(V\0 NO r r O O O O 1-0(V(V I = I O (n 't M lfn -t ti ti r tln r ON 'O ti Kl In \0 0 00 0� In (n N 0 00 ti 00 N N In (n 01% D` N I UO 1 1`M00MMrr 0MO-t�Orin0�OrN1 r N N r N r r N I I r I I 1 10 1 I O 1 I O I I N I 1 \ I O 1 I r I I \ I r I I O I 1 I I •• I I w I I H I I Q I I I I Y I I J J J J J J U I I Q Q Q Q Q Q W I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 I I O O 0 O O 0 H v I I F ~ F- X: ~ ~ ~ (n I I W H I I ~ ix J 1 Z I O O O N O O O o 0 0 > o N in W o J O 11 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Z Z Z N Z W Z U Z Q O 1 F- I U U U U v U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W W W W = W Z W > N I a I W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W > N > (n N (n fn > N > in > Q > (n (n (n (n 0-- 1 W H I = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = W W W W W (n z W W W W Ix 0 1 H cr I U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U H H H H H W J W H H H H a.r I HU I J JJJJ J Q F- JJJJ a\ I N I Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a_ a. a. a. a. W = Z a. n_ a a. Qr I W I QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ< a_ CLa.a.a. Z ►+ a.a_a.a. O I m 1 _1JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ = ___= Q =___ W 1 I a. a_ a. a. a_ a. a. a_ a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. n_ (n (n (n (n (n 3 Q (n (n cn (n W •• I I = W I 1 HO I I 000000000000000000a000a0W00a0a00000a0 O\ NNNN ti M 00 rrrr H 1 I NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNN tfl(nlfn(n O 0 00 0000 O N I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 ZQ I I MMMMMMMMMMMMPe) MMMMMPr) \O �O\0\0�O N M M \0�O\0\0 W I 1 M M K1 ►() N1 1+1 M IM N'1 M N1 K) K) N1 M N1 W'1 N1 1e1 to (n In In Ln ti In W% In In In Cl r O\ rlfl In In W I I NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN M Pe) N1MK) r to r r�-rr I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I N I NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N1 -4-It ItIt 00 r 00 I Z I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 I = 0 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O Z I In to to to to in to Ln in to to In In Ln to In In In In Ul K1 to N It I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I 1 1 W I �O �O 10 %O 10 �O �O \O \O \O 10 \O \D �O �O 10 10 �O �O \O �O %D �O 10 10 �O �O \O I = I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 O O O 0000 I o w I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N J N N N N N N I U o l 0000000000000000000 O 0000 0 a O O 0000 1 W I (n r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H r r W r r r r 1 2 I W \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \ U \ \ (D \\\\ I U I U r r r r r r r r r r r c- r r r c- r r r r r r r H r r Q I I H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O Z O O I- 0 0 0 0 I Y I > 0 U Z 1 Z I w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L.)0000 0 MC) Z O 0 0 0 0 0 I In I w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Cl O O H O > 0 0 0 0 �O a I 1 N N ►{ t I -j �' a W a. z z M I • O 1 Z a_ O H N N 0 1 O Z I (n = U 0 CO (n .. ti I I w W (n W 00 H I a 1 W E H H = Z J I I W Q Q I WIYO 1 ZNtitititititiNr-r-tir-titiNtitititi O\ 0\0\0`O\ WOE Qi` a- NO�I-OO U I M W z I H It It It It It It It -t --t -t -t �t -t 't It It 't 't 't In W to to In to U (n U �t �t = In �t 10 -.0 �O I Q S 1 (7 10 �O �O 10 �O �O 10 �O 10 10 10 10 �O �O �O 10 10 �O 10 1�0 CL 10 10 10 10 Q 10 10 [O 10 10 10 10 O I Z v I Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O 0 Z O (n O O O O O O Q 1 O I W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O CL O O O O H O Ct 0 W O N O O O O (V 1- I wO 1 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOO O WO 30 w0000 \J Z 1 0> 1 Z z = 4=1 _ = J I o 1 O O H r M= I Z I X \M O I W I Q H O O O F- r I > I (n (n (n (n (n (n (n O U Q I I Z Z N I` 00 0\ H H I`ri't00 J I I 1 1 \ONOr p •• I W 1 W £ LL- I O U Mtn Ln r ON to �O 00 In 00 t` O� -t t` w<0 1 ZH 1 r 00 �O(nIttnM 0,\0 O,r -t �O -t-tin0't Qw 1 00 1 rONMN�OtnO-4Nrn MOc-rin--?0,�Om ` 0-t -t�O�OtnLn N't M-t SON OVIO"r0� a.(D 1 0>Z 1 010NI`I`1-00\0�O10�O1-00N\0I-f-N0NI` ON 00l001-r- rN rl+) 0\0 0Nrn-tK1 o 00 0 WOF- 1 ZZ I OMN1pnK)rnK1MK)rnmV)mmmrnMK1MN1 0(n 00N0�0�0N 00 ON Or (D, w= I Uj" I ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 00 O-t-t-t-t 0Ln 00 O't 0 a_aU I > 1 0LnLn(ninLnLn(ninLnin(nLnLn(nin(nLn(nin 000 Orrrr 00 00 03 0MMMM J %0 J O Q 0 > N 0--- w O d CL \ Q r O W LL- 0 H n fn Z Q W CL X W �O Q N t- •• Z M � N c •• LL a L 0 0 a N F- \J Z O O11- � M = \rn c O(Da p.. LLI M: LL mac Q � CL (D > uw O F• CC = - CL CL L • O O Z CL .0 Of 0 Z Lu Z 4 S Z v or O O > 0 z w I t'-00NMcnt`tn00�M�MON (>O O ON O\ M0 00 N N 00 O O 0 000 MCVtoWr--tc-I`M1`O,tMON to O O -t 1t 00� O` O 0 00 O O O N N N N 000 I- to 'O I�- �O 'O N t- 0% I- 00 Ln � t- O I- 0� N V 1 ll- O O O 0 O O O Ln 1 M O It 011 NI M 't M M N N N c- M "O N M `0 -4 � 't r Ln O 0 ON all N 0*1 N V) r \O O O O 0 O, Ol 00 N O It -t 00 011 N N � �c jc K K k K is a a a a a a z a F- F- F- F- F- F- F- O O O O O O t+- O F- F- F- F- F- F- W F- CC V cn w 0 > O 3 O O O O d O O o N o Q 0 0 o W o w W W W \ W W (n W > W W N to U) V) w=cn N (n U)w ww > CL > N > cn (n > U > UN > >- > W W W W LU Lli W LU W W W W LU Q LLJ LU LL) > > F- HHHH"F-►-IH HHHHHH u Cl H• 4 to cn= �q .J J J J J H J J J J J J J J cn O J J F- J d d CL CL CL O CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL in U CL CL V S V) ►i CL CL CL CL CL W CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL Z CL CL O U Z U »»> CI`»»»» a a » W O a cn cn an cn cn U N N (n cn to fn cn <n J CU N N Cl F- V LL. c-O��r'�c-T-c-��N -t �o 00 O -t -t O ON1000000000000 O O -t En r 00 O 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 \0 �O �O NO �O NO \O %0 \O \O �O \0 -t M NO %0 cV 0 Ln to to to to in to to Ln Ln Ln to in W) M to to to M M M N1 vlul-t�t�t�t�i MMMMc - - 00 �c-NCVNNMI�o�o\O�OMMKI M MM rn Lr%tn N i l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I i t I I I I Ln c- MM N MOB O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O N M 0 00000000000000 O O 00 O O �t .t to Ln to to Ln \0 \0 �O "O N ti t- N O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 0 �c-r-��T-c-rc-c--T-c-r- c- c- r-� It -t V- \0\0101010.10\010\010\0\0\0\0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .............. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 00000000000000 c- F- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q N W z F-1 cnaO"t`I-O-tt�l`f- cn %O "o li t -t -t Ln -t -t 10 \D t -t .t m 10 �O %O �O \0 1.0 �O �O \0 \O 10 \0 *10 �O 00000000000000 cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J a a F- N f`o0�NtiMU'NG`N1ONW tl,- cn -ttn-t'0-�\O--t'O O rn I` t` 1` tl- tl- N t` N1 K) Il- �O I` 00-4, NNI`I`01`N�r-NOON 'TC) 0%O\00I`00"V- (ON NON 0�rn'O�OONON(7,ON\0fe)rn�Ot-�0 O�t�MN1MN1MM1+l�c-Pe) K)K) O �O �O 10 �O 110 10 \O NO �O �o �O 10 10 %0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OrnMKiKire) N1N1KiMNiMN1 rn V) �O �O 10 �0 10 J 10 %0 NO O O 00 O "00 O O O 00 O > 0 0 O V N N cV N N •-4 N N N HO O 00 O 00 O (n WO O 00 O wC)0 0 O QO O VOO L)0 >-Oo O HO O ZOO ZO u100 O U H H > O V) N N V) W CC cn Q o w a Q W 0 H oa U z z S Q F- F- O� cn 011 Ol O� C7 011 J O\ 011 z ti to W to Ce to to Z to Ln Ln \O 3 10 Q %O .O W �O W �O 10 V .D co 0 1000 O F-00 O O Z O 00 X O Q O O �o ZO 00 z00 WO F-00 CYO W cn - LL. (n W > g N W Y W O CL Q H CJ F- S O ix V) F-F- 00 00 � D` 00 ti O 1` 00 ti 0 r 0 to 00 � Lr) trn f� Mgt tnr+l OMc- O O Mgt NM c--t OON O 001100 NCO 01 O O O I` I` O O 01 ti 0 cn 0-4 0c OI-ti OO Otncn ON Ocn 000 Oa,O\ ON O-t�t O� 00 Ln I \O Ln M t M O O N- C) %O O 0 N V \ Z O H r cn O LLI 3 0 S O F- CC O Z V) J a F- o Z %O W 10 CC O O o O W F- H Z � Z:)O O I N M � rn 00 ON N O M O 1+1 O K1 O Lr% N 't c- K1 M N �O MOON 000V-- O-c- N d�� M 1 I I W I I In Z I I to D I LLJ I W"O I C7 1 01 X I a I oat I F- z I I U- Q I 1 LLJ = I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I Y I 1 U F- I I W Z 1 I S M I t V O I 1 � I I Q 1 1 I I I I � I I O 1 I O I I N I I \ I I O I 1 � I 1 \ I V- C) I I I 1 •• I I W I I F- 1 I a I I o I I I 1 Y I I V I 1 ui I 1 S 1 I In I I H I I -i I Z I �O 1 0 1 J O I ►� I Q O > N I X: IL 1 0 \ I LLJ 0:�0 1 d \ I <n I a 1 uJ 1 O I I W I I W •. 1 I O L 1 I F- 0 1 I H I I Z Q I i IL I I d 1 I X I 1 W I I I I I I I F- I I Z I I Z3 O 1 I O Z I I V I I U I I Q I I 1 I 1 I I I I LU I 1 � I I o w I I Y Q I I W I I S I 1 U 1 1 I Y I I Z I I m I N H 1 I •• Z I I Kl I • O 1 N 0 1 O Z I .• IL I I 00 H I IL I J I I Q I LLJWO 1 v I M w Z I •o I a x I 0 1 Z U I O Q I D I Y N F- 1 W 0 I Z \JZ I 0> I Q O 0` H I n I m V-- 1+1 M I Z I \M Ci I W I In C) Q) 1 1 J I I 0 •• I LLJ I ui LL_ I O U I IT orQ0 1 ZH 1 Ol Q CC 1 00 1 M CL0 1 o>Z I 0 LLJ OF- I ZZ I O = w H 1 ui H I 0 IL IL U I > I O In O O 0 0 V- r- O O 00 0 �t -4 ti ti O O 0 0 00 O O O 0 In In O O 00 O O 0 10 �O 0 O O 0 ,O a0 a0 O O f,- f- O, 0` 00 0 w w It O O O 0 r- •O It 00 O (V N N N r- t- Ln Lr) 00 c- 00 M 'T -4 N N I I O O -t O CO O �00 00 a` 0 �D 00 00 011 incn K W x N K is �t �t w 4c K K K U * K M K K K aL O -K J J J J J J J ul J J Q J J !n -C Q Q F Q Q Q Q Q In Q Q O Q Q LLJ -K F- F- ►-4 F- F- F F- F- Q F- In F- J I•- F- IY is O 0 = O O O O 0 m O W 0 mt 00 F- F- 1= F- F- F- F- F- F- v F- Z F- F- H uJ to W H 0 d' Of C- w W IL' Of Ix W of > Of H !r 0 n O N O I 0 �4 O Z O J J O 0 ►-I 0 O F- O W Z -K n LL I 0 F- 0 J n 0 n Q Q 0 0 IL m LLJ 0 Q 0=) LLJ -C Z U Z Z Z IZ Z H Z F- F- Z Z O Z In z F- Z (n a. * W H W W W IL W F- W Z Z W W V W W H LLJ !n X -K > > > E > = > IL > W W > In > > F- > V > H W -C w In H w Ix W J U -K W Q Q' H Q Q J K In d F- U W W J F- Olf Z Z Q Z fn Z Z tL H F- O Q F- 'K n w 03 a s IL IL x 0 -c Q > a O O ►-I 0 w F- is W 0 V) U U (n L) J Q I` 0 �O t- K- In 00 0 O 0 .t 0 00 N N O 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F N N N1 N1 In In c- M N1 r- M 00 -t .t 0 0 Z M N M c- In In �t Q c- -4 c- r In In c- r N In IZ' �t M In In In Nt r M C7 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 14- O O N MM N N N 0 O O O O N N O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O I I I I 1 1 I I I I O O 0 O 00 O O O 0 c- In c- -t 't � r r- c-- 1O 10 \O NO \O 110 \O \O \0 10 O O O O Cl O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 N N N (V N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ O O O O O O O O O 0 Z r-- LLJ O O W O 0 �-+ 00 O O O 0 S Z: M F-0 O ILO O WOO O �0 UO 0 O O HO O VOO 0 -.t0 >0 0 . H ti N Cl- C'i > (n '...I LLJ C7 x LLJ O 0 Z N y Q H H S of LLJ w v Q w = Z W z F- LLJ n- F-0 3r- Qc-c- Q� 0-t ZWI` �O NO O %O �O �O 3 �O IZ �O H �O In It a .O �O a 10 In .O v .o 10 �O Ir 10 CD �O 010 ILO O 0 -0 00 v>0 00 z0 0 O O ZO =0 WOO (n0 c.)O WO 0 r0 O w0 w0 - 00 w0 0 0 .0 W W J W J X C7 In J F- ui F- W O Z Q J V (n LLI H w = J Q U LLJ = = H W O N > > 3 3 3 3 X In In 0 00 Nl O 01% 00 N M rn .O to c- M Nl O Ol In O In \O 00 \O �O Ln 00 .t In -tN MO r- V-- N MNN r- r- ON NN MO O N 00 N In N O N 1-1` 0 \0 010 O N (V ON O V ON 00 0� ONN 001, O't O 1 ON O W ON 01- 01- 000 0't 0�- Out CD 0 o 0 c- O X 0 � 0 � r- O M 00 00 0 1` f+1 1 I O to I I \ 1 Y J I •D I U Q I O I LU F- I O 1 = O 1 LUNof I UF- O w I Q fn I O_ M: I p =) I O Z I H 1 Cl� F- I w of I Cl- O 1 a_ I �. (> w I F- z Z Of I Z H H 1 73 Q F- 1 O H Z 1 E w O I Q O I \ U I W U V I U N a IzH 1 Q p 1 F- I F- LL 1 H O I � I ui H I W LU I Z I � I 1 1 1 I I � 1 111 I CO I H I Z � 1 � Z 1 O I U Y I U Z 1 Q Q I m 1 1 >- I co I tr I lu I F- I N I H 1 0 I W I W 1 I Y I v I w LLl I H = I Q U I p I LLJ 1 J I m I Q I >- 1 00 a I •z a I O- I N I H 1 Z I � I w O 1 = O U 1 U Z U I � Q I O I > I 1 I 1 I I I I I I Q I N Z I O W cr I p O O Y I Z Q vl LLZ I wZ H Q I > J CO I Q I U O I (7 I 10 .� I O Q Q I O F- LL I N J Z I \�O H (n I or Lf) --T = J 1 O OK1QJ I p0 \m W I Z Z r- (D Q 3 I w O J 1 > p •• I u.l M: u. O I w < O O i Q Or I Y O_ (7 >- Y 1 U w0E-z I w0 mo:HQ I =z d C-U co I U O O --t O p p p p O 00 O w w w w ' p p p o ti M N O H H H H 00 N1 K- O O O O Ol N M 00 O O O O Ln ul ti M M 00 000 00 00 00 00 .t.t 00 0%01-N-tNa,100% Ln Ln 00000000 00 00 .40.t 00 00 �o 10 00 ww 00 OI��NON LntA 00000000 00 vein �O-t0 00 00 r� MM NN 00 cn 00 N.O.t 00 ►n 0000 1l- N- 00Ln in in to in in In v\ MM MOON v\En Ln LA 0000 K)K) .tit ter- 0M00%K),Ov10 mac- 0LnNNNNNil- rn PO c- V) N1 c- c- C� D` N N N1 M -4 ti 00 M M N N 00 � r- M K)W) .t .t c- 0 r- c- �c--4r--4�00r- O T-��t-c--� r- O O 0 0 O 0O00vlv1100 O 0000000 O 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I ( I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I K1 re) PO O O N ►n r- cnc-��OOOcn 0 M M M 00 o0 rn .t In vl .t -t -t .t .t .t .t .t O Ln Ln to Ln In vl vl In vl vl � � � c- c- c- � c- c- M c- to 't M r vl vl vl v\ Ln M ►n � Ln 1+•1 N) Pn M rn M v\ NO � � c- � cV �O M �t .t .t .t .t .t .t Ln -t .t .t .t d In M I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I N NM .t .t .t ti r- r MM-t.tvlvltnM O O 00 O O O M O O N O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 0 1` O O 1`0000001l- 0 0000000 O M rn rn M N1 � -4 .t V I` 1- 1l- 1- 1` 1` 0 c- � N .t in 10 11- 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I K- c- O O O O O O 0 O O 00000000 O 0000000 O �t vl vl vl vl 110 10 \0 `O 10 1 \0 %0 \0 NO NO 10 �o \O �O O 00 O O O O O O 00000000 0 a0a0000 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000000 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cV N N N N N N N N \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\ \ M M ON ►) �O �O \0 �o �O NO �O 10 \0 �O �O NO \0 10 �O NO \0 �O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\ \ O 0 0 c c- O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0% 000 N 00 Ol M O Q` D` O� O� 0� 011 a, Ol OK O1 0% 0% O% 0% O` O� O1 O O\ r- Ln -t Ln ►n .t .t .t .t -.t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t 0% Ln Ln (n U**, �0 �0 �0 \0 NO \0 SO NO \0 �O 10 \0 \0 %0 \0 \0 O ti t` O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p w E w w Ca N U O > > of w O_' w (7 H p H > V uj w cn cn I- Q Z H Z m w LL O w w 3 N O N LL- rL LL O H w W 0 Q Q w = Q Z m m >- O O 0: J Z () w Q H F- F- co H m H J Q LL O 2 O H > = H > --'> w U V H H F- _ (n cn F- F- J w w J J F- Q w w Z Z J Z: w Q Q Z w w W Z z H O H O w = F- O: Z O '-1 Z w H O H F- F- Cr U Q U Q w w 0 � w d= Q Q Q Q Q O a w J Q O LL o F- z Q 4_ O_ J J U p LL (D H H J 00 00 M M 00 00 t` N ti N 10 N NO O` 1` to 00 MI N M M M N N N N N -K N M .t cn \0 r- N � \0 ti M M M N1 Nl N1 ro ~ M a O N O r4) N .t NO ti \0 N NO ti NO ti \0 ti "O \0 NO �O 10 110 \0 10 �O \O `0 `D �O N I` Ml 0 In �o 0 0 W N w (7 W Q m a_ E 0 O z H O� F- W Q' Q. O Q. (7 w Z Of w W CD £ Z Y Z Q co m 0Y W F- V) H W Y W U lir J [fl a r a IL (N F- Z 0 v v a 110 .I O Q O F- 1 N J z \�oHi Ln -t O . 0V)a \£ I Q: O J p W £ W I ce Q O I Q Ir Q(D>: W OF-: w w H Q.Q.UI I F- z I Z ►-1 1 � Q I £ W I Q � I \ W U I U !N I Z H I Q � 1 F- 1 F- LL I ►� O 1 £ I ui F- I 0Y W I Z I — I W F- Q w O F- I z I Z3 I O 1 U I U I Q I N v N1 00 r r r- 00 O N N 10 N O O �0 Ul O r r r rn �t N N -K -K -K -K -K NN vlOtn Nc-PO MM OOso0`'t��r' r r- 0000 �O,O MONN NN I`O,NNlO01ON O 0 'O�0 OWN 00In� 00 r- r-- r•Inrn-4Or• Vl In �o�o toc-�O NNvi 00 -4ww -4N00r r- c- c- M ro -t to Ln vl Ln N N 0 0000 NN O NMN1Nt.NN � �O%0 NN O OMMOOOO I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .? In vl --t --t -t Ln Ln In W In vl v\ c- M M In Lnc- v, oo 0 Inlnvlvlv,lnln vl I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 r NN NN O NMMItNNN rn O O 00 O 0000000 r- 00 00 O O O O O O O O c- rn0, O MMMKIre) MM I I I I I I I I I I I I I %0\0 O 't -t 00 O 0000000 -t N N 10 1010 \O \O �o �o �o \O �o �o �o %o O 00 O O O 0000000 O 00 00 O 0000000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \\ \\ \ \\\\\\\ �o %O \O �o 10 %O 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 \ \\ \\ \ \\\\\\\ O O O O O O O O O O O O O M 0�0� 0%01 N 000000v vl Nt .t -t Ul Ul vl vl vl In vl In NO %O �o �O NO 1.0 \O \O 110 \O �O NO O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 00 00 O OoOO000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O J a J U O V X a z W H J F- J Z Q_ 1 F- CO Z Z Q O W D U IL u £ 0 H H £ U J > O W Q IL' U W Z V W p (r> F- H Q Z Of N 3 O Z Q N O £ W W H H > £ IY fN J H H W H Q F- > > 3 0 O N1 in Q` r N1 N r � N � O� O N K1 M -t -t -t r r- r- r r .o .o \0 NO \O \0 �0 r- I I I I I I Cl I 0 0 O I W 1 00 0 I > F- I I cn Z l O O 0 I to I In In O LA LLI I Ce -4 0 1 M � C7 I O I 2: 1 Q 1 o Q l d I F- Z 1 I LL Q I I W S I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I M �t I 1 O O O 0 It It O O 01`NItN0%0%.�0 0% In In 0000000 O %DI` O O O I Y 1 "O 'D O O M M O O O-4 r- N O� Ln In 0000000 O cm -t O O O I w Z I ti I` M rn N N O o 00 N \0 �t 00 In ul 00 o0 r-" ti O O In ul u> In In u1 Ln u1 I S> I 00 00 N1 M -t 't c- O N1 0 ON K) �D In 0 c- c- O In N N N N N ti Nl M 1 U O I 0% O, N N M M 't r- 0', r- ti 00 to M � c- M N N 00 1 I I I Y Y \0 I 1 U U 0 1 I w w O I I = _ N 1 I U U \ I I 1 O 1 I \ I � I I O I I I I I I N W I I W Q I I �+- UUU V UUU •"� Y I 1 J J J V J J J J J J J J J J J J U J u I I a a a a a Q a a Q W I I F- F- F- I F- F--- F- cn cn <n cn cn N N F- F- ►L F- S 1 I O O O W O O Ock: O O O O F- v I 1 , cn F- F- w F- F- } F- 0000000 F- F- F- (n I I w U- F- >- } >- } >- } >- J w ►, 1 1 w CC CC J QQQQQQQ Q w > Ce J I z l O LL O Z O Z O U U U v U v U U O Q O X: O F- O to 0 \D 1 0 1 p p 1 p 0 in > > > > > > > > p z C] I I I I I 1 I p z p Q p J O 1 -4 1 Z J Z F- Z H Z cn cn (n cn <n cn to cn Z W Z W W W W W W W Z W Z W Z Q O 1 F- I v w Q W uJ W F- W W CL W U U V U V() U w CC W J w >N 1 E CL I > > Z > w > Q > U U U U U U U U > > Z Z Z Z Z Z Z > > I > O\ ( W H I (n O CC H H H H H H H H X Q Q Q Q Q Q Q } CC I F- CC I H F- w CC CC w w w CC CC Q p G] p p C] p G] CC J Z 0-0 1 � q U I [C F- S <n F- F- F- F- F-- F- F- CL\ I /n I W H U H UUUUUCJUU W W W wW Ww WF- F- Q I u,1 1 F p z (7 W W W W W W W W Q:: F- F- F- F- F- F- F- CO Z w 0 1 p l Q p > W JJJJJJJJ \ F-F- F- F-F-F-F- H W W W 1 1 3 Q J U: W W W W W W W W CL a Q a a a a a J CC • • 1 1 > 1L- ► I F-0 1 I c- O l--t�o0 O c-��c-�� Nt-�t H I I 0 c- O O OOOLnin00 O OOOOo00 00 O ZQ I I N In 000Lnln O c-c-t- c- c--T- c- 00 W Ln Ln -t -It -t O Ln In to In In ul to CO CD ul ul ul ��c-c-�� c-Mr u) Pe), W 1 1 IYl Ln MMMMMMVItn �O ��c-N�OM turn to Fn In I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I MIt'Tu11nu1MM 0 I Z 1 O M O O O O O Cl O O N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o I >0 1 O ti O 0 000000►`i� O 0000000 00 O 1 Oz I r- -t -t 0 N'tul\Dil MK) 1 U I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Q I Cl o 0 0 00000000 0 0000000 00 0 I I I 1 I I } W I I'O F- \O 10 �O 10 �O \0 10 �O �O %O 110 \O �o %D %O �D \O 110 Ln u\ 10 I > I 0 "0 O O 00000000 O 0000000 00 O I p W I O Z O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000000 0 0 0 I \H I N > (V N N N N N N N N N N N w N N N N N N N N N N I U p I F- \O f 10 10 �O \O �0 10 �O �O 110 NO �O CC �O �D �O �D ON M �O I W I cn 0 00 O O 00000000 O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N r- O I S 1 H \ V \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\ \\ \ I r- W N I I O o8O O O cn00000000 Vo 0O000o00 O I ]L I of H H U 1 z I WO c90 O 0 p0000o000 >0 0000000 00 0 1 m I F-0 ZO O 0 00000000 Ce0 u-0000000 00 0 O Q I I Q Z LU O In 0 w Z I I > H w } LL- ►� I I •0 1 } O F- ul u.1 O N1 0 1 O z I W S Q > co Q 1 I J Z (D z Ix t} -�L 1 CL 1 J 2 H w Q CO f-- J I I Q O O > _ Q I w Of 0 1 > ON M � O` O w O\ 01% ON O\ ON O� O� ON w Q` u ON O\ ON ON ON 0\ J C\l00 U a` v I = W Z I -t In H -t -t 4 It 4 -T It Nt CC �t --t -t �t -It -t �t c- to It �O I Q S I Q 10 1\0 �O \O \O 10 10 �O 10 10 \O 10 Q 10 \O 10 �0 �O �D NO Q VNLn %O O ZU I JO w0 w0 O JOOO00000 JO F-0000000 F-00 QO O QI > I JO mo u,o 0 <00000000 a0 =0000000 zoo I-0 N F- I W0 1 WO F-0 ZO O H00000000 z0 HOOOOOOO HOO w0 \ J Z 1 0> I S = 0 0 > > ul all -4 1 p 1 U Q O V Q W W Ci Cr � O M> I Z I Q a 0 J 0 CL F- \K) C'i I W 1 O w 00 Q LL Z Q Q > r-M: I> I U C] Ln C7 H H J J E (D (D Q I 1 0 J I 1 0 M C] •• I w 1 0 N �t w = LL- 1 O U 1 00 V) �o ti Ln Q` N N N cn cn N In cn in O In Q O 1 Z H 1 %O > %0 O i` ul CD �o 10 > > > > > > �D > 00 -t c- \O \O �0 "O �O \O �O 1` CO �o Q CC 1 00 1 N O 011O Ln (D MO N OO OO O00 O Nl►` K)C)000000 CVLnrn MO a (D I p> Z 1 0►q 00 001, Nit O H H HH HH►` H NM a�o�o\0110\01.0�0 N0N0� Nul u1OF- 1 ZZ 1 0CC 0l7 00 00 0ix13_0CwwCCti= 01 00000000 01`N 00 CC = H I W 1 O Q ow ON Oc- oQ Q Q Q Q Ql0 Q Ocn Oc-��c--c-c- - 0K-N 0 - CLCLU I > 1 O> 0w 0c 00 0>>>>>>-t> 00l 00000000 0�T- 00 F- z W p z LLJ CL LLJ p z H w CL ua N ua CL O F- CL H S fn Ix w z F- CC Q a In M 00 a 00 r. O O N I 1 I I I I I I 1 o I 000 O O OI` I W I 0 -t 0 't --t --t 0 I cn Z 1 Ln `0 Vl Ln LA to 1 N D I M M 00 to Lf) t^ � LU I wH0 1 c- `0 \0 Ln C7 1 01 E 1 1 a 1 o Q l `n a I LL Q I I w 2 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I N \0 \O I I N ti ti O N (V to 0 to N c- po M M 0 -4 c- 0 \0 O� Y 1 O N N 0 00 o0 r- ON O M Q` N N (V Imo• O 011 a` Ol N M r- �t 1 (U F- 1 O M M I W Z I `O10`0 �0 10 Oc- N 00tn 1t O O tiM1;Otititn I` O I mO 1 `O \0 toT- 10 NN Ln O O -t-4N000000 ti I` I U O 1 I I Q I rn trl T- `0 I 1 It 3t 3t N I I I I Y Y Y \-O I O I I w w w O I 1 222 N I I U U U \ I O I I \ 1 I � I I O I I I I I I W 1 1 4c o I I K K is K K K K K K 1 I Y I I J J J J J J J to K CU I I 1- F- Q Q Q Q Q a Q w -K W 2 I I W W O O O O W O 00 Z) -K H �C N ao o-K H I 1 QQ � Ofcncn � � Q w J 1 z I (L s O X O O O of O O w Z -K \.O t 0 1 o Q o ww o o o o7) w-K J O 1 1 Z F- Z J J Z Z N Z Z fn a at Q O 1 F- 1 O O O W W m m W V U W Z W W N X -K >N I > >- > QQ > >> > H > to to In Ntn tnN >H W jc O\ I LLJH I U U U F U U (n cn w w w w w w w 4c 0=\0 I F-D: I =) =3 Z) Z HHHHHH. J�C a 0 I H U 1 a' O: a' w a s L L I W O J. J J J J J J Z Q K a\ I cn 1 F-F--F- a 22 Z Z H aaaaaaa Q F K QW I cncnN 0 Z: X: 00 N aaaaaaa 2 O-c O 1 0 I Z Z Z m n 2 2 ' n 0 0»» F K W 1 1 H►iH a >> as > womow<nw � •• 1 I J O LL I 1 Q F-0 1 I MMM 0 0000 NN O NNNNrw)POIt F H I 1 -t-t-t c- \0 \0 NN O OOOONIMO O o cn I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I F ZQ 1 I MMM cn ��- T-� cn `D`0`0`Dc-r-O W 1 I Kl N) M to to In to cr) to In Ln 00 0 0_ I I Z X I cncn W I I In Ln to to O 0 � � O cn Ln cn Vl to cn cn a ul It It N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I H I NNM ti NN NN O NNNNK1M-t I Z I 000 M O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 =3 0 1 000 I` O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 OZ I MMM O`O` -4-4 O MNIMMMI+IM I U I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I c- `0 `0 c c- c- c c- t- � �- r- � I Q 1 000 O -t-t 00 O 0000000 I I cm I I F-- I I Z I I W ul I o It cn cn \0 `0 10 `O `D `O 10 \0 �O �0 \0 \0 \0 I M I Z O O O O 00 00 O 0000000 o w l w 0 0 0 a 0 00 00 O 0000000 I \F I a N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N I Y Q I w \\\ ►- \ \\ \\ \ \\\\\\\ 1 U 0 I M c- M M U Ln `0 10 �O \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 `0 \0 10 I W I ZNIWO OO OO O 0000000 I U 1 00It't I I W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Y I > U I Z I cr- 0 0 0 O 00 00 10 0000000 1 m I w 0 0 0 X O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O Q I I N Q z H I I w F- Q Q Z I I w W H J F- N1 a 1 • 0 1 a > J Nl O I O Z I 1- m w Z 1 1 0 z Q 0 w ::D r H I a I F- M U LL. U Z: 1 O H P'•t X: Q I wIx0 1 a-011000 UN1 ix0ll0\ J011Q\ >N 0000�000 0` O 0\ In W It 't Q It It W Ln U In In In In In In In \C 1 Q 2 I 2 O`tn In W \0 Z \0 \0 U \0 \0 W \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0 `1 ZU I cn01`I- 00 a00 00 cn0 F-0000000 O Q I 0 1 w 0 0 0 "0 Q 0 0 Z O O 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N I- I a 0 1 w 0 0 0 cn 0 3 0 0 000 Z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \J Z 1 0> I Z a 0 N 0 Ln 01► 4 1 n I F- 111 0 W H H \0 Orr I Z I a >O E: w <n0 I w I Q H 00 H w H r Q c- I> I a 00 F- > > 0 3 O c 7 Q I 1 0 cn I- J I 1 0 in N r- o .. I w 1 O O` r- 0 w M LL_ I O U I cn O 0 1` \0 0 Ln O O PO N O 0 W<O 1 zH 1 MO MO inN`0 O`r- T 'tit I`\0-t00\000NCV Qa 1 00 1 00N MO 00rl\0 NI`\0 I`-4 0K-N0000000000 a_(D I >Z 1 0 `0\0 c-0 00`I- NI`cn c-O` 0NN)0014)N100 WOF 1 ZZ I OOOO 0(J OO\N 000 0c- 00LnWr-r-'t T aaH I wH 1 0:D0000 Ocn 000 0�0`0 00 00000000 Cl- aU I > 1 0Q10�0 00_ 000 01`I` 0c- 00000000 r"eb I.,J I 1 O Ln 1 1 O O OO O O CT O O M O �t \ 1 Y J I 0 o O O O O Ln O O 0 0\ O N 110 1 U Q 1 W W O I w F- 1 Cl o Ln O Ln t \0 Ln Ln N O NO O 1 S O I .-L ti O Ln ti 00 00 i` t N Ln � LLI N 0r 1 U F- I O O Ln Ol ~ (� W 1 1 > > Q co CL F I I M O Z I I rY F- I I d O I I Cl- I .. 1 C7 W I F- Z I Z w I z" I ►� I O Q I 4c K K K is is K F- 1 O F- I Z I E IL I 1 I I 1 O N w I Q� I 00 00 00 00 DODO 00 00 M%00l 00 00 OMM 00 nOLOMOOr - Ln�- O I \1 00 LnLn 00 00 00 00 Ln Ln M1�0 00 00 Lnt0� 00 MOON OLnNOtnl�Lnl` U I U(n I 00 Ncm Lnto 00 O`O` Ln Ln --tt W("0 LA Ln Lnin O1N104 00 O��010 OM%DPO' N1000�00 Q I ZrL I Ln Ln Ln V) tiI- OO LnLn r- r- 0o00 NLn00 r- r- tit` %0Lncm Ln Ln 000C MtO� 1 Qo I Ln Ln 0NDI` -4 M00NI��ON�ON F- I F-LL I titi MIW) Mtti N tO��Or- 1 0 1 MM I`ti tti� I g I M M I u1 F- 1 I LLI I I Z I I I I I 1 I I I I I O M Cl 1` O O 11010 O O 00 O Lr)Ln I 1 O t M O �O 00 0 00 00000000 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 O M 0 O N O O 00 O 00 N N N N N N N N I I rn N1 c- Ln t c- 00 tt c- c-c- M c-c- MMMMMMMM LU I I m I F- 1 00 c- M rn ON M M N 00 00 00 1 t c c- N N M 1 Z I N Ln \0 O 0 Ln N Ln Ln N N N Ln N r- r 0 0 0 O I O I N t t ti N t t t t t t N N N Z I 0 1 I I I I I 1 I f l I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U 1 O N1 V c- O c- tLn c- c- 00 O MN �c-��c-WNW Y I U I O O O O O O O OLn O 0 00 0 00 00000000 Z I Q 1 O O O O O O O 00 O O 00 O 00 00000000 Q I I 0� O �0 O, M Ln ML rlo O O O K) Ln I I c- r- to c- c- c- Ln �O Ln I I O O 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 co 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t m I I c--ttN 1 w 1 I LU I I F- I I V) I I H 1 I C7 I 1 LU I I Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln n LLn Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln in Ln Ln Ln Ln to Ln Ln Ln I 1 O O O O O O O 00 O O 00 0 00 00000000 I I O O O O O O O 00 O O 00 O 00 00000000 Y I I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U I W I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\\\\\ w I F- 1 00 Cl O O O O 0 00 O 0 00 O 00 00000000 S I Q 1 O N M Nl M Nl rn MM M M MM M N1K1 MMMMMI+IMM U I o I I N N N N N NCV N N NN N NN NNNNNNNN W J 1 I 03 1 I Q I I 1 0O 1 Q I • Z 1 CL I n I I I N I I F- I 1 N O N N NN N N NM N NN O�O�NNNNN I w I ON Nl t t Kl t t tt t t It It t tt Mt tttttt O I S O 1 t Ln �0 %0 N NO \0 \0 10 10 %0 �0 .10 \0 \0 \0 �0 10 %0 110 \0 10 U I U Z I O O O 0 � O O 00 O O 00 O 00 00000000 U 1 O 1 O O O O w O O 00 O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O a 10 1 0 O O O a O O o0 O O o0 0 00 00000000 I > I I I Q 1 I I LLI Z I 1 J w ~ w O I LUw Y LL u1 I I C7 Q Z `i F- ~ I I O Q Of O 3 J I I O N LL_ F- O I I S W Z > r Z N O W W w Q W I I N F- N F- J J W 0C W C7 1 I W .J J [C Q J Z w Q I I F- Z J C7 Q Q 0 3 S I ]L ►� I 1 w Z J O Z > > Z F- LL- U M Z I O W I Q ti S O LL Q W Q LL_ O .. I n= I W J m J S a Q Y Q F- Ln O Y I Z Q I S C7 Cl. J J I U N o?I t U-Z I W Z I Z N O J -j Z > Z ►-f Q I> I 0 Q F- H F- W W Q W H Z J CO I I W Z ► O W cn S S 2: Z Q Z J 0- (n Y W Q U O I I U J m -L J CL' Q Q cn U O S 3 F- (7 I I Q O O :3 Q S O O Q Q o W O ZD Ln I I fn CID m U U U U 0 S S J a I= O Q Q 1 I O F- LL I 1 N J Z 1 I f` NO �D t` M O �O 00 \0 -It O D` 1� Ln \\.O " N I D: I Ln 00 N O N1 t Ln 10 O O � 1` Ln 0� It Z) J 1 0 1 N r- t N Ln Ln O M N M a J 1 0 1 N N c- c- N N \= W I Z Z I N0Q3 I LU I > 1 •• I 1 k E LA- 0 1 1 O D` N M t Ln 110 r-00 ON 0 c- N rnw Q O O 1 1 ti ti r- r- V- c- c' r- r- T- N N N N Q I Y I O N ti ti ti ti 1` ti ti ti ti ti ~ a. C7 r Y I U I �O �O 110 �o 10 %0 �0 \0 NO �o 10 \0 W O F- Z I W O 1 NO \0 \0 �O 10 `O `O `O `O 140 \0 \O \O wct:►4 1 SZ I CL 11 U CID I U I O Ul NO 0 O W N w O LL a m a � pD 0 z H F- LU W a 0 d (7 LL Z d' H F- Z O U U Q cc LLJ m Z Y Z Q m m w LL F- N H C7 LL Y v LL x U W J m Q a a V) F- Z 0 V U a Q M Z Ln O Y tL Z .. H Q J m c- ¢ v 0 � C7 Ln • Of 0 d Q O N J Z \�O H (n 011 NT :3 J NNl GiJ -_z: LLJ N(7Q3 c- J p .. LLB tL 0 trQOO d Of d(7>-Y uJOF-Z w Ce n.n.vm � I H Z I Z •-� I �a1 O F- I 2: LiJ I d Of I \i IL U I U cn I Z H I Q p I F- I F- LL_ I -0 1 � 1 It F- I Cr- LLJ 1 Z I � I F- I Z I � I O U I Q LLJ H a p 00 • Z a LLJ = 0 U Z 7 0 I w 1 01 I p I z I LLJ I > I of 1 0 I p � I Z I LLJ I > I i I I Y I U I LLJ I x: 1 (U O O O N Ul Ul Ul ti ti ti 00 r Ln O Co O �O 10 011 r O N N \O 00 00 I` in Ln r. M M1 O O 00 00 Ln Ln -K -K -K -K -K -K -K --t000rr) 000r O,-.t�or-000Mr-00 00 00 NN LnLnO 00 00 1.0 1.0 LAotAc)wOOtn1`-4Ln o�0OUnO-tO,Of- 00 00 ONa`Q` 00 1- I- ONUl00NwN01-t100N0000LA-400NCYN00r`N-4T Lnto UILn LnUI 0ll0�0, NN Ln Ln M M Oo0 -tLnc--tONOr-'t-t00'O 0NlNNO-tN r r- Nr 0000 000l00 0000 Nti Ln Ln O� 0 of " �t �- O (V �0 N in Ln co l` N N c\J N c- M r O 00 0 00 Ln Ln ��-C-c-�-c-OOP T��00��Or- 4 'r- O O O M1+1 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 �- I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I N N N N N N O O N N N Ntn (14 N O N N N N O O ti 0 0 O O rn rnr4)r+1MM�c-MMK rn J'rnre) r-MK1N1M M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N1NNNc--N10000rnnVl c-�r-OONNNc- M 011 NN N r- 0000c-ONf4000NOOOc \0 Ln 0 VI- VI- c- Ul til-_I-_fl_-tl`NNI`Il-r --T n1tItNP-r-r-'t N LA Ln Ul �t I I I I i l l l l l l l l l l i l t l l 1 I I I I I I r,j NOONNv- O 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-0 O O O O O O O O O 00 O 0 OHO,0,O0, -O"000N0,O\00%O�O\O 00 O M I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I \O Ul Ul \0 c- Ln c- \O �O in � c- � c- � Ul Ln Ln r r N N CV -40000-tOO\T-T-4OOOOOOOOO O O 0 00 0 0 N-t\T�tr Nr r NNNr'Trr r't -t'tr T- r- r- Ln In Ln c- Ul Ul Ln Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ln Ul Ul Ln Ul in Ln Ul Ul Ln Ul to Ul Ul VI Ut Ln Ul 00000000000000000000 O O 0 00 O 0 00000000000000000000 O O 0 00 O 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 00 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Nl M M M M M \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V N N c-r-c- r- -V- �c- � c- r- �� c- � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -It 'TItIt-t-TItIt-t-TIt -4 -t --t -t -t -T � �O �O \O �O \O �O �O \O 10 \O \O \0 \0 �0 10 10 �O �O \O 10 1.0 10 �O \0 \0 `0 \O 00000000000000000000 O O O 00 O 0 00000000000000000000 O O 0 00 O 0 00000000000000000000 O O 0 00 0 0 LLJ x a H W ix N J O N m LLJ F- ¢ z LLJ Y U v H > H Z Of J Y O Q O W Z F- w z O a z Q Z x Q 3 0 z 2 0 0 N LL H w LL m LJ.I LU N V) (n F- > 3 O O\ \0 r- \0 \T c- Ul 0 N Ln �T M 0` r- `O N N c- M -t to \0 r 00 O� N CV N N N N N P- ti r- ti ti r- \0 NO \O �O �O \O �O �p \O 10 \O \O \0 10 J J Q Q F- 1 O 0 F- F- Y N U ]L IL v x LL U S \ U Y \ Z (n ¢ Y m Z a m J J Q 1 I I 1 I p I O O W I in in I m F- I I ( I N N n Z I Lr) Ln U) O I w I Of H O 1 C7 1 O I Z 1 Q I p Q I a I F- Z 1 I w Q I I w S I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 0% I O O O 0 00 00 O O O O M �O ON O O O O O M M O 0 I- O I Y I O O O O O O O 0 Vl Vl Mir O O O O 0 Ln1 011 O O N O M00 N 1 W Z I Vl Vl O O ON, O` V\ Vl 1 1 00 I` `D Vl Ln Vl In 011 V) (NJ O O 10 I- O C)Ul Ln I- ti 00 00 N in 00 Imo- 1l- 1� I� �O Ln N Vl Ln 00 O O� V O 1 Vl to ON Q` I Q I f- 1` M M M 1 I` :tt I I M M I I Y U Lf) I 1 I I W O O 1 I V N I I \ I O I I M I I \ I I N I I � I I I I .• I I 10 W I I O F- I I \ a 1 I Ln p I 1 N -K -K -K O i( I 1 C7 p (7 J W J J F- J F- J J J J J J J J w Q a a z a a a Q a a F- a a w 1 I F- v F- F- F- wF- S 1 I z O O 0 O z O E O O F- O F- O >> O O w O O 'U F- W F- >- F- (D H w I F- m F- m F- (f) N F- F- X: F- F- N I I H 0- CL' H W p �- H 1 1 to ix Q (n CC d' E J J Z Q J I Z I W O Z O E O W O (D O O O m- O Q Q O O O d O U u O V\ 1 O I p p Q p p p p Q p p O p O p F- F- p tL p p >> Cl J O 1 H I Z O Z Z Z Z Z V Z U Z Z Z Z W Z Z N N Z Q o 1 F- I p W J W N W in W W U U W W W W W W tr W O W W > N 12 I Z > > > Z > > > > > V > U > > O\ 1 w H I Q J J Q S V) N > > ix (D I F- CC I J Q J J F- V) V) 00 ,( M Q Q dM 1 ►�U I \ H O � CCd' (n w S N W W E H H OF- Q N I W I V w >- U N F- F- f X: >> a V) Z Z i p 1 Q a w a as O 0 zz w z 00 W 1 1 Q d CL Q CL 3 3 U U W W Cl H (..) U � •• I 1 W I I F- 0 1 I 0 0 r �O 10 O O O O O M in 0 %0 c- �- 00 0 -t 00 p (n I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I Z Q 1 1 O c- O` O O O 00 O Kl 00 W I 1 Vl 1 00 1 1 c M Nl c- a I 1 X I I M rn N 0000 00 r W O 0 10 (n N Vl Ln N N N Vi V1 N N �t �t �t �t 1 �1 N N N I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I O c- 1 Ln c- O O O M M N I Z I O O O O O 0Ln O O 00 O O 00 1 :DO 1 O o O O o 00 O O 00 O o 00 I O Z I 10 O� 0 10 O` I+•) Ln M M 00 O M N1 Vl I U I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I U I - I Q 1 0 o O o oo O O 00 O O 00 c-c- 1 1 1 I I 1 I W I Vl V\ V\ V\ V\ Vl V\ Vl to Vl V\ Vl Vl Vl V\ I I C)o C) C)0 00 C) C) 00 C)0 00 1 pw 1 O O =O O O 00 O 0 00 O 0 00 N N QN N N NN (V N NN N N NN w\ U\\ O% C9 O ON D` F- 011 ON D` Z O, 011 I LU I N N O M N N (nNN N (V NN N wCM HNN 1 V I N N a.(ll N pN pNN N (V NN N (nNN W c c- I Z i Y I W H CC J O I z I O O w 0 ]4 o LL O w 00 O O 00 O w 0 ►i 00 I m 1 O O QO z0 Ho F-00 O 0 00 0 (D0 F-00 M Q I I U Q Z Q Z D ►+ I 1 w O 3 Q J •• Z I I N LL ~ O I • O I Z Z W V) N 0 1 O Z 1 0 w . LLI w Q p W IL I I N F- H J J W W F- C7 Ix c- H I IL 1 J J Q J W z (11 J I I J a' C7 Q Q p 3 = Z H Y Q I W CC 0 1 J N O N z 0 CC N > N > NN Z N p N N M F- N Z c- C N N U V I M W Z 1 '41 S 1 O M w 1 1 11 Q1 ws 11 Q 1 > M LL 11 O V) I Q = I m \D \O J N = \D Q Q 110 �O 10 \D �O \O ]4 \0 J to Q 10 �O F- o I ZU 1 O (90 r- d0 JO JOO 'o 0 U00 O O F-00 O Q I =:) I o Zo (nCC 00 Jo JOO zo >-0 zoo 'o 'o (n00 oa N F- I wO 1 F-0 HO =a F-o ul0 w00 Q(D WO ►-00 ZO QO 0(D \J Z 1 0> I H p W (n 2 S M: Z Q Z Z O" ON " I p I m J d H U U N Y H w Q N K) B I Z I 03 J CC Q Q V) U S J 3 F- \M a I W 1 0 = Q S O O Q Q p W O O O NZ: I> I co [O U v U U O c- (D S 2 J c- 0 Q I 1 OO J I 1 000 p •• I W 1 O �-�O Li) X: U- I O U I \0 I` M Kl O �O 00 O N \0 1 O M �O a, \0 1�- V1 CC Q O 1 z H 1 Nto 0V• MN min Ln in \OMM 0Lr% 0V) �N VI 1` 00 V\ Vl 1 Q w I 00 1 V 0 10 K-r- c-0 c-0 N1010 Vlo Ln (D 000M MO` �0 r-10N 0 Cl- (D I p>Z I 00 c-N C) Ln c C) ON 000 00 00 NNo Nul Ntfn 00000 O w O F- 1 Z Z 1 OM ON 00 OM ON 01`1l- OM OM C) (V K) ONO 0� O(n Vl o IY ix H I W H I O N O N 00 O N O N 000 ON ON O� � O c- 0 c- OI`I` O CL 0- U 1 > I Oc- 0ON O00�o10 0 -- C) O x:: Z: 0 0r- 00 �"ti} N I 1 1 o I I W I 1 D F- I 1 N Z 1 I cn I W I CC •-4 O I C7 1 O 1 1 a I oQ 1 a_ I LL Q I I Lu = I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Y 1 I I1J Z I I v O 1 I � I I Q I 1 I I I I In I I O 1 I O 1 I N I 1 \ I O 1 1 M I I \ I I N I I � I 1 I I I w 1 I F- 1 I Q I � I I 1 I Y I I U I I W I 2 1 F v N I H I J I Z Lr) 1 O J O 1 Q O I F- >N I Ea. 0\ I W H cr_ O 1 F- CC a.U a. \ I cn Q N I IL � I � LLI 1 CC • • I Z) LL I F- 0 1 H I N I Z Q I LLI 1 a_ I X I LUJ I 1 I I F- 1 Z 1 O 1 O Z I v I U 1 Q I I 1 I W I � 1 o w 1 \F- I Y Q I U � I W 1 x 1 U 1 Y 1 z 1 CD M Q I � H I z I w 1 •O N 0 1 O Z a. � J I Q 1 u.1 W O U 1 M W Z Ln I Q 2 O I Z U N F- I w O \ J Z 1 O > O�0', H 1 0 N M =:) I Z \1r1 0 1 w N m 1 > c-C)Q I J I w uJ i LL 1 O U CC Q 0 1 Z ►� Q I 00 a C9� I >Z W O F- I Z Z w w H I W H CL a.0 I > OOOO�OMOOi00 01, -4 0rl-�o000M1`-t0 O O (- O O O O O N N U')Ln 00 Ln0LnN0LnWLn'0OOr�- -tV%Lnr- 0r-0Ln0-t0,in0 i� O O O O O O 0�ttiOM�OMM0000�a0Na0N00O��OO�tnDOtn000�a0tiQ`ti 1; �O ul Ln VI Ln VI Ln w d`O� -- of Mpn 't Ln 't \0 \O -4 -4 O O 1- o0 0 O -4 ti 00 Ln Ln INN MOONI`�ONcn0\0ONNNN� 0N\0�0 . . . . ti . . . . . . . M ti �t 3L Y U LLI 2 U 4c -c 4c -Fc 4c C9 F- F- F- O C7 cn F- O O Z O H O O F- Z w X: cn (n H F- C7 F- F- F- cn (n cn cn > H V)Z Q W W Y J J W 2 F- O Z Z ow \ w wLL>tnw 0 W<Mow » tx 0' O 0 Z O H w cn O W cr- M N O = O Z QL O w W UU O QJJJ W>-ZZF-=W M WO0O(nw00>-J W O m LL n O O H z 0 z UU QQ WzMQQQO=W=W OZOJz-t mzwmcnz zcc z w z z wH��c�.� QO wO•-+�LL•-� QwHaa-cn u� 4cl- w w w o > z w w o > v > oa w > F'F- a_ F- wwwwt-QCC<nWJUQ aQcDF-LLa a 1 va > F- Q > o w W cncnF-ZZZ cn F-MM MM F-3JF-Z NLLF-OLOLCOJZF-n. J V) Q Zz HWQW W WOWHWOQCCwOZW(nHW WHH=cnQWH Z�3C7C7UU W JCLUU(nCx -i w > d'UUW Mw0' U H cn \ \ wW \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ O 2 W w w F- F- J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 0- U u- (7 U' (7 (7 C7 C'J C7 C7 c7 C7 (7 C7 C7 (7 (7 U' C7 C7 C7 C7 U' C7 C7 (7 C7 C7 (7 C7 W w O H z Z OOO-t 00 O O O O O MM 00 O O O O O O o O O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O o o O O O O I I 1 1 I l l l l l l l l l l l l t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln N N N N N N N N I O I O O ti O O c-�c-I+1MMN1N1MMK,K,K,K1K1N1MK1K1.tPe1MPe) MMNIMM M r- �t pnPO 00 00 00 r4)pnMMpnrnT-NNNNfVNNN 00 M Ol NN 000OOOtnOOOOOOOCD N �0 Ln O c-T- NNN�t�t i�i �i u'%1l-1` N I I Ln Ln I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0O0 N(M0T- NN I 0 I c- O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 V- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O Co O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti O O O O O O O O Co O O O 00 000 ONO\01,O�0,O\�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O� 0 I I I I I I I I t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l O �O O to in In to Ln to \0 �0 I c- I c- I I c- r N N cn Ln Ln OOOOOOOOaOOOOIt-t14It 'IT -tOOOOOOOOO O O O O 00 �c-T-c-r-�V-�-c-c--��r-NNNNNN-t-t--t-t-t-t't't-t r- r- r- � lnln In In In In In In V% In In In In In In V% In In In In In In Ln In In In In In Ul U'N In In In In O O In In 00 O O O O o O O O O O O O o O O O o O o O O O O O O o o O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cV N \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ O` O, ON O` O\ 0% 011 Ol (71 011 0` ON O` as O� 011 O� ON 0% O. 0, 0% ON O\ O1 ON 00 all N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r- r- c-C- Ic- V-��-c-r- V-c-�c-��c-r-c-C-c-T-r-c-�T-� c- V- N N c- �-T- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O w O 00 00 O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O J O 0 S O F- O Q 0 H w U O N CD Q N F— W UNNC\JG ca NNNNNNNNNCMC\l NNNNNNN UN >N ZN CNN -t It It -t It -t -t -t -t -4 1 It It It It 't Q Q` Q It -j' = W -t It Z \0 10 F- \O �O \0 10 �0 10 10 %O 10 %O %0 NO 10 \O 10 ID \O �O 10 �O .10 \0 1.0 110 \0 NO 110 \0 W It w �O "'O cn O o O w o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 F- 0 oa O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z O QfO Q 0 0 000000000a00000000a000000000 00 So QO aoO z w x O o110 Q w F- -� Z O lLl F- U H Q c- M: cr Q w X: N F- F- O N N H F- 0 O t` O 011 \O 011 M Ln �tONwO 10LnOf-01`-t0�MOO-tI-NNf-O\f-�o00c-Lnrn `O cn c-cn cnin 000 cn0',00 0-t14-ttoMNUl%MMNMNItMItK1N1M.4K1MK1M-4't-4m't NOS MO 00 ON \0 OI`ul O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Ntn N O 00 00 0I`00 Otiti OI+1N1N1MMN11+1MMMMMPr) MI+IM[In MMMKIMMMMMNIM 0.10 OM OM OM 0 -It O N � O \0 �O \O 10 %0 10 \O �0 �O \0 \-O \0 %O \0 �O 110 \0 \0 �O %0 �O \O �O �O \O 10 \O \0 O v- O N 0T- O N 0O110 OOO O-t-t-4 Oc- tt t M 1 I I I I o I O O 10 I LLJ I Ln Ln ti I N Z I N N M I V) :D I O O to 1J.1 I H O 1 c- N C7 I O 1 E I Q 1 oat 0 d I F- Z I 00 I LL- Q I Lr) I w = I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I O O O O 0 �D 1 Y I ON r- N I W Z I ON N N to to �D I 2 M I Ln I V O 1 I a1 0 I I 00 I I Ln I Ln 1 I O I 1 0 1 1 N I 1 \ I O 1 1 M I I \ I I N I 1 � I I I I I I LLI 1 I k Y I I J J J J N -►c 1 1 Q a as LLJ 4c LU I 1 F- F- C7 ►- F- w 4c 2 1 I O O F- 00 =) 4c V) F- E F- F- F- * to I I N H -K H I 1 w LLJ CC O o 4c J I Z 1 O V O O W Zic Ln I O I in U n O o w 4c JO I Q Z V Zln d-K Q O I ►- I W W LLI !n X -c > MI I a I > F- > U > H LLI 4c O\ 1 w H I W > -K w 0 1 F- I Z cn o J -K d\ I vi I w Q N 1 LLI I F- M 2 O -K c- I m I Z O F- -K W W •• 1 I J =:) U- I I Q F- O I I M 0 F-- H I I 0 O o N I I I 1 F'- Z Q 1 I O O W I I M r- n IL I I Z X 1 I N Q LU 1 I N w 1 1 t 1 U I I I I I Z I O O 1 M O 1 O O I O Z I O M 1 U I I I I U I N I Q I O O I 1 LrN I I I 1 I I w I Ln LrN I 1 0 O I o w l O O I Y Q I \ \ O` I W I N N 2 I \ \ I V I N N I Y I I Z 1 O 0 I m 1 O 0 M Q I I c- ►� 1 I Z I 1 LLJ c- cr- 1 • O 1 -j N O 1 O Z I m LLJ .. LL_ I I Q Z V H Q I W w 0 1 N Y N U 1X: LU Z I W Z -t In I Q 2 I Z 010 Q 10 O 1 Z U I w O M: O O Q I I Q Z O O N F- I w O 1 3 O O ,O \ J Z 1 0> I N w O� O` H 1 I W H W N Kl I Z I Q� m \IK1 Ci I LLJ I H LLJ LLJ N E I> �C7Q I I J I I w I 00 wX: LL I O U 1 f` ti = Q 0 1 Z�4 1 Ln Ln in Ln Q ix 1 00 1 0 SON "DO d 0�- 1 0> Z 1 O N c- c-- 0 LLJ 0 F- I Z Z I O 00 O M cl::= H I w H I O O Ln O N d d U I> I 0 0Ln 0c- 0 O in �O O O LLI N ar O w Q cm Cl- m 0 D O z 1= w O] Z Y z Q m CO w F- H c� w cc Y U w x v w J fn Q Q a V) F- M O U v Q Q ur z .. OC IT O Y �? u- Z • H Q 00 J Co a t� O � O O Q Q O F- li N J Z .f O J O rn 0 J \M: w c--(DQ3 O J p .. w Ii0 o'QOO Q � a (7 > Y w0E-z o::of-4Q a IL Um Y J U Q w F- 2 O U F- - I F- Z I Z .4 1 O O O O O O r- � c- 011 O\ O` =:) Q I -K O F- I M: w 1 Q Ir 1 00 O O \ 1 00 O O w u I U V) I 1 Q 0 I O" al. Cl 011 F- I F- 1 � I w F- I w I zl v 1 O O O 00 N N O O O O ui I \ Q 1 O 0 1 \ 1 00 w I -T x O 1 �o U Z I O =:) I O O 1 O > 1 Z M O U w H N w w H Q' M 00 N1 N J J a a F F- O O F- F- Y <n U ]G W (v x w U 2 \ v Y \ Z N Q ]L m z Q m J J a 1 o I o I W I O I V) Z I I V) O I W I W ►-L O 1 O` (D I O 1 m I ¢ 1 p Q 1 d I H Z I I LL. Q I I W - I O O CV O \ O w F-- 0 Y U W F- U Cn J �o J O Q O > N O \ a O d \ Q r O W LL F- O H p N Z Q W d X W H Z m O O Z U v ¢ W Z) Cl LLI \H Y Q U � LL1 2 Y Z m LA ¢ H z Ln Q' M O 00 H J Q U \o O O ¢ N F- \J Z �TO�H O Nl \M r-- E O (D J p.. W M LL Q O Q � d 0 } W O H Cl. aU O O ON N LLJ W LL Z J H O O O 00 N N I O O O O O \O O O N O \ c-- O O O w M 00,10 W1 O N Nl 00 O r-- O O 00 00 Ol ' : 1 (F4tyl 4 4k,4 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Transmittal of Treasurer' s Report as of November 30, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Transmittal of Treasurer' s Report dated November 30, 2005 for the City of La Quinta. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with California Government Code Section 53645 as amended 1 /1 /86; and is in conformity with City Code 3.08.010 to 3.08.070 Investment of Money and Funds. I herby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet: next month' s estimated expenditures. Respectfully submitted, r John Falconer, Finance Director Approved for submission by: F a Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Treasurer's Report, City of La Quinta 2 ATTACHMENT 1 4 � Q9mrA MEMORANDUM TO: La Quinta City Council FROM: John M. Falconer, Finance Director/Treasurer SUBJECT: Treasurer's Report for November 30, 2005 DATE: December 29, 2005 Attached is the Treasurer's Report for the month ending November 30, 2005. The report is submitted to the City Council each month after a reconciliation of accounts is accomplished by the Finance Department. The following table summarizes the changes in investment types for the month: Investment Beqinning Purchased Notes Sold/Matured Other -Ending Change Cash (3) LAIF US Treasuries (2) US Gov't Sponsored Enterprises (2) $ 3,420,223 39,009,320 107,199,131 28,530,146 3,300,000 25,000,000 5,000,000 (1) (2) (2) $ (3,358,877) (22,750,000) (5,000,000) (2,500,000) (277,578) (55,865) $61,346 19,559,320 126,921,553 30,974,281 0 ($3,358,877) (19,450,000) 19,722,422 2,444,135 0 Commercial Paper (2) - 0 0 Corporate Notes Mutual Funds 7,686,506 20,307 $ 33,320,307 1 $ 33,608,877 $ 333,443 7,706,813 $ 185,223,313 20,307 $ 622,013 Total $ 185,845,326 I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in conformity with the City Investment Policy. As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City of La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank Monthly Statement and the Bank of New York Monthly Custodian Report to determine the fair market value of investments at month end. Date John M. Falconer Finance Director/Treasurer Footnote (1) The amount reported represents the net increase (decrease) of deposits and withdrawals from the previous month. (2) The amount reported in the other column represents the amortization of premium/discount for the month on US Treasury, Commercial Paper and Agency investments. (3) The cash account may reflect a negative balance. This negative balance will be offset with transfers from other investments before warrants are presented for payment by the payee at the bank. .J 3 0 0 o a) o c c c c CL U c o Z c 0 Z c 0 Z c o Z c z Z Z z Z X j O I Q .O LO T _0 E n O O O a) vO O U ` o6 7 (1 V) c w c O d 0 @ E c U o U o V) w U U a'f Q 3 (n (n 0 LL LL @60 o c @ � N cz i O a) q a > Qg U C C C N N @ @ @ @ X �q @ O N O N O In I � a) m (n to U L •' " N @ Q) y UJ C C C (n n Nin cU cN c 0 0 0 o@ =C 3 oE E E E Q pI� a(n) ��> c-0oa p Uc0 CL E� >+ O (n 0 0 0 0 0 LO O O O W i �O .NI > O N in U CD CD O CDC O O@ E> 0 0 0 0 C O CD O '� -! j0 J C Q @ Z O O a C 0 o U_ EA EA U9 d9 O O Z CD O 0 ': O C 69 cf? v 0 -_ x E (D "O m -O 69 co f9 j v Lu Q' 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c � O o @ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o o v m v Q a c m o U') o 0 0 C O O O o C O L LO Z O v a) V M O M M M Ln > EH O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o O o o O CO O O O O O O d o Cl) O CD O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 O Ln O U � O 6 (LO D Lp co Ln m t` O M O O V CD EA w - O (D O O O E 0 C C 0 0 j E ° o O o O O O O O O oO Ln Q 0- O CD CD O IDO CDO C) i°O N N Z O (T) CC)O � � I I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 a� O CD m 0 0 0 @ O O O O O o O o CD O a L o V Q -O 0 C C O O Z 'ITO cD m � Q 0o > U 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 CI 0 0 0 o 0 0 0OOoo o 00 r` o 0 @ v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 �t 1 0 0 LL o 0 o 0 Q O O O O O U E O O O 0 o 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 7 E .X ° CD O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDLn co Ln N co Z LL -@ LO 0 0 0 O O O O O w L N C > O Z CO N O '� U _ _ - C '-' O N N L Q U @ m (ti L Z �] J oQ= _ c a`� U O U- v T O CO Z C a� 0 O_ L U C @ n C rn C C LL (n O @ co O 0 7 T .- L O@ (n O C O a 0 0 .0 C C @ - > a) O (D U U O ,@ c a QmZU LL N Q a O @ N O n @ O> N CD a>� mLL � �� 0 c c oo L Z N Q "00 O C C V w O 0 3U�mm� Q ° o f (n C 0 Y c c Ms O 0" E c c-0 m a E U o @ o 0 0 0 o 0 0 _ E .� E Cl) U O E O 0 04 C m Z c U a) Eo G C O O O @ o E- c� ca o o E o z o @ Q > CO o (n E N EZ=_Li= E a� aci EUcn a> >. C o C > C (0 @ @ (6 @ Q1 N C E U U � OQa X CD O 0- L O E LL LLLL LL a UO O J w Ca t- U U 0 0 o 0 m co� Ln m N Ln (D Ln U-) M co m -t U U c C E E U C C LL N c c m d T E U C V) N d m > Q c Ln m � Lr, ca E c t V) 0 aN A _ 0 U �• -No a U L E T E 7 O n U Z CO O N O (D O N m O O O m O V Ln Y m Ln V m O O co (O O () V co O Ln M Y 7 m mi � (Fi QQa o N Z Z Z N N 0 � J � C C m D Q Q Q _0 N z Z Z N N 7 U N U Q - O O (D (o O (`) 7 OD O n M N � � O O m En � N o N N � O Q O N O z O C O O Y cr, —T N C C Q Y U U U I 7 O O z } C m o E n N C N — E E o C N N 1 U Q Q a L O' Y U) = m C N ti m o m m E UCY CD m Z N LL p 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U U N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z m m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C C C C C C C C m @ m @ m m @ @ m m m m m m m m N m > O Ln M f- O Ln O (n CO m V O V In co m N O .- (D t N N M M M T M N T Q Lfi N Ln V N m V (N @ @ C � m V (O Lo (o t` Ln - M M (1) M M Cl) Cl) V O U >, O CD Ln Ln CD (D CD CD O O O CO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O N N N O a N N N N L,LnLn(\ M L2 to Ln f� N N f` a)O E �) Ln LO Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 ON O ON ON N N N N m C, ) 0 v m (o •- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00600000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0o00Lo0Lno Ln N N N (- Ln N Lo 0 O 0 0 O p M N m 3 LL (n j m m n n v D N m M V Q O M N N O U Y C N Ln V O O (o O m m tbr- NMmM O m O m N N Lo � co N N m V O Ln O N N M O m I- co m O O m co O Ln m f- Ln N V CD N N V jV N N-- M (D O O N V Lo m (O N O J '0J Lo v N v v m O U) m � C C F Q � N U � N V M - (O C; .o U) N N (D Lo V Cl) V U Q - V En O N CC) Ln N O O O (D N () (Cl")(") CD I- (o V Ln N (`') f� co � N N 7 O m m V m V N (") (C) m m m �- N N Ln m m m m Ln O Ln m -It p m E > V - - - (- Ln N T m o ti) C O N O U � o 0 0 0 0 0 C)L Ln C) CD CD CD C) Ln Ln N O G) Ln O O N n (o Ln m N Ln Lo NNNNtn Ln LoN Y N Q m m 7p m m LU LU m L m( a Q r o D J U J Q 0 U LL. LL m LL _ a =_ =a LL LL LL LL LL Ln to N to N O U) U) N (D Q C C C C N 7 C w— C C C C EEEEEEEE N U) N o N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 - N j Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N E C c a O m aci-o O a� a3 a3 a� a3 ZZZZZZZZ U � W U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C C C C C C C C m m m m m m m m co m U o U) ~ Y Y Y -15 Y Y Y Y 7 } } } } } } } } U N N N N N N N N v:) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z iY 0 O O O O O O O O @ Y Y Y Y Y Y s C C C C C C C c C @ m m m m m m m O N o 0 0 0 0 m CO N M Ln m CD 4 N T Q W N CO m N m @ �q C m N � CO N V CO (D Ln O 0 T (D Q CD (D CD � Lo CO (O (D O O O CO)0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 Lo O CN c- N V M c") M M V Lo Ln N M Ln CD (D0 E O Ln in Lo Lo V Ln V Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D C) CDC) 0 0 N N N N N N N m w. Q � 0 � � C) CD m o (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O p o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 o CD 0 0 m o Lo C) 4 Ln Lo Loco 0 0 0 Ln N a � (n N 2 T CZ m �ND�� O LD m m Lo M O O u) m M U) N Lo LD N m CO (O M t- cc co Lo co m Ln N CD Ln (D Ln CU m O Y j�mvmvvvLnLn m m m" N r Qp - O m m O N V) O to N Ln m CO V (,) M N N m O V (11)'n N O m Ln N 0 CC) Lo O V o mLn Lnvt M N N V N N D C C � E� Q) N N O U N U � Q - b O M O M V U N M n Ln 1- O Ei3 N N � lf) f� r oD 00 m (o -(D CO O V m 4 - O m cc oD O tb m m 0 m N Lo m M _7 O m E co m U m M dI Ln V C\ Q E� C 0 N U @ U � N o L L 0 0 U) CD CDM Ln CD CD CD N V M m � O O Lf) CD � O (O Ln Lo f- 1' N CL m m m m 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z �- N 1n N 7 3 �3 7 7N 7 m m m@ m m m m — ui (n. v). ai ui ui vi Ui » » » N C C C C C C C C E E E E E E E E T _ o D D D D 0 0 D O N j C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N }}}>->-}}}(n ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z � o in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � U c c c c c c c c @ m @ m @ @ @ m m m m m m m m Co �mmCo. m Y O Cn (n c (n G O O O O 7 0 0 0 O @ V N r r O > m 0 7 (V N @ (p (7) OD OD C m O O T In Ln O CO 0 0 O O O _7 @ N (`") \ O O C Lo Ln LO LO m 0 0 0 0 0 N@ N m N O Y D N N N M O m co m m N O O O O O O O (D O O O CD CD C) N O O O O O M O (D O O CO (n O ,t O O 'I O O O O O C cn O cr O Lo V 00 N N r r O m 73 fl � En ffi (n N C) � N M N O I O V O O V O N O (O r CO Ln (n r M r N O CO CP r N OJ V N Y 7 m on ocCn jQ) O Q N V V) ()0 Q) c0 M cc) O r � N (P OJ CO N Ul cO tO 00 N N O J_ � C C Fo D (� fn � V O V -o (D O n' co (n N 7 N r N Cn U M CD CP U N N Q c CD J M N CD V (O LO cO Cn O M O O N O r O (n N 7 Cn Q) o co cn j C) 0) G)N r Q U) (n o 0 0 N U (O cO O O co � Lo �- >. - O C) C V C m !n 7 N N n N C LL N d CL ii N c U U U C (n N d U@ > O O O Ca @ m L_ L_ L m > Q — C Q 7 7 7 H Cn Q Q Q N m C Q Ln E o rn° C U U U Q c c c _a O O CN Q O O -7 2 2 C;m O U) N LL. LL LL p 6> CO U _w O O 7 C. V V V F- U C) CD CD CN O CDO J m Q) 4 LL -0 o E _T E _T > O 7 U U) z T C N E N O) m O N CT N N C LL > Q m O o O V N N N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q .Y •- -0 m fYl Q Q � !] 0 0 0 O N N � C) jN (n N Q -O O "6 'O C- m C C C C C C C C C C O) — O O C c c O O c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O O U co CO O m (n m m m co Co co U -V N CO CO C co c0 (6 (U m O) @ N N m N U) N aNi N N N c c m FL L-L V V U U 0 0 0 [O w O m N N M co M O O O== O (n (P = m O O O O O O O O O m 0 (n Ln N (n (J) Ln O) O O O O O O O N N O O G) 0) CY) N N N N N N N O -- (n 7 T @ (13 Q 2 i — — — — — — — — — — .- �- c- r- N O L 7 CO , , , , , , , , , , (n , , N m OD � OD d V O 0) r M M c2 O CO O r r _O L � m N N J (D (D C_ C m Z U U) Q) � Z�QQQQ_Q_QQ_Q_aQ_QQQQQaaQaQ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U Q C � Y O m O , , , . , , , , , Ln , N 00 (0 r (") Cl) 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 M oc C)O r I m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v v v v It v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v r v v v v v v v v v v v v v v M M M M M M M M M M co M (q(n M M M M M Y @ — — — — — .-- — — — r- — — .-- — — — — N O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C m@@ m@ m Y C m@ m m m m@ m@ m@@@ U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U LL N N N N p N 0 0 0 N O O N N N O N CU (U E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E T a�QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQaQQ C: O N ) N V) cn N ) N N U7 in to in N N N N N UI UI N N N N N N N N N N N In (n N N N N N (U N N O O N 4) N N N N O (U m N O (U CO (n -p O > U 7 N U 7 U U U U U d LL 0) CO a- a- co u)LLY Y O` L m Y U U E U S] U C m m ' 0 U N C Q u Q C] m m CO Y y. 7 1] O CL Y V) C (n C Cn LL Y @ C Y Y Cn m e @ c m c m O m m Cc m m m Y CO @ Y m m @ co U) @ 7 �Q(n mfY]Cn �(n ZCnm T O ' Un D CC c <cr �Q�(Ya(YQ� m m CU c c LL p CY 00 m L O O @ (6 @ V V Cn p U U V (n d' C (P CY m O N O 0 0 N o N M M M O (DO U 0) ! � d > Ln LL co (n G) N N C)CD O O N N O O N O O N w (/1 > — T C (6 7 � � d Q c � N Q LL O H m m O V N :' CO O - N (D m(D 0� CDN O f� N N V M N tO M M M m N CDN CD00 V .- Ln m CO M N O (.D CD f� M M r� CD N m, CD m Ln N ,:rm m m N 0 m N M- m 0 N Ln V O m N O LO LO M In ; N (O O m m O CD N 1-0 V V CD� N m N 00 � N (D Ln m m Ln LD I r` M LD M O N m m M In M m O M CD M M m M Ln M O 00 O (D LD LO LA N p m LO CD N to C4 M N� U) N 64 (n V N CO O U) Lr) fq @ m Q O V LO O Ln M M N m CO M V U v O d N O r-- cD 00 r- ti O M M w Q U d m N O Ln O V M M M m M m � r- O N N M r- u U _@ (O 0] N `6 C U) d c E v n E > a c -o > LL _0 Li N C C 06 w LL>, c U CO G) m U Q) N 'p U >1 U d O C d LL EO C U a+ O N O @@ CDL) v OLL - .0 d E U C -6 L� C U U a) @ L T o L Q C N (D D C (D 7 v _ LO � w 7 LL cm m 73LLin oC) d c M o Ea Q)-c (DU E 0 0 7�-- a) D 0 C n d Y - E a o v O Q o u of C.> -j e- x C E O E @ U E> _ LL U CO O E @ @ L On a m cn @ a' q'S LL F- z, C _U v C n E U) N > d @ CO -- ` 4 U .d A O~ y C In (� >- a) o) n C O C>` n L 3 7 p L LL 7 F- (��Z UC.�U` d ��Q(n �UCw ca_2(T) 2' U�� CO N m o m r-- co m N CD M V (9 O 0 M e- CO LO ID 00 CD o V M co N (D It 00 co m M M CD - CD V (D m co - N N dM(OCDM LO00 v(D�Ln� �m C C m� M Ln Ln M C t` � N Ln n O D N m Ln co M V 7 O N (D � M N O N M N M co M m r O N m m r O O LO LO v v r-- co m (D (D v m (D (D V rl- co M V Ln (O N M M r- M O CN m m CO V V f� O V t M (D r- V M" m co @ @ CD LO LO m C @ M N O O (n c m 00 Ln O m O O N N (A M N m N co M V U3 U U) U) N OJ v m O m M m M m 3 Ln CO V V LO m of CO CD M M N N m O0 V r-- V �t N m M O (D - co m c0 Ln M (D C O CD LO 7 N n C ti V Ln V m m co V M co m LO a - m CD CD M N Q Q M Lo O M LO Q CO O O N O W LO V N m N M Ln M (D N V Ln LO .- M N M V O O (D I` CD CD M m f� N OD r- Ln CO L L CO 00 7 N CD L N N V ` ` m Ln LO (D m ro 2O V M CC m NM M r �- (D O N V O c)M N Lo N N M V� 0 0 N co U) U1 U) U) N LO aD V CD m Ln N N CC 7 CD LO r- M O M M 00 CD M m 0 CD 1- M LO _ M .- N m m m M (o N M Ln m Lo N Go O N M @ @ r- Ln Ln oo V O @ f� V OJ - M n 7 LO (D LO V 2 V m 0 - - L L co (D O co LO N L N m CD � m o) O U) N N N co v M (D M M LL l LL Ln Ln r-- r. . Ln m O Ln O O N Ln LO r-- co M c; 00 V N r M CO LO r� N V m Ln M M CD f� m O C V '- M Ln c0 O O N m - V - Ln Ln M O LO M N V V LO m m N OD Ln v m O ODN m m 0 V r- @ j V) N O M (D CO 00 m O N C C M N N 00 c @ @ @ U3 U) U) (n 00 N CD M m M M M `1 m M N r co O m N O N O O CC N N V LO v m O V v M CO m CD LO L L (D M M .- Cl) L C) LO O N r m E E m r- M O r r- E m m M m m 0 d v N (D N M M oD QJ M- m M cS V U U U) V O m U M m N c0 U3 U) V, M O MLO M M m N M OD O Ln N o0 (.O O (O N co m M M LO N M M OCO m LO r_(D N M m 00 N m y CO M N CD N CV N N ,- O OJ M N M L (p Ln N r- O N N m (D(� Ln m m � N E N In O O (D E O .- Ln M M Q) m M O r Ln d O MCC) c) O m (D v LO N r LO O M 00 O N M M c)M O N r` N N z f v3� z 0)NN (fly Z M O CO (0 CO m W V (O M O N N M V O N co m ^ CO O O O N M Ln M OD O m m 0 CC Ln LO LO ) N r-- O V N LO. V CD m Ln (D OD N f� co 'tL M �l C, M M m r- 00 r- LO m V' O O OD co N n O O�� p N cn co O (D M M O N t` N N O C\ N U U, En U, CO- t m M M oD M r OD co O m CD N r tb M m m y M M r� O r` r- o co N co 00 .- CO N LO m V N r CO V r- V N 40 () CD N M V M N M Ln m Ln V M Ln M �. E N LO LO oD M E w O N (D N m E .- O (D M O a) Ln N Ln O v o0 M Ln M m m v CD V (O Ef3 V n co dD co y M m N r- r C) v r- r- co r\ O M O N r O a) CD N N Uo U- U3 U, cn (n cn 0o 00 M f� O CD (D M M O CD CDV (D N V M Ln M M O0 CD CO m N f� ^ M CD0)m M O� If 00 N NMI O(D (Dco nm �r� (D co 'Tr �n6coLri0 0) co0C� (DV Np U)N �C)Lnr-l- (DMcoLnM Ln Lo -000Ln(Dm OM M (O LO LO CY M m N (O O Cl) V C) QLn Ln 00 MCIJ � Q N oo D v LO N (D U) U) U) U) U) U U In 00 V co N Ln LO M N 00 d' N M V aD LO m M V CD Ln M r' V co m O �- V M M m y r N O V Ln N CO N OD tO OJ M LO V m m Ln(pOO� Ln MO(D (`0N C)vvmv OO C�(LINY (D(`") 0D1Ln000) r-COLn(,) Co •-N N 00 Ln Ln Ln N _ m Ln M M O V _ N (D O M O CO 7 -1 U-i M M N D N N r- CD V 7 V V r� r m M N CC)N M N 00 O N LO N O Ef) V) `- U) U U N Ln N N n n a C w w w v v v U) 0 0 U a) N v O o v Ln v a) C n C OL C CL 0 0 @ _O n d to _z n a _U z n a UCf) _ U C U) @ C N @ C (Q E m N E N E m y d E m O U E UU O rn ` E O O rn in E a`)) c E z o v c E z� v c E c > c > n E c' o@ v E v c o m v E v c o@ � o a 0 U m w - o a 0 U m LL - o v o 1 �5a -C7 v om aSdHC� v om— aw�C3 a m v L v n D m (Dl v n @ v v E m @mviri.o�o mmviviEo�o @mnn �o 7 e S City of La Ouinta Reconciliation of Actual and Surplus Funds City. Redevelopment Agency and Financing Authority November 30. 2005 Balance of Actual Funds 185,223,313 Less Petty cash Funds (1,000) Less Non -Surplus Funds (1,781,565) Balance of Surplus Funds $ 183,440,748 City Cash & Investments Bank Accounts Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus All Funds Surplus Name - Availability _ _- - - Surplus _ Type Book _ Yes Adj Yes No Ad No Actual %, Yes 1.810 Wells Fargo -Demand No I Checking $ 12,810 $ $ $ 12.810 $ 1,768 755 I $ 1,78L565 - C 9 --- - ----- 7,000 Wells Fargo/HousingDemand Yes. - Checkin -- 47,536 47 536 -_. - _- 47_ - _ _-_ Total - Bank Accounts $ 61,346 $ 47 536 536 Petty ash - Demand No N/A 1,000 $ $ 47 536 $ 13,810 $ 1,768 755 $ 1,782.565 0.0331 % 0.0259 % U S Treasury Custodian - Availability Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York - Demand Bank of New York --Demand Total - U.S. Treasury Amortized 1 Surplus Issuer/Type Value Yes U S Treasury Bill 8,850,987 Yes U S Treasury Bill 9,814,718 Yes U S Treasury Bill 4,899,614 Yes U.S. Treasury Bill 9,824,657 Yes j U S. Treasury Note 3.997,710 Yes U S. Treasury Note 4,961,774 Yes U.S Treasury Note 5,000,877 Yes U S Treasury Note 4,979,184 52, 329, 521 Surplus ISurplus Yes Adj Yes 8,850,987 8,850 987 9,814,718 9,814 718 4,899,614 4,899,614 9,824.657 9,824.657 3,997,710 3.997 710 4,961,774 I 4,961,774 5,000,877 5,000,877 4,979,184 f 4,979,184 52,329 521 1 52,329.521 Surplus Surplus No Adl - No All Funds Surplus Actual % i Yes i 28.2521 /, 28 5267%, U S Government Sponsored Enterprises Amortized Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus All Funds Surplus Custodian - Availability Surplus Issuer/Type Value Yes Adj - Yes No Adj No Actual % Yes Bank of New York - Demand Yes FHLB 4,960,601 4.960 601 4,960,601 Bank of New York - Demand Yes FARM CREDIT 1,999.7101 999.710 1.999 710 Bank of New York - Demand Yes FHLB 1,999,680 1,999,680 1 999.680 Bank of New York - Demand Yes FHLB-Discount 1,994,462 1,994,462 1 994.462 Bank of New York - Demand Yes FHL Mortgage 7,519,525 7,519,525 7,519,525 Bank of New York - Dernand Yes FNMA 5,024.235 5.024,235 5.024,235 Bank of New York - Demand Yes FHL Mortgage 2,522,332 2,522,332 2 522 332 Bank of New York Demand Yes FARM CREDIT 4,953 736 4,953,736 4 953.736 Total - U_S Government Securities 30,974.281 30,974,281 30,974.281 16 7227%, j 16 8852 i, Local Agency Investment Fund '.., Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus All Funds Surplus Name - Availability Surplus '_ Type Book Yes . Ad I Yes No Adj No_ Actual `% Yes LAIF Cit Demand Yes State Pool 15,891.583 15,891 583 (1,768 755) 14,122,828 ( _ _ LATotalR-DStateDPoolnd Yes Pool -State 19.559,320 19,5559,320 C (1,768.755) 17 7790 565 - - 10 5599% Total City Investments 102,863,122 1 102,863,122 1 (1,768,755)1 101,094,367 55.5347% 55.1101 Total City Cash & Investments 102,924,468 102,910,658 1 (1,768,755)1 101,141,9031 13,810 1 1,768,755 1,782,565 55.5678 % 55.1360 % Fiscal Agent Investments PortfolioInvestments Amortized Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus All Funds Surplus CustodiantYAvalabilit y_ - Sur lus p 4- -- - ssuer T e - YP Value - Value e Yes y Adj Yes No Adj No Actual % Yes 2002 RDA U S Bank-CIP Yes U S Treasury Bill 9.979,569 9,979,569 9,979,569 2004 Finance Authority -CIP Yes U.S.Treasury Note 29,911,041 29,911,041 29,911,041 - - 2004 Finance Authority -CIP Yes U S Treasury Bill 9,886,369 9,886,369 9,886,369 20015,053 Finance -CIP .-- Yes - U _S.Treasury Note ; --74.592,032 ------ - -- - TotU.sY easuryity 74,592,032 74,592,032 - 40.271494, 40.6627"i,, Portfolio - Mutual Funds Money Market Book Trustee - Availability Surplus Mutual Fund Value Civic Center U S Bank - Project YES 1st American - Civic Center U SBank -Debt Svc i YES 1st American 176 1994 RDA U.S. Bank -Debt Svc YES 1st American - 1995 RDA U.S.Bank - CIP YES 1st American - 1995 RDA U.S_Bank - Special Fund YES 1st American - 2004 Fin Auth - 1995 US Bank - Escrow YES 1st American 1998 RDA U S.Bank - CIP YES 1st American 1998 RDA U S Bank - Dbt Svc YES 1st American 1998 RDA U. S. Bank - Special Fund YES 1st American - 1998 RDA U S Bank - CIP YES 1st American 2001 RDA U.S Bank - Dbt Svc YES 1st American 2001 RDA U.S. Bank - CIP YES I 1st American - 2002 RDA U.S. Bank - Dbt Svc YES 1st American - 2002 RDA U S. Bank - CIP YES 1st American 3,944,795 2003 Taxable RDA U.S Bank - DS YES 1st American 2003 Taxable RDA U. S. Bank -COI YES 1 st American '.. - 2003 Taxable RDA U S Bank-CIP YES 1st American 2004 Fin Auth US Bank - CIP YES 1st American 3,761,842 2004 Fin Auth US Bank - COI YES 1st American Subtotal - Mutual Fund 7,706,813 Total Fiscal Agent Investments Grand Total Surplus I Surplus Yes Adj Yes 176176 3,944 795 1 3,944,795 3, 761.842 3,761,842 71706,813 { 7,706,813 Surplus Surplus No Adj No All Funds Surph Actual %, i Yes 82,298,845 1 82,298,845 1 82,298,845 1 44.4322'/.l 44.8640% M 185,223,313 185,209,503 (1,768,755) 183,440,748 13,810 1 1,768,755 1 1,782,565 100.0000% 1 q,D000'/ i N � a C � Q _@ O C J ll O L C UULL Ln M O .- Ln Cl) � I-- 0 c) O O 00 Cl) R �" O co co V 00 of - co N O Ln M LV � `- 00 O N M U') 0) (0 LO 00 V N N O C m 00 Cl) f- l (D 4 O Ln N LD O 0) m N a) � N O (D N 00 U M V LLo e- O .- N " O 00 (v 00 N Ln dLO N O N � .O N O (Cli O 0 0 (7) In O O O M M V Cl) 00 Q) V M U M N O O - CD COn co - N !� O O LrD c- fD O r y O _ N O 0p T C6 (D zt � O N Ln O Ln n to N V O LL co (D V Ln N N N N O O N O 00 a) 'D d N m a) LO I- O O - nLn M M O `_ O Ln O V M O f` (D _ Ln 0 0 (�D O m V' O V O O C ttLO N 04 04 � U d ._ � a N Q Lr f\ O� N a) r O O M r- O CD coLo O O Q) M N (D N r M N Ll 00 N Cl)Lc)N M 00 N co .�0+ Ln 0 0 00 co N Cl) O _ O N On U') CD CD(D N (D CN N f0 L M (OD CN N a)L00 O co� lA r U L O V O (o O O 00 CO co r-N co O Lo Lo Lo (D N (D 0 Cl) V N n V N LO O CP O O Ln 00 U') LA LL O M N O aD -0 0) Ln N CD I-- O V O O O) N00 O O 00 m r- co __ CD 00_ O O O O O tD ^ O CD h U j M N C7� �t .- LO f� O Cl) (D O (MD O .O a N OLn O O) N O _O 04d O ti co O m 0 LL 0) V rl' N V O M r- M a pMj Ln LL O n [f Ln N O NCDD f- O N C\j E N N 00 U') ~ N �- @ co O O O O O M 00 O N ? O � O d L C M C M N Un C, N O N O 00 .-- O N �_ O m co C) V co D7 N Q) Cl) N T O@ LL Cl) O L(j V Uf') M N D1 N- O N N) LI'y � N Ln _ d- N N M N (X) O O O O [t co O O 00 O Lo O� N O a) � O M ca 1] M � N N co CO m� CO N (Np � O O M O a) f- 00 �� Q) O Cl) MO L O N 00 Ln I- m O CO M M 0) Ln � ti O O CO 00 0) D) LL N - of r 0M0 Ln O O N O (\ Ln C') V O N O N Ln Cl) f- O O N N_ M r- M 3 r' V r- Ln N - Ln (.0 O O M - "I! v 1l- Ln ti Q L M 13 61 M N V CY) L O O m r O M LO N O O a O LO N N N T coM M f� - � O O V OLri (M V co m N .-- O M Cl) („j (V0000 ❑ f- L N C d y O @ O N > C U) L � N m U E x u _c V L Q w -_ L O C Q) U U O Lp U C C =- N m V) C n ED m� U a c a) L x Lo r m U ~ C o V)' LL :0 C C w w V) N (n m C (�0 U U X U C U .O @ C 3 Q N d �- O x y nS o (n O CL C@ C .� > @ (D (0 U d m L> @@ of-0 d x@ N @ (U p WLnQOU❑H Z d L U W C d I IZ COCD CD (DCD CDM N O O O C? N 0 0 0 0 0 M CDO O m � V CO CO O (.D C) n m O'D O N M CD N O O O _N 0) f� � O Ln CD QOj f` CO CD co O O V "I -- N M LO O O co It ^_ O C V O d' O oz 00 Ln O M C) CD (DCDcoLn I` Cl)CDCDof CO Ln N CD CD N C) OO CD O (D CO N co (D Ln O <t N O O O O O O O f` O N O a? C M � N CD 7.- •-- CV CDO Cam') M O CD C)Ln CD N CD CD O CO CD CD CD O COO oQ 0 0 co CD C CD�N LO N N co NO O O O O O O O p CDO oo (D (D CDO rl- O O O CDCDco co M r- O O r N co Cl) I - co co L O O co Ln M d @ E V- O C L31 (n C C N E O _a N d 4) > O U) LL N > C C O C E O R U f0 C N O U C (D Y @ N C Q O N a) N L 4)E mru m T C O (A @ O Y V) m N '-'> -o c(1) L w m U (1) @ U O O c 7 N N Q_ c 0 O J U OD O (U CY d U 0 6 C d@@ C - U C cz 2icn CU C/) t @ u co @ N U) U �� tli -p 'o C C fl @ U a+ 0) LL C `O O ai a-coco F° z a` am°o Cfw 141 C, o Q) o 0 0 0 0 C C m O co N (o 7 �- 00 N= O C m f` N M CD C (D V Co f� N C M m O (D N O 7 f- V V oo = t` C N O Cl) �,.� m C V O Or- .-- Co C m CD C LO (D7 U m Lo r M (D m N M N M N r- O- = O- O N c- _- N V M 7 MCD V 0 0 C 0 Itr- LOO M M cc) N N N M N LO LO (v0) CO C) 0 o 0 0 0 (D COV C:) V CD 00 r LO f'- M - O 0 0 0 0 (N LO @ m O M m N Ln O f-- M 00 N -- .- N 0 0 0 0 0 CD @ O (D t0 (o N (O m Uf r CM Lo M V M LO ` f` m m O CO N (D It CDm^ 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 Cl) m M LO ` LO LO M - = V ` 00 N (o f` N (o f` f` m ` LO O LO N m LO ` (D O M m O (D Q Q N N N Co N = M Q m O Q co LO O m f` 00 N N .- N Q 00 - LO f` 00 f` LO V Lo co LO ` `(0 o o O co (D f\ co LO ` o 0 0 o LO t O O M .-- 0 ` o 0 0 0 ^ o LO 00 00 00 ` o o 0 0 0 «') O m CO L!') M ` o 0 0 00 m N (fJ t` M @ N O @ _ CO V' M N N N N N @ LO Lo co O LO t` O -- '-- @ O f` r— _ .-- m N CD �--- @ N LO m M 00 N '-- N N @ M Co f-- N r. Q) Lo V LO V LO L QJ 0 0 0 \ L o 0 C Q) (D (D N t0 O (D N N o o C) Q) LO O M ' o 0 0 W O m V O (;) LO 0 0 0 CO O LO LO M � O L1_ LL �--- 0. Cl) N N N N N O CO M O ,IT .- CD '- '- LL m LO r N m O c- •- LL N LO m 00 L1') m N r- - - N LL M O CD (D Co Lo (o V (fl O O o 0 0 0 O LO N (D m0 O o 0 0 0 W O f-- O O o 0 0 0 o r- O N CO O O o 0 0 0 �� r- O f-- CO f- ti O (D M V Cl) N r— C C O N .-- LO r. N (ro C Ln M M O N (�-) C W (D C Cl) (D m M N 0 C M O O O Cl) .-@-) N N N N N O �-- 3 N CDr N N - -- -- M � (D LO (D t0 (D U \° \ \° o U o 0 0 0 (O (D m CO o0 (D \ \° \° \° o U o 0 0 0 (� 1t0 f` f` \° \° \° \° U o 0 0 o M o \° o o U o 0 o o 0 0 U o M o Q) 0 Q) (,.� 0 o0 N O 0 p N N N cn Q) = m= 0 CO LO v CD r N CO O O r O O N O M N Cl) N @ M O V n V (D 0 00 V Cl) CO V N Q) O t` 00 V� LO (o LO m LO CD > p o 0 0 0 O CO LO (D Cp Cl) f� L) LC) = > o 0 0 o M M p m M M f` O f� M > o 0 0 o N p V 00 00 Cl) o0 C4 (D V Co. O m > o 0 0 o m A N O N C) O O Cl) O O N co p LO O m m N M f-- Co LO p (D O O N T Z m 0 M M M V m Z ': O N N Z ((.) r 0-- Z � N - N N Z O 7 m M- N .-- M Z V N V M r LO M CO CD (D CD U Q 0 o 0 0 M V t0 L1') of M O M r p V Cl) M M M (n o 0 0 0 U m V N V 0 Q F- r- � O m o 0 0 0 U O') M (D -It O Q LO V M O o 0 o a� U .-- O 00 LO `- m Q V O O 0 N V o 0 0 0� 8-1 U F O f- t` o) Q O N LO O N V' N co N (`') o 0-� o 0 0 U Ln O m M N N Q V' N M Cl)M (V t0 CD (D (D (D (D -- Q) 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 f` W O t0 Cp N O d' N r^ 0 \ '-' o 0 0 0 °_ @ m n M LO f� O UJ m= o 0 0 0 0 '-' o 0 0 0 N L(') m (D = O (D V N O 0 '-' o 0 0 0 0 @ (D (D O N M O V N (D (D "' o 0 0 0 0 @ Cl) O M m M m (D N m C) '' N 0 '-' o C 0 o O V M CO(D (;-j O M N M N LO (,.) M M M co (n - -- N (o O c- _ N N- N V co co co V N Cf)(D CD (D (fl Co N C o o m ( V m (n o 0 0 0 0 N N o o 0 082 7 O C', LO LO LO (D 2 0 0 0 0o O o N Ln f-- f` V m o 0 0 0 o p _ O O m C) N o 0 0 0 0 p N_ M LO CO C (� CO r- 00 O M p f\ tf') V M O= (D p V N O M= LO m N m M LO LO ;; ce) p M M N ti') Q N M N M (n C) '- Q= 0= r- Q N '- N r- N Q� Cl) Cl) Cl) V Q (D CD (C (D O OLI) o 0 0 0` t0 '-- V M M 0 O o 0 0 0 Cl) O 00 V 0CD O o 0 0 0 co N M M O O o 0 0 0 o m O LO co N O o 0 0 0 o m O W m M V O o o� 0 0 0 � f� M O V N - (D 00 LO r co - f- LO (D � O N r9 m U)V m V CD CD r f� t` V LO V CO co r- M N N V Co N M (nO '- r- '- O '- CDN N N V M V M 7 (D (D (D (D (D (n (n cc CO E CO E (n (n cc Q) Q) E C N N cc Q)) N E E to (n cc- C Q) C C (n N C C O Q) E C N to C C Q)) QEC) C �; (n U) Q) Q) > > (n (n Q) Q) > > N(n O N > > U N Q) Q) > > (n (n Q) Q) > > to Q) Q) > > L C 0) L C Q) L C Q) L C Q) 'C C Q) L C Q) U Q in Q in Q v) U u) Q Q Q) Q _0_ Q) Q Q) Q Q) N@ C Q) Q) @ C N _ @@ C Q) @@ C Q) O@ C N C N O ° � _ @ a_� Q O .N = @ a U- Q a O .T) = @ a u- ¢ a O .N - @ LLQ a O .L - @ a- LL Q O .N = @ Q C O O O m j, N (n In @ O O O= j, (n (n (n @ _j O O O m , (n w (n @ _a O O O m j, (n (n (n @ O O O , m j (n Ln (n @ _a _LL O O In (n N @ O t0 O U) m Z+ C C_ C O O) Ol m 'O C C C_ O O) O) O) 'O C C C_ p y p O) Z+ 'p C C C_C_ fT O) 0) '6 O Y m p) 0) C C C_ C y _@ C 0 0 ` C C co 2 @ @ @ W W W C` C O .>. @ @ @ W W W `` C O @ @ @ W W W `` C U .�' @ @ @ W W W `` C U @ @ @ M W W W `` O @ @ @ m _7 W W W Q C M (O 4) Q) Q) L N H@0 Q) Q) N L Q) a N Q) N Q) L 10 H @ -o O N N Q) L F- @@ D Q) Q) N O L ) _Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) L J@ N N N Q) N N N C N (0 N N N C N N N N C N (0 N N N N (6 N N N C Q) @ E O Q) 70 Fo (0 O (0 L D= 7� @ (O 70 O a' 7 O C LL7 -0 @ @ O a' p D 2 @ @ @ O @ LL >> D 2 @ @ O (9 7 7 7� LL (@ @ @ O O U U� LL T --; > 2! O C C C Q) C C C X > Q C C C Q) C C C X > Q C C C Q) C C C X > Q C C C O C C C X > Q C C C Q) C C C x > Q C C C Q) C C C x > Q Q C� = Z Q Q Q (n Q J Q Q Q (n Q J Q Q Q () Q J Q Q Q (n Q J Q Q Q 0 Q J Q Q Q CO J 10 LO O O N L. m E .� O CY Z R � t O O O U m Ln tCD U N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCD CD CD CD CD CD CD q O � OO LO O O LO O v �r CY) T- 1 o 0 14 c a) O cp Z > c Q O rn c •c M W O N_ CO U ::3 0 c c a ■ c E (D c a 0 a� a U LL c E M W 0) C U- Q a �� cn w a� E a� c LO mc O N co U ai d �I 0- N m a) c W (D L • C � C I 11 r T41yl 4 ZP COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Transmittal of Revenue and Expenditure Report for November 30, 2005 and Investment Summary Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Transmittal of the November 30, 2005 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures and Investment Summary Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2005 for the City of La Quinta. Respectfully submitted, John M. Falconer, Finance Director Approved for submission by: J 6 Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Revenue and Expenditure Report, November 30, 2005 2. Investment Summary Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2005 K ATTACHMENT CITY OF LA QUINTA REVENUES - ALL FUNDS 07/01/2005 - 11/30/05 F FUNDS BUDGET D o� 0 RECEIVED General $27,847,009.00 F$8,362,706.15 30.00% Library 1,530,800.00) 0.00% Gas Tax Revenue 583,800.00 3 58.10% Federal Assistance 517,307.00 306,663.69 59.30% Urban Forestry 1,100.00 0.00 0.00% Slesf (Cops) Revenue 100,700.00 1.24 0.00% Local Law Enforcement 0.00 0.00 0.00% Indian Gaming 201,142.00 177,801.05 88.40% Lighting & Landscaping 842,200.00 1,718.69 0.20% RCTC 2,056,829.00 115,788.36 5.60% Quimby 805,700.00 3,766,822.70 467.50% Infrastructure 600.00 4,321.54 720.30% Village Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00% South Coast Air Quality 42,200.00 11,116.87 26.30% Cmaq/Istea 50,597.00 0.00 0.00% Transportation 1,162,500.00 1,345,153.13 115.70% Parks & Recreation 446,000.00 354,576.99 79.50% Civic Center 256,000.00 233,638.13 91.30% Library Development 177,500.00 157,958.00 89.00% Community Center 54,600.00 68,113.05 124.70% Street Facility 48,000.00 19,149.03 39.90% Park Facility 12,000.00 3,905.15 32.50% Fire Protection Facility 74,500.00 74,139.02 99.50% iLibrary Development (County) Facili 0.00 (0.46) 0.00% Arts In Public Places 105,100.00 135,021.96 128.50% Interest Allocation 0.00 637,069.21 0.00% Capital Improvement 71,113,055.00 10,053,604.38 14.10% Assessment District 2000-1 0.00 656.82 0.00% Equipment Replacement 397,000.00 337,602.52 85.00% Information Technology 443,000.00 427,895.97 96.60% Park Equipment & Facility 256,300.00 251,065.39 98.00% SilverRock Golf 3,720,155.00 648,957.68 17.40% SilverRock Golf 69,353.00 19.46 0.00% LQ Public Safety Officer 2,100.00 22.32 1.10% La Quinta Financing Authority 5,867,556.00 2,958,769.48 50.40% RDA Project Area No. 1 39,644,812.00 6,349,201.56 16.00% RDA Project Area No. 2 25,788,546.00 19,135,887.29 74.20% Total $184,218,061.00 $56,278,163.43 30.50% CITY OF LA QUINTA EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS 07/01 /2005 - 11 /30/05 FUNDS BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED REMAINING BUDGET PERCENT General $29,333,858.00 $7,141,977.50 $129,789.30 $22,062,091.20 24.3% Library 1,352,978.00 80,559.00 0.00 1,272,419.00 6.0% Gas Tax 724,732.00 258,577.28 0.00 466,154.72 35.7% Federal Assistance 517,307.00 306,663.69 0.00 210,643.31 59.3% Urban Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Slesf (Cops) Revenue 101,400.00 0.00 0.00 101,400.00 0.0% Local Law Enforcement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Indian Gaming 201,142.00 0.00 0.00 201,142.00 0.0% Lighting & Landscaping 842,200.00 350,916.62 0.00 491,283.38 41.7% RCTC 2,056,829.00 101,068.36 0.00 1,955,760.64 4.9% Quimby 645,133.00 161,300.19 0.00 483,832.81 25.0% Infrastructure 676,547.00 492,789.86 0.00 183,757.14 72.8% Village Parking (1,893.00) 0.00 0.00 (1,893.00) 0.0% South Coast Air Quality 26,600.00 4,857.80 0.00 21,742.20 18.3% Cmaq/lstea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Transportation 7,322,318.00 1,338,847.76 0.00 5,983,470.24 18.3% Parks & Recreation 113,358.00 36,189.01 0.00 77,168.99 31.9% Civic Center 3,350,291.00 85,064.06 0.00 3,265,226.94 2.5% Library Development 0.00 16,930.58 0.00 (16,930.58) 0.0% Community Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Street Facility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Park Facility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Fire Protection 0.00 7,527.75 0.00 (7,527.75) 0.0% Library County DIF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Arts In Public Places 514,978.00 24,428.92 0.00 490,549.08 4.7% Interest Allocation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Capital Improvement 71,113,055.00 10,053,604.38 51,034.10 61,008,416.52 14.1% Proposed Assessment Di 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Equipment Replacement 1,082,585.00 80,985.85 0.00 1,001,599.15 7.5% Information Technology 634,043.00 63,641.18 0.00 570,401.82 10.0% Park Maintenance Facility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% SilverRock Golf 4,255,518.00 1,380,451.80 0.00 2,875,066.20 32.4% Lq Public Safety Officer 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.0% La Quinta Financing Auth 5,867,556.00 3,475,268.13 0.00 2,392,287.87 59.2% RDA Project Area No. 1 66,203,703.00 14,208,681.90 0.00 51,995,021.10 21.5% RDA Project Area No.2 84,970,056.00 12,848,128.98 0.00 72,121,927.02 15.1% Total $281,906,294.00 $52,518,460.60 $180,823.40 $229,207,010.00 18.6% 07/01/2005 - 11/30/05 CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL FUND REVENUES DETAIL TAXES: Property Tax No Low Property Tax Distribution Sales Tax Sales Tax Reimbursement Document Transfer Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Transient Occupancy Tax - Mitigatio Franchise Tax TOTALTAXES LICENSE & PERMITS: Business License Animal License Building Permits Plumbing Permits Mechanical Permits Electrical Permits Garage Sale Permits Misc. Permits TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS FEES: Sale of Maps & Publications Community Services Fees Bldg & Safety Fees Community Development Fees Public Works Fees TOTAL FEES INTERGOVERNMENTAL Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Motor Vehicle Code Fines Parking Violations Misc. Fines AB939 County of Riverside Grant State of California Grant Fire Services Credit CSA152 Assessment TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTEREST MISCELLANEOUS Miscellaneous Revenue Other Mitigation Measures Litigation settlement Cash Over/(Short) TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER IN TOTAL GENERAL FUND i REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED 1,167,900.00 146,431.94 1,021,468.06 12.540% 1,545,000.00 170,141.79 1,374,858.21 11.010% 5,256,000.00 1,632,224.80 3,623,775.20 31.050% 1,752,000.00 0.00 1,752,000.00 0.000% 797,800.00 422,836.66 374,963.34 53.000% 4,108,100.00 775,650.03 3,332,449.97 18.880% 0.00 437,500.00 (437,500.00) 0.000% 916,200.00 184,609.09 731,590.91 20.150% 15,543,000.00 3,769,394.31 11,773,605.69 24.250% 274,100.00 92,363.30 181,736.70 33.700% 14,800.00 6,049.50 8,750.50 40.880% 493,800.00 788,611.83 (294,811.83) 159.700% 84,400.00 137,082.00 (52,682.00) 162.420% 43,100.00 75,713.00 (32,613.00) 175.670% 85,000.00 112,885.14 (27,885.14) 132.810% 11,800.00 6,390.00 5,410.00 54.150% 86 200.00 108 092.91 (21,892.91) 125.400% 1,093,200.00 1,327,187.68 (233,987.68) 121.400% 13,200.00 2,533.85 10,666.15 19.200% 252,750.00 131,614.89 121,135.11 52.070% 377,100.00 481,815.82 (104,715.82) 127.770% 222,400.00 116,870.00 105,530.00 52.550% 584 400.00 939 488.00 (355,088.00) 160.760% 1,449,850.00 1,672,322.56 (222,472.56) 115.340% 1,726,200.00 79,096.48 1,647,103.52 4.580% 94,000.00 28,158.14 65,841.86 29.960% 27,700.00 8,120.00 19,580.00 29.310% 175,874.00 76,984.82 98,889.18 43.770% 89,350.00 0.00 89,350.00 0.000% 0.00 16,719.29 (16,719.29) 0.000% 8,600.00 11,158.60 (2,558.60) 129.750% 4,337,893.00 43,473.92 4,294,419.08 1.000% 174 200.00 202 363.08 (28,163.08) 116.170% 6,633,817.00 466,074.33 6,167,742.67 7.030% 2,747,400.00 1,124,173.85 1,623,226.15 40.920% 7,149.00 3,572.57 3,576.43 49.970% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 51.00 (19.15) 70.15 -37.550% 7,200.00 3,553.42 3,646.58 49.350% 372,542.00 0.00 372,542.00 0.000% 27,847,009.00 8,362,706.15 19,484,302.85 30.030% '3 5 CITY OF LA QUINTA ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED LIBRARY: County of Riverside 1,527,800.00 0.00 1,527,800.00 0.000% Contributions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 3,000.00 (156.17) 3,156.17 -5.210% TOTAL LIBRARY 1,530,800.00 (156.17) 1,530,956.17 -0.010% GAS TAX REVENUE: Section 2105 189,300.00 94,351.16 94,948.84 49.840% Section 2106 147,000.00 65,667.93 81,332.07 44.670% Section 2107 233,700.00 127,677.03 106,022.97 54.630% Section 2107.5 6,200.00 6,000.00 200.00 96.770% Traffic Congestion Relief 0.00 44,816.95 (44,816.95) 0.000% Interest 7,600.00 460.16 7,139.84 6.050% TOTAL GAS TAX 583,800.00 338,973.23 244,826.77 58.060% FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REVENUE: CDBG Grant 517,307.00 306,663.69 210,643.31 59.280% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 517,307.00 306,663.69 210,643.31 59.280% URBAN FORESTRY Grant Revenue 1,100.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL URBAN FORESTRY 1,100.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.000% SLESF (COPS) REVENUE: SLESF (Cops) Funding 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.000% Interest 700.00 1.24 698.76 0.180% TOTAL SLESF (COPS) 100,700.00 1.24 100,698.76 0.000% LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT REVENUE: LLEBG Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL LLEBG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% INDIAN GAMING Grant revenue 198,942.00 177,250.00 21,692.00 89.100% Interest 2,200.00 551.05 1,648.95 25.050% TOTAL INDIAN GAMING 201,142.00 177,801.05 23,340.95 88.400% LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING REVENUE: Assessment 842,200.00 1,718.69 840,481.31 0.200% Developer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL LIGHTING & LANDSCAPIN 842,200.00 1,718.69 840,481.31 0.200% RCTC RCTC Funding Transfer in TOTAL RCTC QUIMBY REVENUE: Quimby Fees Interest TOTAL QUIMBY INFRASTRUCTURE REVENUE: Utility refund Interest Transfer in TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE VILLAGE PARKING REVENUE: Interest TOTAL VILLAGE PARKING 2,056,829.00 115,788.36 1,941,040.64 5.630% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 2,056,829.00 115,788.36 1,941,040.64 5.630% 800,000.00 3,760,838.63 (2,960,838.63) 470.100% 5,700.00 5,984.07 (284.07) 104.980% 805,700.00 3,766,822.70 (2,961,122.70) 467.520% 0.00 2,500.00 (2,500.00) 0.000% 600.00 1,821.54 (1,221.54) 303.590% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 600.00 4,321.54 (3,721.54) 720.260% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY REVENUE: S.C.A.Q. Contribution MSRC Funding Street Sweeping Grant Interest TOTAL SCAQ CMAQ/ISTEA CMAQ/ISTEA Grant Interest TOTAL CMAQ/ISTEA REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED 39,900.00 10,795.11 29,104.89 27.060% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 2,300.00 321.76 1,978.24 13.990% 42,200.00 11,116.87 31,083.13 26,340% 50,597.00 0.00 50,597.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 50,597.00 0.00 50,597.00 0.000% TRANSPORTATION Developer fees 1,096,200.00 1,329,867.31 (233,667.31) 121.320% Interest 66,300.00 15,285.82 51,014.18 23.060% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 1,162,500.00 1,345,153.13 (182,653.13) 115.710% PARKS & RECREATION Developer fees 446,000.00 354,106.00 91,894.00 79.400% Interest 0.00 470.99 (470.99) 0.000% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 446,000.00 354,576.99 91,423.01 79.500% CIVIC CENTER Developer fees Interest Transfer in TOTAL CIVIC CENTER 256,000.00 228,929.24 27,070.76 89.430% 0.00 4,708.89 (4,708.89) 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 256,000.00 233,638.13 22,361.87 91.260% LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT Developer fees 177,500.00 157,958.00 19,542.00 88.990% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 177,500.00 157,958.00 19,542.00 88.990% COMMUNITY CENTER Developer fees 37,000.00 66,371.00 (29,371.00) 179.380% Interest 17,600.00 1,742.05 15,857.95 9.900% TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTER 54,600.00 68,113.05 (13,513.05) 124.750% STREET FACILITY Developer fees 44,100.00 18,755.55 25,344.45 42.530% Interest 3,900.00 393.48 3,506.52 10.090% TOTAL STREET FACILITY 48,000.00 19,149.03 28,850.97 39.890% PARK FACILITY Developer fees 11,000.00 3,807.00 7,193.00 34.610% Interest 1,000.00 98.15 901.85 9.820% TOTAL PARK FACILITY 12,000.00 3,905.15 8,094.85 32.540% FIRE PROTECTION FACILITY Developer fees 74,500.00 74,139.02 360.98 99.520% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION FACILI 74,500.00 74,139.02 360.98 99.520% LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT (COUNTY) FACILITY Developer fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 (0.46) 0.46 0.000% TOTAL LIBRARY DEV (COUNTY) 0.00 (0.46) 0.46 0.000% ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES REVENUE: Arts in Public Places 97,500.00 133,039.98 (35,539.98) 136.450% Arts in Public Places Credits Applied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 7,600.00 1,981.98 5,618.02 26.080% TOTAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES 105,100.00 135,021.96 (29,921.96) 128.470% INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND: Pooled Cash Allocated Interest Transfer In TOTAL INTEREST ALLOCATION 0.00 637,069.21 (637,069.21) 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 637,069.21 (637,069.21) 0.000% t CITY OF LA QUINTA ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: CVAG CVWD County of Riverside Surface Transportation Funding City of Indio SB300 Funding RCTC SB821-Bicycle Path Grant State of California APP Contribution Developer Agreement Funding Litigation Settlements Transfers in From Other Funds TOTAL CIP REVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2000-1 Interest Assessment Bond Proceeds Prepayments -sewer assessments Transfer in TOTAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED 23,413,062.00 3,555,337.48 19,857,724.52 15.190% 848,479.00 0.00 848,479.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 472,800.00 19,170.00 453,630.00 4.050% 2,764,466.00 0.00 2,764,466.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 52,887.00 62,991.00 (10,104.00) 119.100% 373,575.00 0.00 373,575.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 306,250.00 0.00 306,250.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 42,881,536.00 6,416,105.90 36,465,430.10 14.960% 71,113,055.00 10,053,604.38 61,059,450.62 153.300% 0.00 656.82 (656.82) 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 0.00 656.82 (656.82) 0.000% EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND: Equipment Charges 331,300.00 331,312.00 (12.00) 100.000% Capital Contribution 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Sale of Fixed Asset 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Insurance Recoveries 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest 65,700.00 6,290.52 59,409.48 9.570% Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEME 397,000.00 337,602.52 59,397.48 85.040% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND: Charges for services 426,000.00 426,018.00 (18.00) 100.000% Capital Contribution 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Sale of Fixed Asset 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 17,000.00 1,877.97 15,122.03 11.050% Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOL( 443,000.00 427,895.97 15,104.03 96.590% PARK EQUIPMENT & FACILITY Charges for services 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 100.000% Interest 6,300.00 1,065.39 5,234.61 16.910% Capital Contributions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL PARK EQUIPMENT & FAC 256,300.00 251,065.39 5,234.61 97.960% SILVERROCK GOLF Green fees Range fees Resident Card Merchandise Food & Beverage Allocated Interest Income Transfers In TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE Interest Transfers In TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER FUND Transfer In Interest TOTAL LQ PUBLIC SAFETY 3,175,395.00 447,417.98 2,727,977.02 14.090% 34,470.00 7,929.00 26,541.00 23.000% 52,500.00 11,665.00 40,835.00 22.220% 245,790.00 61,945.70 183,844.30 25.200% 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% 200,000.00 120,000.00 80,000.00 60.000% 3,720,155.00 648,957.68 3,071,197.32 17.440% 0.00 19.46 (19.46) 0.000% 69,353.00 0.00 69,353.00 0.000% 69,353.00 19.46 69,333.54 0.030% 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.000% 100.00 22.32 77.68 22.320% 2,100.00 22.32 2,077.68 1.060% 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT GENERAL GOVERNMENT: LEGISLATIVE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL/RISK MGT TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT CITY CLERK TOTAL CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES PARKS & RECREATION ADMINISTRATION SENIOR CENTER PARKS & RECREATION PROGRAMS LIBRARY TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 07/01 /2005 - 11/30/05 REMAINING BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET 779,903.00 227,485.34 0.00 552,417.66 1,086,429.00 372,985.70 0.00 713,443.30 1,195,868.00 369,369.48 0.00 826,498.52 971,909.00 409,160.34 0.00 562,748.66 4,034,109.00 1,379,000.86 0.00 2,655,108.14 530,379.00 202,137.93 0.00 328,241.07 530,379.00 202,137.93 0.00 328,241.07 1,009,119.00 212,226.21 5,584.48 791,308.31 372,661.00 123,603.27 0.00 249,057.73 189,832.00 67,387.76 0.00 122,444.24 843,605.00 66,558.20 13,408.64 763,638.16 2,415,217.00 469,775.44 18,993.12 1,926,448.44 FINANCE FISCAL SERVICES 749,178.00 285,228.32 CENTRAL SERVICES 480,682.00 196,532.67 TOTAL FINANCE 1,229,860.00 481,760.99 BUILDING & SAFETY: BUILDING & SAFETY - ADMIN 343,081.00 128,304.76 BUILDING 951,179.00 506,354.16 CODE COMPLIANCE 660,374.00 227,128.80 ANIMAL CONTROL 395,986.00 107,888.72 CIVIC CENTER BUILDING -OPERATIONS 1,024,190.00 159,819.45 TOTAL BUILDING & SAFETY 3,374,810.00 1,129,495.89 PUBLIC SAFETY: POLICE SERVICES 7,988,288.00 1,282,685.53 FIRE 4,428,480.00 74,943.80 EMERGENCY SERVICES 33,650.00 11,055.19 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 12,450,418.00 1,368,684.52 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - ADMIN CURRENT PLANNING TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT & TRAFFIC MAINT/OPERATIONS - STREETS MAINT/OPERATIONS - LTG/LANDSCAPING MAINT/OPERATIONS - PARK MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS TRANSFERS OUT GENERAL FUND REIMBURSEMENTS NET GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 0.00 463,949.68 68,521.89 215,627.44 68,521.89 679,577.12 0.00 214,776.24 0.00 444,824.84 0.00 433,245.20 0.00 288,097.28 0.00 864,370.55 0.00 2,245,314.11 30,355.70 6,675,246.77 0.00 4,353,536.20 0.00 22,594.81 30,355.70 11,051,377.78 844,638.00 244,498.18 0.00 600,139.82 750,389.00 158,626.72 0.00 591,762.28 1,595,027.00 403,124.90 0.00 1,191,902.10 (389,171.00) 315,854.00 118,530.10 518.59 196,805.31 1,206,213.00 553,557.25 11,400.00 641,255.75 1,330,424.00 441,124.21 0.00 889,299.79 1,938,880.00 626,163.28 0.00 1,312,716.72 1,079,651.00 509,548.92 0.00 570,102.08 661,417.00 258,528.18 0.00 402,888.82 6,532,439.00 2,507,451.94 11,918.59 3,623,897.47 2,042,645.00 529,379.50 0.00 1,513,265.50 (4,871,046.00) (1,328,834.47) 0.00 (3,542,211.53) 29,333,858.00 7,141,977.50 129,789.30 22,062,091.20 i f1 CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/2005 - 11/30/05 OTHER CITY FUNDS REMAINING EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET LIBRARY FUND PROJECT EXPENDITURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 843,605.00 41,773.79 0.00 801,831.21 TRANSFER OUT 509,373.00 38,785.21 0.00 470,587.79 TOTAL LIBRARY FUND 1,352,978.00 80,559.00 0.00 1,272,419.00 GAS TAX REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 583,800.00 243,250.00 0.00 340,550.00 TRANSFER OUT 140,932.00 15,327.28 0.00 125,604.72 TOTAL GAS TAX FUND 724,732.00 258,577.28 0.00 466,154.72 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND: TRANSFER OUT TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 517,307.00 306,663.69 0.00 210,643.31 URBAN FORESTRY GRANT -i RANSFER OUT TOTAL URBAN FORESTRY GRANT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SLESF (COPS) TRANSFER OUT TOTAL SLESF (COPS) FUND 101,400.00 0.00 0.00 101,400.00 LLEBG FUND TRANSFER OUT TOTAL LLEBG FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INDIAN GAMING FUND TRANSFER OUT 201,142.00 0.00 0.00 201,142.00 TOTAL INDIAN GAMING FUND 201,142.00 0.00 0.00 201,142.00 LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DIST: REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 842,200.00 350,916.62 0.00 491,283.38 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LTG/LANDSCAPING FUND 842,200.00 350,916.62 0.00 491,283.38 RCTC TRANSFER OUT 2,056,829.00 101,068.36 0.00 1,955,760.64 TOTAL RCTC 2,056,829.00 101,068.36 0.00 1,955,760.64 QUIMBY FUND: TRANSFER OUT TOTAL QUIMBY FUND 645,133.00 161,300.19 0.00 483,832.81 INFRASTRUCTURE FUND CONSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT 676,547.00 492,789.86 0.00 183,757.14 TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 676,547.00 492,789.86 0.00 183,757.14 VILLAGE PARKING TRANSFER OUT TOTAL VILLAGE PARKING FUND (1,893.00) 0.00 0.00 (1,893.00) SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FUND PROJECT EXPENDITURES 26,600.00 4,857.80 0.00 21,742.20 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 26,600.00 4,857.80 0.00 21,742.20 CMAQ/ISTEA TRANSFER OUT TOTAL CMAQ/ISTEA FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CONTRIBUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT 7,322,318.00 1,338,847.76 0.00 5,983,470.24 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 7,322,318.00 1,338,847.76 0.00 5,983,470.24 PARKS & RECREATION INTEREST ON ADVANCE 0.00 23,079.01 0.00 (23,079.01) TRANSFER OUT 113,358.00 13,110.00 0.00 100,248.00 TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 113,358.00 36,189.01 0.00 77,168.99 CIVIC CENTER PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 204,173.00 85,064.06 0.00 119,108.94 TRANSFER OUT 3,146,118.00 0.00 0.00 3,146,118.00 TOTAL CIVIC CENTER 3,350,291.00 85,064.06 0.00 3,265,226.94 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INTEREST ON ADVANCE 0.00 16,930.58 0.00 (16,930.58) TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 0.00 16,930.58 0.00 (16,930.58) i L�J CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/2005 - 11/30/05 REMAINING OTHER CITY FUNDS EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 STREET FACILITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT TOTAL STREET FACILITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PARK FACILITY PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PARK FACILITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FIRE PROTECTION INTEREST ON ADVANCE 0.00 7,527.75 0.00 (7,527.75) TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION DIF 0.00 7,527.75 0.00 (7,527.75) LIBRARY COUNTY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROGRAM COSTS TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LIBRARY COUNTY DIF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES-APP 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00 OPERATING EXPENSES-APP 1,800.00 0.00 0.00 1,800.00 ART PURCHASES 282,758.00 24,428.92 0.00 258,329.08 TRANSFER OUT 226,920.00 0.00 0.00 226,920.00 TOTAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES 514,978.00 24,428.92 0.00 490,549.08 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROJECT EXPENDITURES 70,089,487.00 10,018,149.38 51,034.10 60,020,303.52 PROJECT REIMBURSEMENTS TO GEN FUND 1,023,568.00 35,455.00 0.00 988,113.00 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 71,113,055.00 10,053,604.38 51,034.10 61,008,416.52 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2000-1 COSTS OF ISSUANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER TO AGENCY FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AD 2000-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND OPERATING EXPENSES 425,585.00 80,985.85 0.00 344,599.15 TRANSFER OUT 657,000.00 0.00 0.00 657,000.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,082,585.00 80,985.85 0.00 1,001,599.15 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OPERATING EXPENSES 634,043.00 63,641.18 0.00 570,401.82 TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND 634,043.00 63,641.18 0.00 570,401.82 PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY OPERATING EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE FAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SILVERROCK GOLF OPERATING EXPENSES 4,186,165.00 1,380,451.80 0.00 2,805,713.20 TRANSFER OUT 69,353.00 0.00 0.00 69,353.00 TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF 4,255,518.00 1,380,451.80 0.00 2,875,066.20 SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LA QUINTA PUBLIC SAFETY CONTRIBUTIONS TOTAL LA QUINTA PUBLIC SAFETY 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 +may1., 11 ATTACHMENT 2 O O O LL (a E O ^� Ln W O ca E O O � co O (a >-, a) J = 0 O t� O � O UC�O T A 0 LC) comrl_ 'IT rnLOcoOCDCDmmCDmm -c�r-- LO M LO O - r- - M Lo O M - O 00 O M 00 c) O > O N 0 M r— M w Lo O d' M In (D r— N - r� O 4' 4 N N N q r,- r o0 O O ti O O M ti d O CO "t O r M O CO (D O N O N O O (fl (D i O 00 O LO LO O) 0') 0) 0) O 00 r` O) rl- O) 0)CO IT m Ln N ti N �1 t 00 CD O V CO cM Gq O O O O O O O O O O O O � CD� CD O co r` M CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD00 M O O O O O O CD CD O O O O O O _ ti m > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C) 0 0 (D N L CD CD O CD O O O CD CD O O CD CD CD CD CDLl (� O CD CD LO LO CD CD O CD CD CDCDO O CDD lf7 a LC) co N r-- N LC) LO LO LO � O) LO O, u LO � M, Gq CO CO Cfl CD CO 00 CD (D CDCO (D LO (D CO CO CO ate', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 m L N CD CD CD CD CD O N O O N O O N CD 0 0 -W m LC) r-- N Lo Lo r` CD CY) r- N �t co LO X X LO Lo Lf) Z Z W Q H C E O O O OLU_ U) U) O O c D U �( 0- a_ m a) — — m _ z J J Q= O O O m m c m m C Z I I L L l^ l^ LL LL LLL LL. Li- LL i— Cn Cn _0 _0 C C O O LL LL C C O (D E E U) U^)` 0) W J J J J J Cn Cn Cn (n (n Cn (n 0 U?O O-0 NZ = _ _ = Q = N LL U- LL LL LL LL LL D D D D D D� Z) Z) J J U!) C � O U (d M J O (0 O U � — Q > L `V O O C — O O } U O C U L - U 0 O M C C E �- � CB C L O O Q a- U O cr E TO O 2 0 E 0 Q > O V) U Q U Q L � Q - > O O > +. ^, ^^'' W W S� Y S. 7r F O (y0 N U p O (O O O is O Q Q C 1 0 o U U o V)LL (� U (n (n J J H 12 4 0 Q7 OF � COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Authorization for Overnight Travel for the City Clerk to Attend the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to be held in Anaheim, CA, May 13 - May 18, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve authorization for overnight travel for the City Clerk to attend the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to be held in Anaheim, CA, May 13 — May 18, 2006 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding is available in the budget from Travel, Training and Meetings Account No. 101-201-637-000. The breakdown of estimated expenditures is as follows: Registration $ 495 Hotel $ 888 Meals $ 150 Transportation $ 150 Total $1 ,683 CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The California City Clerk's Association is serving as the host to the International Institute of Municipal Clerks for their annual conference in 2006 (Attachment 1 ). The conference will be held in Anaheim, California, and will take the place of the Annual California City Clerks Conference this year. The City Clerk of La Quinta is involved in this conference for the full six days, serving on the Host and Hospitality Committee. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve authorization for overnight travel for the City Clerk to attend the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to be held in Anaheim, CA, May 13, - May 18, 2006 2. Do not approve authorization for overnight travel for the City Clerk to attend the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to be held in Anaheim, CA, May 13, - May 18, 2006 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, C4 J. Greek, City Clerk-' Approved for submission by: /�Zz, Z Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachment: 1 . Conference Program 2 ATTACHMENT 1 yo�i66�ale oi�&e1tts Expanding on the 2006 Conference theme of Leadership With Imagination, the Host Committee and IIMC have designed a unique schedule that truly reflects imagi- native thinking, creativity and inspiration. Replete with all the amenities and network- ing opportunities that IIMC members have come to experience over the years, the 60th IIMC Annual Conference also features an outstanding blend of 12 General Sessions, 12 Education Sessions, an ARMA Records Management Track, and three Athenian Leadership Society Dialogues to make for an excellent and memorable 2006 Confer- ence. SEE PAGE 11 FOR POINTS/HOURS/CREDITS EARNED FOR ATTENDING THIS CONFERENCE. SATURDAY, MAY 13 Conference Registration Opens - Marriott Hotel 2005/06 IIMC Board of Directors Meeting tD Academy Seminars Off Site Academy Workshop Athenian Leadership Society Dialogue SUNDAY, MAY 14 MCEF Walk/Run Conference Registration - Marriott Hotel Academy Seminars Athenian Leadership Society Dialogue IIMC Committee Leadership Orientation Institute Directors/Education Chairs Colloquium gE Exhibit Hall Opens or Delegate Orientation Opening Reception - Grove Theatre DJ & Dancing MONDAY, MAY 15 Opening "Take Off" Three General Sessions Committee Meetings {�w Exhibit Hall Grand Opening — Lunch Buffet ARMA Records Management Track Regional Dinners (Optional) T DJ & Dancing TUESDAY, MAY 16 Four General Sessions Athenian Leadership Society Dialogue Education Sessions ARMA Records Management Track Committee Meetings Institute Directors Meeting Exhibit Hall - Lunch Buffet gwIIMC 2007 Annual Conference Reception DJ & Dancing WEDNESDAY, MAY 17 Education Sessions Three General Sessions a- ARMA Records Management Track im Committee Meetings x LUNCH ON YOUR OWN All -Conference Event - Disneyland DJ & Dancing THURSDAY, MAY 18 IIMC Elections (if necessary) Two General Sessions as ARMA Records Management Track tr IIMC Annual Business Meeting/Luncheon 2006/07 IIMC Board of Directors Meeting Annual Reception DJ & Dancing Opening Reception, 2007 Conference Reception and All Conference Event are off site. Everything else is held at the Marriott Hotel. *Schedule Subject to Change 60th IIMC Annual Conference DELEGATE INFORMATION Use The Conference Registration And Housing Information Page In This Program To Register And To Reserve Your Room For The IIMC Annual Conference. Register (postmarked) by March 31, 2006 and Save $50. You must mail your Conference Registration Form with your pay- ment to IIMC Headquarters. IIMC will not accept telephone reservations. ON PAGE 15 of this Program, you'll find: 1) An IIMC Conference Registration Form to be completed and returned to IIMC Headquarters. IIMC will confirm your Confer- ence registration by mail. Housing Information On Back Cover: Delegates can make their own hotel reservation by 1) registering on-line through the link or 2) calling Marriott Hotel Reservations at 800/228-9290. (SEE BACK COVER FOR MORE INFORMATION). REGISTRATION: The IIMC Conference Registration Office will be at the Marriott Hotel. Registrants may check in beginning Saturday, May 13 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Sunday, May 14 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The IIMC Office will remain open throughout the week. The Registration Package fee for IIMC, Associate and Retired Members and Non - Members includes: Opening Reception - Grove Theatre Opening Ceremony Concurrent Education Sessions & ARMA Track Admission to Exhibit Hall General Sessions THREE Luncheons All -Conference Event - Disneyland IIMC Annual Business Meeting Annual Banquet Conference Program/Information Refreshment breaks Nightly DJ and dancing The GUEST Registration Package includes: Opening Reception - Grove Theatre Opening Ceremony Admission to Exhibit Hall TWO Luncheons (Monday & Tuesday) All -Conference Event - Disneyland Annual Banquet Conference Program/Information Refreshment breaks Nightly DJ and dancing TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DELEGATE ROSTER, YOU MUST REGISTER BY FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2006. CANCELLATIONS/REFUNDS Canceled registrations must be sent in writing to IIMC Headquarters either by mail or FAX (909/944-8545). IIMC WILL NOT ACCEPT TELEPHONE CANCELLATIONS. If written notice is received by Monday, April 10, 2006, regardless of what you cancel (either Academy or Conference Registration or ALL), you will receive a full refund minus a US$40.00 handling and processing charge. If written notice is received between Tuesday, April 11 and Friday, May 5, 2006, 75% of the ABOVE Fees will be refunded. NO REFUNDS will be made after Friday, May 5, 2006. Refunds will not be issued for late arrival or early departure. No refunds will be made for skipped events. IIMC Headquarters will process any refund due within 30 days AFTER the end of the Conference. Cash refunds are NOT available in Anaheim. HOUSING INFORMATION Delegates can make their own hotel reservation by 1) registering on-line through the link or 2) calling Marriott Hotel Reservations at 800/228-9290. (SEE BACK COVER FOR MORE INFORMATION) Conference housing rates will be honored on a first -come, first -serve and availability basis. ROOM TAX IS 15%. COMMERCE FEE IS $1.15 PER ROOM/PER NIGHT. All room reservations are to be guaranteed with a credit card. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing materials. If you have any special needs (physically challenged, dietary, etc.) or for information concerning suites and hospitality rooms, please contact Denice Cox by calling 909/944-4162. Zeaalev-e%� cult% 14 2006 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION Print or type all information First Name Last/Surname CIVIC MMC First IIMC Con£ (Y/N) First Name or Nickname to appear on badge Title Municipality State/Province Country Mailing Address Citv ZIP/Postal Code Phone FAX E-mail Please check box if you need special assistance (physically challenged, etc. ) L-1 Type of Assistance DISCOUNT PROGRAM (circle one) (Deduct discounts on this form prior to Zotal before submitting payment to IIMC.) • First Timer Yes No US$50.00 California Clerk Yes No US$50.00 • Region X (CANADA) or XI (OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA) Member Yes No US$50.00 GUEST INFORMATION Name First name to appear on badge Municipality State/Province Country REGISTRATION FEES Delegate Package (ALL COSTS IN US DOLLARS) No. On or Before 3/31/06 After 3/31/06 IIMC Member/Associate @ $545.00 $595.00 IIMC Retired Member @ $295.00 $355.00 Non -Member @ $695.00 $755.00 Guest Package @ $245.00 $305.00 OPTIONAL ACTIVITIES (All costs in U.S. Dollars) SATURDAY, MAY 13 ACADEMY SEMINARS • Building Great Boards And Commissions @ $195.00 $ • The Dance Of Leadership @ $195.00 $ Off -Site Academy Workshop • Richard Nixon Presidential Library/Birthplace @ $195.00 $ • Athenian Leadership Dialogue: Billy Budd @ $150.00 $ SUNDAY, MAY 14 MCEF Walk/Run @ $20.00 $ I can't participate. Here's my contribution $ • Athenian Leadership Dialogue: The Mistress of the Elgin Marbles @ $150.00 $ ACADEMY SEMINARS • Presentations That Generate Results @ $195.00 $ • Collaborative Communications @ $195.00 $ TUESDAY, MAY 16 • Athenian Leadership Dialogue: Grapes of Wrath @ $150.00 $ DEDUCT DISCOUNT Total Submit Registration Form and payment by check/money order/credit card (in U.S. $ funds) by above dates. ❑ CHECK ENCLOSED PAYABLE TO IIMC TOTAL $ American Express /Visa /Mastercard # Total Amt. Charged $ Expiration Date Card Holder's Signature Mail this Form to IIMC., 8331 Utica Avenue, Suite 200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, postmarked by May 1, 2006. If you miss this deadline, please bring this Form and payment with you to the Conference Registration Dcsk at the Anaheim Marriott. 6001 IIMC Annual Conference �e�tewa��a�ucatio�t �'essio�ts This year's theme is Leadership with Imagination! Education, Innovation, Progress. As leaders in their munic- ipalities, Municipal Clerks are those individuals to which citizens seek out for answers, to innovate new ideas and to move their municipality forward. IIMC has 12 outstanding general session speakers who will give you new perspec- tives on being a leader in your profession. These are custom -designed presentations for IIMC members delivered by accomplished and superbly knowledgeable presenters. PLAN, BRIEF, EXECUTE, DEBRIEF = WIN! Have you ever wondered how to execute your goals or a plan flawlessly? Well, imagine that in Just 90 action - packed minutes you can! The great part is you will be working for the common goals set by you and your organization. When a team works as one unit, it can do anything. It can achieve any goal. • Learn how to plan your organization's common goals • Learn how to brief your team on the plan • Learn how to execute your organization's strategy fast and effectively • Learn how to be prepared for anything - everyday Have you ever wondered why a plan or goal did not go as you had planned? Join us in the afternoon for the debriefing of this session. Debriefing a plan is critical to your organization's future goals. Without a debrief to discuss what went right and what went wrong, your plan can go down in flames. REMEMBERING PRINCESS DIANA - HOW ONE PERSON CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE Susan Maxwell Skinner Princess Diana was more than a 20th century pop icon. Her achievements still inspire those determined to balance career with family and to serve their communities. Through eight years on Diana's accredited press, our keynoter learned from Diana's trail -blazing humanitari- anism. With insight and humor, Susan details those royal years. The speaker also shares Diana's still -relevant les- sons: • That you needn't be a saint to help make the world a better place. • Lessons learned from parenthood can change humanity. New Zealand -born Skinner is the noted author of Diana, Memory of a Rose. A community activist in her adopted Sacramento, CA, she has shared her experiences with Municipal Clerks and other professionals and volun- teers. Having presented this program to dozens of nationwide fundraisers, Susan feels she continues the charitable mission of a woman she greatly admired. LEADERSHIP JAZZ Dr. Walter Wright Don't Step on the Rope! _klWho are you? What is : w: important to you? What legacy are you leaving? Who do you intend to be? Who cares? What questions shape your future? �d These are the questions of lead- ership posed by Max De Pree, �= author of Leadership Jazz. This 90 minute participative presentation will pursue these questions, exploring the connection between the values of leadership and the productivity of organization- al teams. Walter Wright, a long-term mentoree of Max De Pree and executive director of the De Pree Leadership Center in Pasadena, speaks out of 30 years experience in executive leadership roles and 30 years of climbing mountains with a team of friends. Building on the mountain climbing rope as a metaphor for the link between leader and follower, the session will focus on what is important in leaders' lives, what legacy they are leaving, where they want to grow next and how to find mentors who will encourage their development. The ses- sion will apply the reflections from the Leadership Jazz columns in the News Digest this past year. 60th 11MC Annual Conference �eitewaI�ciucatiolt (fmsioffs MASTERING CHANGE: LEAVING YOUR COMFORT ZONE, TAKING RISKS, AND GETTING RESULTS Dr. Alan Zimmerman, CSP Today, change is the rule - not the exception. Whether it's your personal, professional, or organizational life, change is coming more rapidly than ever before. It leaves your head spin- ning and your stomach turning. To thrive in times like these, people need Cl" attitude adjust- ment. They need to remember that all progress is the result of change. Without making some changes, tak- ing some risks, they may not grow, succeed, or even sur- vive as a person or as an organization. But people also need a skill enhancement. Leaders need the tools for creating an environment that is con- ducive to change, an environment that encourages mutual trust, creative ideas and innovation. Whether you're a leader or a team member, this pro- gram will give you the tools to take charge of change. OBJECTIVES: • To learn strategies that overcome resistance to change • To understand the dynamics of change, what works and doesn't work • To make constructive risk taking a larger part of one's personal and professional life • To master a process that helps people accept, lead, or implement change Dr. Zimmerman has a vast array of experience. His background includes work in retail sales, recreation man- agement, radio broadcasting, prison therapy, university teaching, and president of his own consulting company. He was selected as the "Outstanding Faculty Mem- ber" by two different universities, and most recently he was awarded the CSP by the National Speakers Associa- tion. In 2003 he was awarded the CPAE (Council of Peers Award for Excellence) Speaker Hall of Fame by the National Speakers Association. Dr. Zimmerman earned his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Wisconsin in Speech and Political Science. He earned his Master's Degree from the University of Minnesota in Speech and Sociology. He earned his Doc- torate from University of Minnesota in Communication and Psychology. Zeaclews%� wlt% /ina�iKatia7 LEADERSHIP AT 26,000 FEET David Breashears David Breashears' leadership presentation is based on twenty-five years of real -life frontline experience as a widely traveled mountaineer, adven- turer, and filmmaker. In telling the story of the now infamous 1996 tragedy on Mount Everest, Breashears dramatically recounts the vision, courage, and passion that led to his team reaching the summit on May 23, 1996 despite insurmountable odds. His multimedia presentation includes breathtaking and rarely seen images from his IMAX Everest expedition. Breashears has said that if there is a lesson to be learned from the tragedy, it is that success was not only being the world's first IMAX team to film on Everest's summit, it was also that everyone on his team returned safely from the mountain. The leadership skills that Breashears learned, refined, and applied during his twelve expeditions to Mount Ever- est are highly relevant to managing the Everest -size chal- lenges companies face in today's business world. He believes that to lead successfully in the turbulent and ever -changing environment in which we live and work, a leader should exercise the following important principles: • Know the world into which you lead. • Accept responsibility for your plans, your actions, and the consequences of your actions. • Keep your team focused. • Be willing to roll up your sleeves and work shoulder to shoulder with other team members. • Have conviction and vision and a belief in the mission. • Have the courage to embrace big ideas and big goals and the willingness to take well -consid- ered risks. • Believe in careful, thoughtful planning. • Understand the power of humility and restraint. eimtca ? 6ala 0 a el�l( yeeel�lw CONSCIOUS COMMUNICATION FOR SERVICE LEADERSHIP: INSPIRING AND DELIVERING GREAT SERVICE Dr. Rick Brinkman Designed for leaders of customer service teams, this keynote provides the foundation for how to inspire and deliver service excellence. By learning key strategies, your team will rally around a service vision and create an environment where everyone is con- stantly thinking of new ways to delight customers. Twenty years of Dr. Rick's research has resulted in the discovery of 10 traits of all great service organi- zations. Here are just some of the service secrets he will share: • Learn the #1 reason why customers stop doing business with you and how to avoid it. • Discover five simple communication tactics to find out what your customers really like, don't like, and what the customer would love even more! • Have the ability to turn an upset customer into your most loyal customer. • Why customer service is a moving target and how to constantly find ways to continuously delight your customers. • Internal Customers: keep your team happy applying service principles to the people you supervise. Dr. Rick has been in public practice since 1980, helping people to become better leaders, inspiring teams and working with companies to improve workplace performance and the bottom line. With his signature Educating through Entertainment style, Dr. Rick is a keynote speaker and trainer for Fortune 1000 compa- nies, association events and government meetings. He is frequently featured in the media and has appeared on CNN, and in Oprah magazine and the Wall St. Journal. COMMUNICATING WITH IMPACT! Patrick Donadio, CSP In today's high-tech world, �good old-fashioned, verbal com- munication is not as good as it used to be. In this fun, yet prac- tical presentation, Patrick takes a look at how we communicate and why very often, the mes- sage we send is not necessarily the same message that is received! You will learn to capitalize on your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. This dynamic program will help you to develop your communication skills -- listening as well as speaking, verbal as well as non-verbal. Improved com- munications lead to enhanced relationships, less stress and better service. Patrick Donadio is a Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) and Master Certified Coach (MCC). Since 1986, he has guided leaders and their organizations with powerful presentations and one-on-one business communications coaching. From the boardroom to the classroom, he shows people how to improve communications, increase profits, enhance credibility, deepen relationships and boost performance - in less time. A nationally recognized speaker, author, and com- munication expert, he works with thousands of individu- als from Fortune 1000 companies to associations who desire to "grow their people" to greatness. DISNEY IMAGINEERS Would Walt Dis- ney have become the (e)AW Ileader he was if he lacked imagination? ti1InC�Cli1 Or if someone stifled his creativity? Did you ever wonder what it would be like to have a job where you dreamed all day? Where you are free to allow your fantasies to become reality? One of the world-famous Walt Disney Imagineers will show you how to dream, create magic and make your dreams a reality. 60th 11MC Annual Conference �effewa�Acatio.T Ymnioffe LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE TITANIC Jack White Have you ever imagined sailing on the Titanic? Mr. White will take you back to April 1912 where you will board the Titanic for the first and only voyage of the world's most famous ship. You will each assume the identity of an actual officer or passenger on what was then the world's largest and most luxurious ship. Mr. White will discuss little known facts surrounding the trag- ic sinking of the ship on its maiden voyage on April 15, 1912, which is still the greatest non -war maritime disas- ter in history. The presentation will focus on how you can learn from the mistakes of the Titanic's officers to improve our skills as government leaders. The presenta- tion will steer you through the many icebergs which threaten to sink government leaders and professional managers and returns you safely to port. Jack White is the City Attorney for the City of Ana- heim, CA. His presentation combines his 35 years of experience as a municipal lawyer with his more than 30 years of research as a Titanic historian. popR PRINCIPLE: THE POWER OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Kathy Harris Have you ever felt that you have lost control over your life or that the goals you set for yourself you never seem to accomplish? Everyone experi- ences these feelings. How do we regain control? Personal integrity is the cor- nerstone of your self-esteem and your personal power. The more you remain in your personal power every day you are more fulfilled, you are more open to new ideas and opportunities and you are functioning within your integrity. Kathy Harris is dedicated to giving people the skills to transform their lives through humor, integrity and personal accountability. "We give up our power to others every day and don't even realize it. We spend so much time trying to change other people or our environ- ment instead of changing the one person that can make a difference -ourselves! " Join Kathy Harris and learn the popR Principle. Kathy is the CEO of Harris Leadership Development, LLC an organizational development consulting company. A BEND IN THE ROAD IS NOT THE END OF THE ROAD - 10 Positive Principles For Dealing With Change Joan Lunden Renowned Reporter and Celebrated TV Personality Joan Lunden is one of America's most recognized and trusted television personalities. As host of ABC- TV's Good Morning America for almost two decades, Lun- den helped millions of view- ers greet each new day. Dur- ing her tenure she reported from 26 countries, covered four presidents, five Olympics, and two Royal weddings, and all the while kept Americans up to date on how to care for their homes and families. An award -winning broadcast journalist, Lunden executive produced and hosted the weekly series Behind Closed Doors from 1996-2001 first for ABC TV, then for A&E TV. She was voted "Mother of the Year" by the National Mother's Day Committee and "Career Mother of the Year" by the National Institute of Infant Services. A best selling author, she has written several books including: Growing Up Healthy: Protecting Your Child From Diseases Now Through Adulthood, Wake -Up Calls, A Bend In The Road Is Not The End Of The Road, and Good Morning I'm Joan Lunden. Lunden's dedication to her family, her work, and her civic responsibility have earned her numerous honors and awards, including the Spirit of Achievement Award from the Albert Einstein College of Yeshiva and the National Women's Political Caucus Award. In May 2001, Lunden was awarded for her in-depth coverage of our Armed Forces with the Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Ser- vice, the highest honor given to a civilian by the military. Zeac%,da cultic 11ffga �raN.,( 60th IIMC Annual Conference Q�- f o, i -- rSep �75'7 ��`� COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Approval of a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of La Quinta, the City of Indio, the City of Coachella, and the County of Riverside to Share the Cost of a Ladder Truck Company RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve a cooperative agreement to share the operational costs of a ladder truck company with the cities of Indio and Coachella and the County of Riverside. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The City of La Quinta will agree to pay 1 2.5% of the actual annual operating costs of the ladder truck which is estimated at $1 .2 million a year. The Fiscal Year FY 05/06 budget contained an appropriation of $150,000 for this agreement with our prorated share for the remainder of this Fiscal Year estimated at $71 ,000. For the Fiscal Year 2006/07 it is estimated to be $150,000. Coachella will also pay 12.5% of the costs while Indio will pay 50% and the County will pay 25%. The percentages are generally based on the estimated use of the truck by the respective agencies. The ladder truck itself was purchased by the City of Indio using grant funding; therefore, the other parties to the agreement are not being asked to participate in the capital or replacement costs of the truck. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Aerial ladder trucks are an integral part of any structural fire, rescue or disaster incident. They are equipped to provide a large stream of water application and to deal with rescue, ventilation, salvage and overhaul. They are also equipped to handle special incidents such as high and low angle rope rescue, confined space rescue, trench rescue, swift water rescue and vehicle accident extrication. The vehicle will be housed in Indio and will be able to provide a 15 minute response time to all of the G:\FIRE\LADDER TRUCK AGENDA.DOC participating jurisdictions. While no one participating jurisdiction could justify the need or expense for its own ladder truck, the cooperative agreement will provide an enhanced level of emergency service for the eastern part of the Valley. It will also have a beneficial effect in the Insurance Services Office's (ISO) rating for the area, which could result in lower insurance premiums for commercial facilities. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve the cooperative agreement to share the operational costs of a ladder truck company with the cities of Indio and Coachella and the County of Riverside; or 2. Do not approve the cooperative agreement to share the operational costs of a ladder truck company with the cities of Indio and Coachella and the County of Riverside; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Tom Hartung, Director of Building and Safety Approved for submission by: , fiF a - Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachment: 1. Cooperative Agreement G:\FIRE\LADDER TRUCK AGENDA.DOC ATTACHMENT 1 A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IND105 THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,. THE CITY OF COACHELLA, AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO SHARE THE COST OF A LADDER TRUCK COMPANY 1. Parties and date. This agreement is entered into this date by and between the County of Riverside (hereinafter referred to as.the County), the City of Indio, the City of La Quinta, and the City of Coachella (hereinafter referred to as the Cities). 2. Recitals 2.1 The Cities and County are entered into a contractual agreement for fire protection and will mutually benefit from the agreement. 2.2 The Cities and County believe that entering into a cost share agreement for a ladder truck will be of mutual benefit for all involved agencies.. 2.3 The Cities and County believe the ladder truck staffing cost should be equitably distributed to the agreeing agencies. 3. Terms 3.1 Emergency Responses. The ladder truck shall be dispatched, when available, to all. residential and commercial structure fires within the jurisdictions of the County and Cities. The ladder truck shall also be utilized for staffing and expertise in other emergencies relating to entrapment and medical emergencies. The truck shall be located in. a position to provide a response time of fifteen minutes, or less, to the Cities. . 3.2 Cost Share. The Cities and County agree the cost of the ladder truck shall be billed to Cities by the County with the normal quarterly billing, and the cost will be shown as a line item on that bill. The Cities will. receive an estimated cost of the ladder truck staffing based on the top step salaries of the personnel assigned to the ladder truck, at the first of the fiscal year. The cost.pool of the ladder truck shall consist of the salaries of 2.3 Fire Captains, 2.3 Fire Apparatus Engineers, .and 4.6 Firefighters. A maintenance budget of $20,000 will also be included in the cost pool. The cost shall be distributed by the city. of -Indio contributing 50 percent,' the County of Riverside contributing 25 percent and the cities of La Quinta and Coachella contributing 12.5 percent each of the actual costs of the staffing of the ladder truck. 3.3 Term.This agreement shall be in effect as of the day and year hereinafter first written and shall be in effect for a minimum of three years. Thereafter it will continue until terminated by any party by giving one year's notice, in GAFIRE\LADDER TRUCK AGENDA.DOC 3 writing, to the other parties. Any party wishing to withdraw shall provide the notice of withdrawal prior to June 30 of the preceding fiscal year. 3.4 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose. County Fire Chief County of Riverside Fire Department 210 West San Jacinto Perris, CA 92570 (:narrhPlla City Manager City of Coachella 1515 Sixth Street Coachella, CA 92236 Indio City Manager City of Indio 100 Civic Center Indio, CA 92201 La Quinta City Manager City of La Quinta PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 Any notice required to be given hereunder to either party shall be given by personal delivery or be depositing such notice in the U.S. mail to the address listed, certified with return receipt requested, and pre -paid postage affixed. Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of method of service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officials of the parties hereto have, in their respective capacities, set their hands as of the date first hereafter written. Dated CITY OF LA QUINTA a Don Adolph, Mayor Attest: By June Greek, City Clerk COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman of the Board of Supervisors 0 Clerk of the Board G:\FIRE\LADDER TRUCK AGENDA.DOC 4 v _ --Sep IS, TT11 - COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Denial of Claim for Damages Filed By North American Elite Insurance Company — Date of Loss: May 25, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Deny the Claim for Damages filed by North American Elite Insurance Company, with a reported date of loss of May 25, 2005. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The total amount of the claim was $ 110,000.00. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: A claim was filed by North American Elite Insurance Company with a reported date of loss of May 25, 2005, (Attachment 1). It was forwarded to Carl Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator. Carl Warren & Co. has reviewed the matter and recommends that the City Council deny the claim. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: r 1 . Deny the Claim for Damages filed by North American Elite Insurance Company with a reported date of loss of May 25, 2005; or 2. Accept the claim, or some portion thereof; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, 4In Ruiz, Per�onneNalsk Manager 0, Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachment: 1 . North American Elite Insurance Company, Claim for Damages 2 ..i FILE WITH: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 I n 01iinta CA 92253 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY ATTACHMENT 1 1 KtStKVlz t-UK I-ILIN(3 b I AMP 4CLAIM NO. R CEIVED INSTRUCTIONS 2005 N O U 22 A n 1131 1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be filed not later than six months after the occurrence. (Gov. Code § 911.2.) CITY F LA QUINT A 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence. (Gov. Code §911.2.) CITY C ERK S OFFICE 3. Read entire claim form before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom. 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET. TO: [Name of City] Date of Birth of Claimant: C— Fi/ o Name of Clai nt Occupation of Claimant: �C � � - �nr .s Ll n ov c �� - s�{ a C Home Address of Claimant CA City and State C Home Telephone of Claimant: 3' w - f7 . P- ©. ( 7S D 7, v I �06 0 Business Address of Claimant City and State Business Telephone of Claimant �- Give address and telephone number to which you desire notices or communications to be sent Claimant's Social Secuniy No.. regarding claim: _ -T � �2' p SApmt ' A -TT.N n. z �.. / /z (- ( o When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Names of any city employees involved in INJURY or DAMAGE: Date: � -- 2 4141 Time: P � vv A •ter � � `' ; Z ,� /f� �2,11'v `?F 2 � If Claim is for Equitable Indemnity, give date S� Y' C �� claimant served with the complaint f �% Date: Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet. Where appropriate, give street names and address and measurements from landmarks* s i� h- C 7ol o C co 4 c� /1q V A' ' y � �� ,� � Cam- - ¢- � Hc7- P.,q(2)2- aVpl 2-1-P 00/11/vA, ea Describe in detail how the DAMAGE or I-7 NJ/,}CRY occurred. Why do you claim the city is responsible ©vim n C �i V�o V J `- 'S�'//� Describe in detail each INJURY or DAMAGE SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON KEVEKSE 61Ut The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim, is computed as follows: Damages incurred to date (exact): Estimated prospective damages as far as known: Damage to property ..................... $ Future expenses for medical and hospital care .$ Expenses for medical and hospital care ..... $ Future loss of earnings ....................$ Loss of earnings ........................ $ Other prospective special damages ..........$ Special damages for ..................... $ Prospective general damages ..............$ Total estimated prospective damages .......$ ZZ' General damages ....................... $ Total damages incurred to date .......... $ Total amount claimed as of date of presentation of this claim: $ Was damage and/or injury investigated by police? N Ei If so, what city? /0 r �l Were paramedics or ambulance called? ly,1 (2 If so, name city or ambulance If injured, state date, time, name and address of doctor of your initial visit A f� WITNESSES to DAMAGE or INJURY: List all persons and addresses of personsOown to have i rma on: w. Name S�� •� � Address � A 0 / 2-i Phone 1 Name Address Phone Name Address Phone DOCTOR AND HOSP TALS: Hospital r/, ,!l Address Doctor Address Doctor Address Phone Phone Phone READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram name of streets, including North, accident by "A 1" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident East, South, And West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X." numbers or distances to street comers. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A' location of City Vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram or your vehicle when you first saw City Vehicle; location of City vehicle at time of signed by claimant CURB 77 SIDEWALK Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving relationship Typed Name: to Claimant: /1 Date: �'_Ucvus 11�c_ I :/: �' V, A to e W NOTE: CLAIMS MUST BE FILED WITH CITY CLERK (Gov. Code § 915a.) Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Pen. Code § 72.) CURB --- 0 Sep F COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council Accepting Various Donated Items from the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council accepting various donated items from the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City of La Quinta was Title Sponsor for the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge, which took place December 11-13, 2005 at SilverRock Resort. Representatives from the Alumni Challenge donated various golf tournament items to the City; namely, five duffle bags, eight polo shirts, and nine baseball caps. Staff has prepared the attached Resolution to facilitate acceptance of the donated items should the City Council so elect. k FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Adopt a Resolution of the City Council accepting various donated items from the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge; or 2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the City Council accepting various donated items from the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATED ITEMS FROM THE JIM MURRAY SILVERROCK ALUMNI CHALLENGE WHEREAS, the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge was held December 11 through 13, 2005 at SilverRock Resort; and WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was Title Sponsor of the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge; and WHEREAS, representatives from the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge have generously donated golf tournament items to the City including: five (5) duffle bags, eight (8) polo shirts, and nine (9) baseball caps; and WHEREAS, the retail value of each golf tournament item is as follows: duffle bag ($ 50), polo shirt ($45), and baseball cap ($1 5); and WHEREAS, the total retail value for all donated items is $745; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept the donation and to direct the City Manager to control distribution of donated golf tournament items. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta does hereby resolve as follows: 1 . The City of La Quinta hereby accepts the donation of various golf tournament items from the Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge. 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to control distribution of said items. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held this 17th day of January, 2006, by the following vote: Resolution No. 2006- Jim Murray SilverRock Alumni Challenge Donated Items Adopted: January 17, 2006 Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California cam. o of TN AGENDA CATEGORY: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution Granting CONSENT CALENDAR: Approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract Map No. 32279, Mirage at STUDY SESSION: La Quinta, Standard Pacific Coachella Valley PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) for Tract Map No. 32279, Mirage at La Quinta, Standard Pacific Coachella Valley. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Tract Map No. 32279 is located north of Avenue 58 and east of Coral Mountain Court (Attachment 1) . This residential development will consist of 30 numbered lots on approximately 10.04 acres (Attachment 2). On August 17, 2004, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 32279. The developer has requested the City Council's approval of the Final Map. To date, the developer has executed the SIA (Attachment 3) and the associated securities have been received. The Final Map is technically complete. As a result, City staff has prepared a Resolution approving the Final Map and SIA. The approval is contingent upon a Final Map, suitable for recording by the County Recorder, with all required signatures (except the City Clerk) and associated securities. nnne these items are received. the City Clerk will affix the Citv Seal tn the Final Mn , and offer the Final Map for recording by the County Recorder. S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\01-17-06\C10 TM 32279.doc FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract Map No. 32279, Mirage at La Quinta, Standard Pacific Coachella Valley; or 2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract Map No. 32279, Mirage at La Quinta, Standard Pacific Coachella Valley; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, 1 Timothy R.�1J0nassdn, P.E. Public Works Director/ City Engineer Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Tract Map 3. Subdivision Improvement Agreement 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-(Clerk's Office will enter) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL MAP APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP NO. 32279, MIRAGE AT LA QUINTA, STANDARD PACIFIC COACHELLA VALLEY WHEREAS, the City Council conducts only two regular meetings per month and the time interval between these meetings occasionally creates an undue hardship for business enterprises and individuals seeking approval of subdivision maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council, as a matter of policy, allows a subdivider to have City staff present the map for approval consideration when the requisite items necessary for final map approval are nearly, but not completely, finished thus yielding to the subdivider additional production time for preparation of those items; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has demonstrated to City staff and the City Council that it has made sufficient progress with items required for final map approval, and WHEREAS, Section 66458(b) of the Subdivision Map Act grants the City Council broad authority to authorize time extensions regarding final map approval, or disapproval, upon receiving it for consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council relies on professional City staff to review all required items for conformance with relevant requirements, and it is therefore appropriate for the City Council to approve the final map subject to review and confirmation of the required items by professional City staff, within a reasonable period of time as specified by the City Council. 3 Resolution No. 2006- Tract Map No. 32279, Mirage at La Quinta Adopted: January 17, 2006 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: Section 1. The final map for Tract Map 32279 is approved. Section 2. The City Council's approval of the final map shall not be considered valid until the City Engineer has signed the map indicating that it conforms to the tentative tract map, the Subdivision Map Act and all ordinances of the City. Section 3. The City Engineer shall withhold his signature from the map until the subdivider has completed the following requirements to the City Engineer's satisfaction. A. Finalize the final Tract Map and obtain all necessary signatures. Section 4. The City Clerk shall withhold affixing the City Seal to the map title page, along with her attesting signature, until the City Engineer has signed the map. Section 5. If the subdivider has not satisfied the requirements in Section 3, herein, the final map shall be considered disapproved. Disapproval does not deny any rights the subdivider may have under the Map Act to resubmit the final map for approval, or disapproval 0 Resolution No. 2006- Tract Map No. 32279, Mirage at La Quinta Adopted: January 17, 2006 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 17th day of January 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES:Council Members (Clerk's Office will enter) NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, CITY CLERK City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ,' P-. 5 ATTACHMENT 1 §h mop f 6 Legends Way Saint Andrews AG. ' � +. i •..: ' y...�. •mot . ffermilag7e c Shinnecock V •{� .o T •.r.: �J 0 � o =r = CO -- f0.5 MILES �— Avenue 58 VICINITY MAP N TS 6 ----------------------------------- ATTACHMENT 2 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS TRACT NO. 32279 BEING A SUSOMSION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, W THE UTY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER'S STATEMENT RECORDER'S STATEMENT ME TIEREBr STAIF THAT ME ARE NE OWNERS OF THE LAND NUUOED wam THE SUBOIVI90N TILED IRS _DAY OF—, 2005 SHOW HEREON,, THAT ME ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY To PASS A AT N BOOK OF YAPS CLEAR BRE TO SAID LAND; THAT NE CONSENT TO 1TE YARM AND RECORONC OF DAS AT PACES AT THE REQUEST OF SUBDIVISON MAP AS S OM WNN THE PSRNCRW 801M LAY_ THE CITY aLRK OF THE CITY OF LA QMTA NE HEREBY DEDICATE AN EASFAENT 0" LOT F- (AKMJ[ 58) TO THE CITY OF U "TA NO. FOR PLUX STREET AND UWTY PURPOSES FEE ME tCREBY DELMUTE AN EA471ETHr o" tor 'r (AVENUE 5R) To RE cry or U oLANrA LARRY IL WARD. CONN RECORDER FOR PAW STREET AND UMJTY RMOXSf Rc EASEMENT FOR PJa1T Or INGRESS AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EIKtawicY Lns ANo Kar uTMITES ov R ANo Aarass LOT or A SAW LOT A IS RETANED AS A PRIVATE STREET FOR ouRSEL ES RXCESSCRS ASSWEES DEPUTY AND LOT OWNERS NM INIS TRACT SIWWSION GUARANTEE: ME HEREBY OTER FOR DfoirAMN TO THE COAd/ELA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AN EASEMENT RITE COMPANY : FIRST AKMCAN RILE COMPANY OVER LOT A, NC1IMW- DESabITED AS PWVAIE STREETS, FOP OCII(ESTIC EATER NW SARNTARY SENER PURPOSES RE EASTM"T SO DEDICATED NaLVES BE AKNT SURVEYORS STATEMENT RI ENIER UPON SAW LANDS TO SURLEY. CONSRiGCr. REC9NSMMCt. LAY RELAY, wANTAK OPERAT, CONTROL USE AND BELOW PfPETANES FWR,RES AND APPUITENAMCES AA0 To HMS MAP WAS PREPARED By ME OR OW MY WECDON AND S BASED LA'ON A RTLD RENOW OR-ECIS NIERFEM WIN THE OMSRNC7M OPERATION AND UMMIANCE UPEOE. SURVEY N COFORMINC'E NTH THE REGAREVENTS OF IW SI.t WSKIN YAP ACT AND NE HEREBY AESERW LOTS B THROWN & NaLWW FOR LANDSCAPE YANkNAHC£ AND FOR E H AND LOCAL "NANCE AT I E AEOCEST W LECAX U QWTA. UC, ON FEM MY 1B, 2Wt 1 HEREBY STATE RHAT ALL MONUY(ENIS ARE O• THE OHMACIER AND OCCEPY JW POSTIONS WEN 9-A LA QRSEDSCA WEN SPACE AND DIPANACE P(APPOSES FOR BE B- OUR SLICE SV ANAGEowx 1A 41ED OR RIAT MY DIu BE SET N 90CH P09TTONS NFFMN ONE TEAR ff MAP RELOROAITON,• AND LOW W1FM4 INS TRACT MAP. AS9AND BHAr SAID MONIAENRS ARE SUFFIIOENr to ENABLE RE SIARVEY RD BE REBTAcm I way RE HEREBY OEDON IE 1D IRE alY OF LA OUWTA 1NE EASF7METfT TEN (10) FEET N ND1H 910WN STATE IHAT M FNAL MAP SU3SEMPAILY CONFORMS to THE CONDYTTONAUY APPRO%C RENTABLE MAP. AS 70 ►.LIE' DIE BlS NAP FOR PUBLIC UTMRY PU4IPOSES ALSO NE HEREBY REIma" LEMa) AR ACCM RIGHTS TO lK CITY OF U W14TA TO AVENGE 9B AS SHOWN IE'REON. NE AFREBY NUCATE V BC SOUNAL AAA NON OSIR%CZ AN EASEYE7IT OLER AL PRIVATE STREETS SMNY Lw BAS MAP AND AN AWRONAL IN (IO) FEET N NON ON BORE SIDES OF AND ADJACENT ID ALL PWNVAA- STREETS AA01 V4 A9W SIREfM VOW ON R1S MAP rW BEEXGLVATOK LAING CONSTRUC)TOVL NSTAILABOL MANT7WNC& OPERAIM, S PECRCMO REPAAY, RMACrW&CV4 AND R%Vft OF RECMC-44 LW4 WA" CAA a DURCM SPM& WKOWS FACIUIRES ANO APPL "AMCM WIN IW ATCNT Or AMSS AND E07M OVER AND WNY SALE FOR MANT]YAMLE OPRLRATIOVS AND n gQNcr wo= STANDARD PACFX COAakILA YALLE7 A DIVISTOI OF STANOARO PAOFTC COW. ell BY. "ram IL Ram N SMA4 RAl"XILA AURNAP2ED REPRE2NTAR4E AUBMY M IFTPRESENTAITIE NOTARYACXNOWLEDGMENT SUIE O' CALLFORtrUV COMFY Or am AErORE W,, Pawmur APPEARED Pawour now In YE (OR mm" To ME ON BE BASYs OF sAwAcmRy EHOENCE) AMMKMa TO ME IRAI NMOSE r/�s) iSIARE MY EXECUTED D14W BST r �AM AUTrAND iW- PERSON(Sk OR Bf FNRTYVIMPOV BEHT BY ALF l BE PERRSON(S) ACTED, EXEMIEDT BE NLSTAU "T. W ESS MY NAIW AND "ClAL SEAL 96NAAW MY PRINCFAL PUCE Or MA ESS S N CINNTY CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE 16 IS TO C£MY WA T NE NFEWSr N REAL PRWMrY COWW" BY OTANT NED DA TED PROW STANa4W PACIX COACHELLA VAULY TO NVEIRUL RRW NW DISRRRCT. AN rAArcAITaN OLSRCT. S ►ETREBr ACCEPIED BY ORDER OF BE Ba4Ao OF MCCIM5 ff SAD DISWCT AS PER RmuDON NO IS-9D DATED "Rem 22 199E AND IW QUWAF ITS TO RRECOd7ABON BUM DATE N3 _ RE DAY ff . ODDS IN, SWCRKSO. RCA ESTATE SECRO/ wow WrARIOM aswx7 CERTIFICATE OFACCEPTANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY SLAT LOW AURMTY GRANTED IV if BY RESMUIM Na A410 1 ACCEPT ON SOW ON BE COAXUA VAIL£Y FAIR NSIRLCT BE DEDK. WN OF EA5b67S FW OOUESIIC NAMR AND SAHNIATION RNPOSFS AS OFTn" NERCON. BY. .LAID nWAIYOEZ SECRUrARY COAaELA VALLEY MAW? OfSu3CT 101 P&D CONSULTANTS, INC. &M PW sAN WOO OFUM SUM 010 SANDEGO.CAUFORWA 02106 IElE: (61/)221-1475FAX )l01./47f DATED: 2m STELE INOOM LS 9064 RJFKS 09IM12OZ =S�o %.NNO spR` J N # ra N. Ns z as N.. LS 4054 1 if Or A: CITYENGINE.ERS STATEMENT I THEREBY STAR: THAT I HAVE UAWNED RE WTTAN YAP Cr VACT MAP NO M70 Cmw- NC OF 4 SHEETS HURT THE 2MV-SWN SMWN HEREON S SUBSTAHUMLY APE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON BEE TENTAME MAP AND ANY APPROVED ALIFRAHOS BMW; NUT ALL PROVISOS OF BYE SUtWIVI9CIN MAP ACT AND OF ANY LOGIC OfM7NVNYCES APPUCABIf At IRE WK ff APPROVAL Or I E TENTADW MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLLD WIN. DA ITT 2D05 INOINr R JMASSO4 RC.E 4wo CITY LNONELR aTY OF U QUMTA evotE5 12/31/b6 CMSURVEYOfM STATEMENT P TRREBY STATE B6VT 1 HA4E EXAwa iw WTIN YAP or BRACT LUP NO 32279 LDNSSTNC O 4 29M AM I AM S41121ED BUT SALT NM S RED ALLY CORRCCT. DATED: 2005 INC M2.SOK PLS 5563 CITYCLERICS STATEMENT ACTNC CITY SIf KIM ETA.:pops L JM S. CREEK CITY aJW AHD Er-OTTCW aMK OF BIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA "TA. CAUFOHNA, NEREBY STARE NAT SAW CITY COUNCIL AT ITS REOLEAR MEE INC HELD ON I E DAY OF APPROVED WE WR N MAP OF RACT MAP NO 32279 AND HUM ACCEPTS LOT F (AO" 5E) FOR PIWILC STREET AND URM P WOSES, SUB.ECT ID NPROVEXW?S. IRE ABUTTER'S RKHTS OF ACGi55 ME MT OF NGREM AND ECREST OF SERVICE AM BYER4tNCY WKUS AND INE FJKK UTILITY EASE]OM ALL AS DIDYCATED HEREON[ ANSVANI To SECTION 664.34 (q) AND 66499.20 1/2 OF RE 9JB MZW MAP ACT. NE CHY Or U DIUNTA HERMY ABANDONS A PORTION Or AVLMK SB WACULAR ACCESS RESTRICTIONS AND EAS TENTS FOR ROAD PURPOSES AND PLOW UrM PES ACGA ED PER NSMAIENT NO 32697. RECORDED Oft 17. I959. RED N BOOK 2454. PAGE 65 O OTUAL RECMS$ NOT 90DIN NEREON. DATED 2DO5 Or w Orr mwL, arr Or LA QuwrA TAX BOND CERTIFICATE T 1fE7TEBY I mwy BUr A WO N BE SUM j HAS BEEN DECUTED AND BLED WTI BE BOARD OF RIPERNSORS Or NE DaNrr O MER5A>E: CALFORMA, CONMI- BONED WON THE PAYMENr Or ALL TA)a STATE, C101MN. MLY10PAL OR LOCAL AM ALL SPECIAL ASU:S%n7S OOLECKV AS TA&S WW4CH AT RE BYE OF FILM O THS YAP MDI BYE COLMTY REYOROCR ARE A LNN ACANST SAO A PERrY. DIR NOT IET PAYABLE, AND SAD BOND HAS BEEN DRAY APPRO D BY SAD BOARO Or SAPERMSORS. OARD . 2005 CAST TAX 800 NANCY ROMUo PAIR: MC DONMu CLERK Or Of ONO OF SMERWM COLNTY TAX COLLECTOR BY.• BY` TAX COLLECTORS CERTIMATE I HO"Y CFJRWT RUT A0007OWC M IW ACCORDS OF TFYS CfT)C✓~ AS OF M DATE TNERC ARE NO LIENS ACAMST I E PROPERTY SWWN ON IRE N(WW MAP FOR UNPAID STARE. COMM VNWAL OR LOCAL TAPES OR SPEQAL ASS.•SS "IS COUICIED AS TAXES EXCEPT FATES OR SPCOAL ASTMA£NTS COLLECTED AS TAXES NOW A LIEN BUT NOT TET PAYABLE, WAaI ARE ESBMAND TO BE j INS CFRTRRIC41TON DTaLOES ANY SUPP[EIENIAL TAX ASSES9Iw Nor wr ORRIOLD. DAT[ 2005 PALL MC DON ELL CaNTY TAX CWCTOR BY DEPUTY 7 0' 500' MTTTQ.� = 500' 4 IN THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO. 32279 BEING A SMOSION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITYOF LA QUXNTA COUNTY OF RNERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A VfWX St A/aPaer etro. 4 s AKMA 50 1 sJ6 AIRPORT 2 21 1 I <A�i855C XV.st'> SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS VICINITY MAP NTS BOULEVARD 1 1 5 - Tf- - - <1r>--2 PDutD r' tAOA1 ANE 1 I I PER Px r9/77 I� K II I l Lu I w I L11 NIP- to y v � rLIIAD 1' LiOV APE M/GIP VAWO Ls 469J (al< Elti or xcww 00 IM W �seAss-A Y, KESTAtIV D PEODAD < Mt WR'r 26t528' > PER PARCM MAP "/77 [ T189:A or 264& ) 8JJ8 <N8937i�E 16t0L5 > _ u69]KOST 26" z IJV- _/ «� row 1' ow PP f I Il/w srav LS 493 1 p ^ m TRACT Jo6st. 1 Q M A tAI 254/99-1 04 f� I I EO1MD P M Pie W1W I a N TAeI1M ACCORD STAAL�LD Ls M21 M � l PER PARCEL MAP 19/77 I PER M9 2MIU-70 yF M9g"16E 26t1y \` �sw rl91.J9" f9t.J5'JXE10' 1'. LTIrIN9gI I IJ21.85� I ; O\ P w B0IAWAAY �{ I Irz >`' t1 t� 8935,59, CALL/ I O 8 YEASw AAO AXM I 211 MAP 332 1 �PAL/77(jlD IJ209S u2ass zs7 2 Syr — — — sw ua2+' SW JW.7r" x�;� AVENUE 58 said 2 27 < SW41'1r1Y 2641.9r > f A189•!0 Zs'E 26t2 Or' ) A f'STANJWD ACCORD PER ( AW4015 E I mm r• ow PVE (mP AV JMISI-U rROU SOVRCAST MD RECORD. ACCLPICD rLR COW SECIM 21 sw LF AE EAST f%! UST 1/z SE SUcllOv tr. BASIS OF BEARINGS RE 8495 LF KAwAz rLw TIPS YAP 6 BC sOUTTL m y L oc or AE EASY ow-w oF RE EAST GYE-NALr or TTE SOVAC45T ow-OVARTER Or THE SOURCAsr O'AE- QUARIL7T OF SECA N 2► T. 6 s, R 7 L~ SAK AS SWAN DY WACT 28a)t RECORDED M1 BOOK 258 Or MAPS AT PAX 0-70 07 GMCW KWWS Or IC COUNTY ar A'If7tW LE M 894OW E P&D CONSUL TANTS, INC. 011 nu ,5AN MW tVwr. wne 110 pr sMDXOO,CALFO M a/00 L TEIE (601291-1475FAX b,-wc NOTES L RE TOTAL AtVW CT LOTS JT AESOUNAL LOTS MAX STREETS LOT A LOTS B RFIV E AS CWW AREA FOR LAAOSGAPE P'LOW0 E5 LOT f AS AW W,E 58 J RC IDTAL W= AWA is Paot QWSS ACRU A ALL DSTAN= MW/bR STIdTT MR15 SIAOWV RR1 WT DEC UALS ATi'RESDtr Pm as7A&cr TD 2L?v wym m a AL LOT CCmus RRL K ma"Gam 8Y A J/1• X r8• MW PFC 81TN RASIEC ffiv MARPO L.s SW (LMMESS OTTIE WX NOW; A LOT COWWRS ALONG RE SVa W- OF POVAIE STREET RGHTS OF MAY MCL BC MAWMIENIED BY A lf.V/ MID A6C SrA11PE0 DAE OTY OF LA awm' AND LS 6061 sET ALOMC APE £XR7Y51OV Or TIE LOT LAVE N PC CLOW TIE O'TSET 9M L K AR-A9A70 RAOWL.Y W A A%HT ANWES ID THE bWF LF 05AY Ift LA M Ob#T MFX MDrCAIM LEGEND O MOVES SET J/I' 044. OW WE MIN HASAC PLUG STAMPED LS 8064, &MZ55 ODL R#X 000.. • MOCA RS FOWV M49IAAANNVr AS OESCROW NTREOAL () MOICAUS KCORD BATA M YAP =IU-70 ( ) MAOi V XS ACCORD DAM POP MAP M2/BI-L6 < A MWartES PCAA'.RrD AAO AECW0 DATA PER PARM MAP 19/17" 4WiSS OBARRL5E NOW 2'r MAt.A CS SCARM A00204 Fom #DU ASS OW49OY SOUADARY Ma" rEr 9[Er Ba wwr (0) MVKATET BANAL WARM OMOVES r0 PCLAA UTQ/lYGYXfNTQFAIAIED ID BEWYO' LA OVM/rA AAO RE ArDW MTRGAT V PSMCE AS 91OW1. MXCA IES ADUTILRS R ows Qr AC= IV AND TO ASEIA,C 56 ALIAYOUI9i0 IFREOV IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,•=so' TRACT NO. 32279 SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS 4 BEING A SUBOMSION OF THE WESTWF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDAN, IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF GWFORNIA TgACT ( MAP N0. 28119 M ( LOTD M.B. 254/99-104 0..o3 acres O SUBDINSON BOUNDARY LANDSCAPE d" Ad979't6i JJ0.46' —_ __ - - —TAT IMP' 6674 iN.9f' AF-U1 V RaM ' Odtr 30 LINE TABLE rLx PAFa71 MAP r9/77 1015 sq. n. A6 erA rc ltxcrH m )0,06J sq. N. .E�l 0.23 acres ^ LI N32Tx4YJl/ .4T a23 acres ' µ1A/iAi payAIS?"llf L2 I Ab530'4rW 1.47' [y i Nd94476'C r � LJ N24J3b01� 2SB7' (R� � 1^/ Nd.945b6i 117.4d IRl. c.. O 121.40' $ 2�th%�>� II �'\ 29 8 CURVE TABLE 4D K 1Q01, sq. N.�� 10,947 sq. N. 0.23 0.25 acres LOT p) acres I Nd9•ui6'E IY89 45116i N L>�z6• � Ls�►r 3 Id Ode 28 � v g 7. K ^ ar 11,665 sq. It. 10,403 sq. !f• ?� eg Q27 acres 0.14 arcs y fe ao' 0 W9.406> N89451067 Z 14116, Lz F vw MIT - w�� 8 4 1 27 K i n kl 10, 523 sq. It. 11,151 sq. ff. ^ 0.24 ones N a26 oats _ u Q 1Jd9T C405 (.� �`Md5O974i f4S.aS' 5-' 1� - 26 b b 8 8 ^{ 10,611 sq- ft 1� �.IQ1K. vl 10.711 sq rt. 024 ones A 015 acres 0 A69144 6KT w .. IM9945.06i p WSJ' N19774.2n i � ��AIS7trJs714a74' - - Q 6v a l� �� 25 s LOT 2 g o C I 10,859 sq. o " iR 469 sq (f. aO0' K ^ 025 aces Neru76t 1Jao' a 'e i 0.24 acres Na94sro6� m4r Na9Z572i s Mill. t �Nd97519'E (k% 7 �vyly I 24 g 8 ^ _ �. "h 10,890 s4 TL ��+ : .�, vl 1Q438 s¢ Il. 0.25 acres h f 1 J6•Y 0.24 acres NW7J'44'W s !✓ N99'447a'C 77" Ir--- A094sb6T ,4[46' Nd75dt9'1� �, 1J9.8a' — AaT5aY9l'1R1 � 10,W4 sq. (t. n " hI r0,615 sq. (f. '� e STREET) a25 acres (� Nastri/ Y Nd67d LT'W 0.?4 ones `/Rj en94s >< a (PRIVATE ,may H� a6 ---� -- ly Nesu4rr,4J6s 9 I 9-- 22 8 s 8 / e w ,o, s95 sq ft. 10,296 sq. ft. / w u, 0.24 acres / a24 acres �ss11� I rJC47 2 5 / O\ A799'451 7 Na9'u76't C* J7s 2 6 ca ,zJ6r �r � 01, T�� ' �� -514 f / / Z _�� i13 s,.9w ll 21 T ��9:r� ro,00s sq (L >; / TRACT M lo,o06 Sq t1. -4 a13 acres N 0. 3083 0.23 ones / M.B. 332/ 6 Nd9 N 26T I chi Na945b62' war 11v171�7R N�nroi9—irk 20 8 i III I 4 2 7 SEE SHEET 2T zr NO. P&D CONSULTANTS, INC. ON ao Sew 0xc0 aaM suet: no C SM oreco. ousowaA aloe TEE OF01201-14ISFAX 29144M Na Da TA RA M Cl 13nl w" 4200' C7 41'4Y goo. CJ r49'2f' woo' ;5av, C4 f43539• 00' CS 147eor 1.00'Ca T4936" 179-00,C7 7Jt7Jt1' 4 .00' Cd SM'Sr 4200• 4L56' C9 87U452' 42.00' 619r ao 40'42• 4207' ►516• C11 ago' 414' C12 776'43' 2. ' CIJ 4071'18' 9HAr 6d77' C74 rsro3' WOO' 1JOT C15 1T1/70' 10200' I 4d15 p6 T21" MUM' 7.16' CI7 Y6" 19yum' 75ar C18 0'S4• 197a00' .01' CIO rn25' 1970.Od 14.56' c10 r173'2r I9d 00' 4u4' C2I 7/ 19' moo' n w, CZ2 Sl7472' 00'mar C73 24.42b4' 9d00' 4225, C24 1T44td' WOO' "02' Cgs 4646' 4200• J(34' Cgs 00' C27 E00 10' Czd r55' 6.00' 7,101' Cn I 2V7'56' 2016.01 nay � „'aid• 6a7• 7tr cJl i1•2M6.0 2J57 CM 643o4' 87.0 10.10' CM J7971' "4.00• 122.07' C.N ow?5' xaff 4655' CJ5 , • 00 N' t Ts 34WV' 96AY 56IS' 07 1 5r4639' 41W 47 35' CJe 1 3475t5• WW' 11940• C40 1 257 3a00' 101.4 C41 I rM48' Ira00' 20 C42 52563T 42-00' A81' C43 477�d" may' 9.oT c4r37fir raoo C45 036W 1 CI6 J7273' 42.00' 10 L47 646'07' 4200' 44r C48 9745f' 1016.00' 1456, C49 1 wiv, f9A00' 445' LSO 948,ir 11 97d'4r 9r100' iS9J' NOTE. L SEE 9M 2 T01e 1EG C AAO 6A95 ar KA%C J 0. 5 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO, 32279 4 BE1NG A SUBOMSION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALFOF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OFSECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SANBERNARDINOMEMM W THE CITY OF LAQUINTA, COUNTY OFRNERSIDE, STATE OFCAUFORNA 10 —� ( '�� 26 SEE SHEET P t/ p h O v ( NO9'4176T $1 b � IJ9J2• 2J 2J O I 0.24 acres " 27 '$ 12,s 10,312 sq. n. Ic' o VI 0.24 acres I o Z 28 ' NO9f4WT iJd04' v r i O a e ' 131,,,,} ,4 LD 2 $ IQ 492 sq. ff. " an - RANCH -c-- —, 0.14 acres : o INO9'4476T OAD Z S 142 N \ 29 Q I N ' g 14 10.944 sq. ft. j N I a25 acres F` K) SO i M ,44'XT " �K 1 1497r Q 8 15Z 4� g C6 Z 1J,100 sq ft r M 21 / NO. 3 Ne9'Isb6T m_veow w (Rl laar !��7-vf29w-pj- 20 ia891 sq- rL $ -y 0.25 acres 19 F 11,013 sq. IL x f?jf 0.15 acres �� NO9I5 P6T lI6.30' A 18 i ra&v sQ. n � t,jl 0.25 acres � � NO9'45b6T 142ar 17 y 10,455 sq. 1L I 0.14 acres Md9.1656'E 7rS6'w IN..6O• 16 11,45J sq. It. LOT C . a26 acres 1456 sq. ft. 0.03 acres COMMON AREA ~ 3 G 25' 2T am acres ' � lI69'H76T l76 I `�l � I � � � � I58O2• ,p61�M1— � �� 31 / c Lora .54.029 Sq f1. a 78 acres COWON AREA �V' M O9'10'%' E vail' ^ LANDSCAPE AREA. ~ N /94a25' E LOT E 26a3r 2 21 ' 3 0.06J acres R _ I64asr f J702r 2 8 "�`°��` AVENUE RE-LSTA&120 WfLt]PO PR W a"/-" faw S0UINEASr Cww LY WCWV 21. IDUYD r A2CW P6K w/EAP slAFA°fD LS 5570 (Mo REcm) PLR NAP �7-66 P&D CONSUL TANTS, /NC. aysr fuo 3" aecoo annf sar, "0 C SM. afrao.CALFOW"121M ME. lif0j"04476FA-791-1476 fl w LOTF b O.J6 acres 58 SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS I LINE TABLE LK I KAWIG I WKIN LI sr Iw 1609' t2 N86.4611w 10. ' LJ Aww'54w' 27..96' L4 M89JI T II..W L5 M444534T I&JY L6 N44'45UT 1416• U7 I Na075'.N"w la 00' 00 AUGV875W 1 75r Ll1 N64JI'M)r 1 32.65' L12 sr lw 15 54' LIJ N2yD87011 1a ' L14 AWVe1sw I 21.90 L15 #w71'32T l9.9d Of N001459•W 1 1551' LI7 765' Ll9 AW-45J4T I JL4r CURVE TABLE Ma I Da TA I RAWS LENCIH C7 76-M'06' 47.50• 63.W C2 1676b!' jZ00, 167r CJ J•46Y2' 6-00' 14..21' C4 J-46YY 179.00 It.V Cu fSr4.r 147aOO' San C1J 274-06' 1516.Ca• 9.14' C14 25Lr05 rsle.0 Ism' CIS L5r6. IT C76 !Y 147a0a' 75I Cl7 75- 1470.00 01' CIO 11)956' 1470..a9' 19,A7' C19 17210" 15130'!96.Q0' 87' C20 2' M.00' 45 ar 76'4906' 250 3J5r C2J 16I9'06' 7000' fL2V L74 557r56• 2500' 2425' czs 74 00• 12r G26 90' C27 04' 26.95' cza rlr4zzr 43Jr X r so7roY s9.Jr 2f>r 125019' M 00' 4477N M J0- My 24.45' 194e4Ur 19aa0 6a4r _ la4c�o 2 _ ZCRWLM 2 7 FMW 1 1/4" PA FW W WIVSK STAWED / LS 30f6 PER R OF S 79 96-94 NAP 2" NAP JJt/1f1 66. NOT, L Str S�U7 2 FW LErWW AW &Z OF OCMAdG 10 CITY OF LA Q UfNTA ATTACHMENT 3 SUBDI VISION IMPRO VEMENT A GREEMENT TRACT MAP NO. 32279 OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between STANDARD PACIFIC COACHELLA VALLEY, a Division of Standard Pacific Corp, a Delaware Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider," and the City of La Quinta, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." RECITALS: A. Subdivider has prepared and filed a final map or Tract map (the "Map") of a unit of land in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, which unit of land is known as Tract No. 32279 (the "Tract") pursuant to the provisions of Section 66410, et sec. of the California Government Code (the "Subdivision Map Act"). B. Prior to approval of the Map, Subdivider is required to install or agree to install certain public and private improvements (the "Improvements"). C. The Improvements have not been installed and accepted at this time. D. It is therefore necessary that Subdivider and City enter into an agreement for the installation of the Improvements as provided in Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map Act. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Improvement Plans. Prior to submittal of the Map for approval by the City Council, Subdivider shall furnish original improvement plans meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 2. Improvements. Subdivider shall construct the public and private street, drainage, utility, landscaping, and other improvements required to be constructed or agreed to be constructed under this Agreement as listed in Exhibit "A", and shall bear the full cost thereof. The methods, standards, specifications, sequence, and scheduling of construction shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Improvement Security. A. One class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "performance security," shall assure the faithful performance of this Agreement including construction of the Improvements, payment of Subdivider's fair share of Improvements which have been or will be constructed by others ("Participatory Improvements"), and payment of plan check and permit fees. A second class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "payment security," shall assure the payment of the cost of labor, equipment and materials supplied to construct the Improvements. A third class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "warranty security," shall serve as a guarantee and warranty of the Improvements for a period of one year following the completion and acceptance of the Improvements. Subdivider shall furnish performance and payment security prior to and as a condition of City Council approval of the Map. Subdivider shall provide warranty security after Improvements are complete and accepted by the City Council and prior to or concurrently with the .final release of performance security. Warranty security shall not be required for Monumentation or Participatory Improvements. However, the City may utilize Monumentation Security for performance of or payment for the work in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. As part of the obligation secured by each of the performance security, payment security and warranty security, and in addition to the face amount of each such security, each such security shall include and assure the payment of costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including t' reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing the obligations thereby secured. 11 TAProject Development Division\Development Projects\Agreements\SIA\SIAs in Progress\Mirage TM 32279\OFFSITE_SIA.doc B. Improvement security shall conform with Section 66499 of the California Government Code and one or more of the following: 1) A cash deposit with City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company, at City's option. 2) Surety bonds, of the form specified in subsection 66499.2 of the California Government Code, issued by a surety or sureties listed in the U.S. Department of Treasury Circular 570 (latest version). 3) Certificates of deposit, in City's name, from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the state or federal government and having a financial quality rating of "A" or better and a commitment reliability rating of T-2" or better on the Investment Data Exchange (of the Los Angeles County Treasurer's office). 4) Irrevocable letters of credit, issued by one or more financial institutions meeting the requirements of Paragraph (3), pledging that the funds necessary to carry out the completion of the Improvements are on deposit, guaranteed for payment, and constitute a trust fund which is not subject to levy or attachment by any creditor of the depositor until released by City. Letters of credit shall guarantee that all or any portion of the funds available pursuant to the letters of credit will be paid upon the written demand of City and that such written demand need not present documentation of any type as a condition of payment, including proof of loss. The duration of any such letter of credit shall be for a period of not less than one year from the execution of the agreement with which it is provided and shall state, on its face, that the letter of credit will be automatically renewed until such time that City authorizes its expiration or until sixty (60) days after City receives notice from the financial institution of intent to allow expiration of the letter of credit. 5) A lien upon the subdivided property, if City finds that it would not be in the public interest to require the installation of the Improvements sooner than two (2) years after recordation of the final map or Tract map for which the Improvements are required. The lien shall provide a collateral value of three (3) times the estimated cost of the Improvements and shall include the power of sale of the real property, all buildings and improvements thereon, or that may be erected upon or made thereto, together with all hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reservations, remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof. The collateral value of the property shall be established at Subdivider's expense through an appraisal approved by City. 6) An instrument of credit from an agency of the state, federal or local government, when any agency of the state, federal, or local government provides at least Twenty Percent (20%) of the financing for the Improvements. 7) When Subdivider is a non-profit organization, security may be negotiable bonds, of the kind approved for securing deposits of public moneys with City or in favor of City, as specified in Section 16430 of the California Government Code, deposited, at City's option, with City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company. C. All securities shall be furnished in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit A. The amount of the performance security shall equal One Hundred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of constructing the Improvements, including payment of plan check and permit fees, as estimated by the City Engineer or a duly authorized representative of the City Engineer. The amount of Payment security shall equal the amount of the amount of performance security, except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A, and shall be furnished as a separate security. Warranty security shall equal Ten Percent (10%) of the amount of performance security except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A. D. At the time of submittal of security, Subdivider shall pay to City administrative fees applicable to the form of security provided. Administrative fees shall apply to the subdivision (final map, Tract map or waiver of Tract map) rather than to individual security instruments. The fees shall be paid separately for each different form and/or source (surety or financial institution) of security initially r submitted and for substitution of securities but shall not be required for submittal of warranty 12 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0FFSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc security if the warranty security is of the same form and from the same source as the performance security it replaces. Administrative fees for security shall be as follows: 1) For certificates of deposit, bonds and letters of credit as described in Paragraphs 2), 3) and 4) of SECTION 3.B., which require the establishment of evidence of the reliability of the surety or financial institution, the administrative fee shall be One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00). 2) For liens on real property as described in Paragraph 5) of SECTION 3.B., for which City will prepare lien agreements and subordination agreements, administer valuation of the real property and administer the agreements over the life of the lien, all of which require legal assistance and financial advice, Subdivider shall pay to City an administration fee of One Half of One Percent (0.5%) of the estimated cost of the improvements secured but not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). 3) For other forms of security listed in Section 3 B, above, there will be no administrative fee. E. Participatory Improvements, if any, are identified in Exhibit A. Security for Participatory Improvements shall remain in place until the Participatory Improvements are constructed and actual costs are known and paid by Subdivider, or until Subdivider pays to City the estimated cost of the Participatory Improvements, and shall guarantee the reimbursement by Subdivider of Subdivider's share of the cost of the Participatory Improvements. Payment security and warranty security shall not be required for Participatory Improvements. Upon written demand from City, Subdivider shall deposit cash with City in lieu of or in replacement of security guaranteeing Participatory Improvements. If Subdivider fails to deposit said cash within 30 days of the date of the written demand from City, City may present a written demand to Subdivider's Surety for payment of said cash and Subdivider's Surety shall pay to City the lesser of: 1) the amount demanded, or 2) the amount of the security. F. Security shall not expire, be reduced or become wholly or partially invalid for any reason, including non-payment of premiums, modifications of this Agreement and/or expiration of the time for performance stated in this Agreement, without express authorization from City unless the surety provides City with sixty (60) days written notice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. G. Security shall be released in the following manner: 1) Performance security shall be released upon the final completion and acceptance or approval, by the City Council of the Improvements subject to the provisions of paragraph B. 2) The City Engineer may authorize partial reduction of performance security as work progresses, upon application by Subdivider. However, no such reduction shall be for an amount less than Ten Percent (10%) of the total performance security provided for the faithful performance of the act or work. In no event shall security be reduced below that required to guarantee the completion of the act or work or obligation secured, plus Ten Percent (10%). The City Engineer shall not allow more than two partial reductions of security furnished for any improvement agreement. 3) Participatory Improvement security shall be released upon payment by Subdivider of Subdivider's share of the cost or estimated cost of the Participatory Improvements. 4) If City receives no notice of recorded claims of lien, labor and materials security shall be released in full 90 days after final acceptance and/or approval by the City Council, of the Improvements. If City receives notice of any recorded lien, the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act shall apply. 5) Warranty security not utilized during the warranty period shall be released one year after final acceptance or approval by the City Council of all Tract Improvements. However, if at the end of the one-year warranty period, there are one or more outstanding requests by City for performance of work or provision of materials under the terms of the warranty, warranty 13 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0FFSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc security shall be retained until the outstanding requests are satisfied or until Subdivider has made other arrangements satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. Permits Required. Prior to commencing any phase of work, Subdivider shall obtain all permits required for that phase of work and pay all required fees. Work performed under a permit or permits shall comply with all provisions of the required permits. 5. Off -site Improvements. When the construction of one or more of the Improvements requires or necessitates the acquisition of real property not owned by Subdivider or City, Subdivider shall use its best efforts purchase such real property at a reasonable price. In the event that Subdivider is unsuccessful, despite its best efforts, to acquire such real property at a reasonable price, Subdivider may request in writing that City attempt to acquire such real property. City may, but is not required to, agree to attempt to acquire such real property on behalf of Subdivider. If City so agrees, City and Subdivider shall enter a separate written agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Said separate agreement shall provide that Subdivider advance to City One Hundred Fifty Percent (150%) of the appraised fair market value of the real property. Any unexpended portion of said advance shall be refunded to Subdivider. Any additional funds required for acquisition of the real property shall be paid by Subdivider to City upon the conveyance of said real property to Subdivider. In no event shall the failure of Subdivider or City to acquire such real property excuse, waive, or otherwise terminate Subdivider's obligation to construct the applicable improvement pursuant to this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval. 6. Completion of Improvements. Subdivider shall begin construction of the Improvements within ninety (90) days and shall complete construction within twelve (12) months after the approval of this Agreement. Portions of the Improvements may be completed at a later date, as determined by the City Engineer or as set forth in Exhibit A. Failure by Subdivider to begin or complete construction of the Improvements within the specified time periods shall constitute cause for City, in its sole discretion and when it deems necessary, to declare Subdivider in default of this agreement, to revise improvement security requirements as necessary to ensure completion of the improvements, and/or to require modifications in the standards or sequencing of the Improvements in response to changes in standards or conditions affecting or affected by the Improvements. Said failure shall not otherwise affect the validity of this agreement or Subdivider's obligations hereunder. 7. Force Majeure. In the event that Subdivider is unable to perform within the time limits herein due to strikes, act of God, or other events beyond Subdivider's control, the time limits for obligations affected by such events will be extended by the period of such events. 8. Time Extension. Subdivider may make application in writing to the City Council for an extension of time for completion of the Improvements. The City Council, in its sole and absolute discretion, may approve or deny the request or conditionally approve the extension with additions or revisions to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. As a condition of the time extension, Subdivider shall furnish securities, similar in form and substance to those required in SECTION 3 hereinabove, to cover the period of extension. The value of the securities shall be sufficient to ensure the performance of and payment for Improvements that remain incomplete at the time of the extension, and to provide warranty security on completed Improvements. 9. Survey Monuments. Before final approval of street improvements, Subdivider shall place survey monuments in accordance with the provisions of Sections 66495, et sec. of the Subdivision Map Act and of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Subdivider shall provide the City Engineer written proof that the monuments have been set, evidence of payment and receipt thereof by the engineer or surveyor setting the monuments, and intersection monument tie -outs for monuments set in public streets. 10. Final Acceptance of Improvements. At the completion of construction and prior to acceptance of the Improvements by City, Subdivider shall submit a request for final approval by City. The request shall be accompanied by any required certifications from Subdivider's engineers or surveyors, approval letters from other agencies having jurisdiction over and approval authority for improvements required by this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval, and any required construction quality documentation not previously submitted. 14 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0FFSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc Upon receipt of said request, the City Engineer or a duly -authorized representative will review the required documentation and will inspect the Improvements. If the Improvements are determined to be in accordance with applicable City standards and specifications, and as provided herein, obligations required by the Conditions of Approval and this Agreement have been satisfied, and Subdivider has provided revised plans as required in Paragraph 11, hereinafter, the City Engineer shall recommend acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council. 11. Revisions to Plans. When the Improvements have been inspected and approved by the City Engineer, Subdivider shall make any necessary revisions to the original plans held by City so the plans depict the actual Improvements constructed. When necessary revisions have been made, each separate sheet of the plans shall be clearly marked with the words "As -Built," "As -Constructed," or "Record Drawing," the marking shall be stamped by an engineer or surveyor, as appropriate for the improvements thereon, who is licensed to practice in California, and the plans shall be resubmitted to the City Engineer. 12. Improvement Warranty. Subdivider hereby guarantees the Improvements to City for a period of one (1) year, beginning on the date of final acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council, against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished, and shall repair or replace such defective work or materials. 13. Release of Security. City shall retain and release securities in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this agreement. Prior to the release of payment security, the City Engineer may require Subdivider to provide a title report or other evidence sufficient to show claims of lien, if any, that may affect the amount of payment security released. 14. City Right to Cure. If Subdivider fails to perform any obligation hereunder and such obligation has not been performed within sixty (60) days after written notice of default from City, then City may perform the obligation, and Subdivider shall pay the entire cost of such performance by City including costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in enforcing such obligation. In cases of emergency or compelling public interest, as determined by the City Engineer, the requirement for written notice of default and/or the passage of sixty (60) days shall be deemed waived and all other provisions of this Article shall remain in effect. 15. Indemnification. Subdivider hereby binds itself, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, executors, administrators, guarantors, heirs, and assigns, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City and its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and assigns harmless from and against any losses, claims, demands, actions, or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way connected with Subdivider's performance herein under, including costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 16. No Modification of Conditions. This Agreement shall in no respect act to modify or amend any provision of the Conditions of Approval. In the event that any requirement or condition of this Agreement is inconsistent with or fails to include one or more provisions of the Conditions of Approval, which document(s) is (are) incorporated herein by reference, the provisions in the Conditions of Approval shall remain in effect and shall control. 17. Severability. In the event that any provision or provisions of this Agreement are held unenforceable, all provisions not so held shall remain in full force and effect. 18. General Provisions. A. All notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at their respective addresses indicated hereon. Notices personally delivered shall be effective upon delivery. Notices mailed as provided herein and sent postage prepaid shall be effective upon the date of delivery or refusal indicated on the return receipt. Either party may change its address for notices hereunder by notice to the other given in the manner provided in this subparagraph. B. The terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements set forth herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors of the parties hereto. 15 UASRahemtu11a\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\OFFSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc C. Neither party to this Agreement relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Agreement. D. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted with respect to the laws of the State of California. E. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to prompt payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees from the non -prevailing party. F. Any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies provided for hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760/777-7075 Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Date ATTEST: City Clerk Developer Address Standard Pacific Coachella Valley, a Division of Standard Pacific Corp. 15326 Alton Pkwy Irvine, C 618 ' IL By: � « Dr Date Title: r entc�ttve By: Date Title: Authorized Rearesentatiue Reviewed and Approved: City Engineer Date Approved as to Form: City Attorney Date - O UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0FFSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc 16 Exhibit A OFF -SITE SECURITY - TRACT MAP NO. 32279 Improvements designated as "Participatory" have been or will be constructed by others. Security for Participatory Improvements shall remain in place indefinitely until called upon or released by City. Monumentation security shall guarantee performance of or payment for the work and shall be utilized or released as specified in Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Subdivision Map Act. As elements of the work are completed, Subdivider may request a maximum of two partial releases of performance security. Partial releases shall be for not less than ten percent (10%) of the total performance security for the tract and shall not reduce total performance security below the amount necessary to complete the Improvements plus ten percent (10%) of the original amount. Partial releases of performance security will be evaluated and may be granted, in whole or in part, by the City Engineer. Requests for partial releases, setting forth in detail the amount of work completed and the value thereof, shall be made in writing to the City Engineer. Labor & materials security shall remain in place until 90 days after all required tract improvements are complete and accepted by the City Council. Improvement Description Storm Drainage Street Improvements Meandering 8ft Sidewalk Domestic Water Sanitary Sewer Ave 58 Street Light Landscaping (Parkway) Monumentation Totals Standard 10% Contingency Total Construction Cost Professional Fees, Design 10% Professional Fees, Const 10% Bond Amount Performance Labor & Materials $ 11,585 $ 11,585 $ 52,142 $ 52,142 $ 7,590 $ 7,590 $ 19,014 $ 19,014 $ 4,460 $ 4,460 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 2,000 $ 100,791 $ 98,791 $ 10,079 $ 9,879 $ 110,870 $ 108,670 $ 11,087 $ 10,867 $ 11,087 $ 10,867 $ 133,044 $ 130,404 17 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0FFSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of , me On � D before , Name aneTitle fficer (e.g. 'Jan oe, Notary Public") D to n i- ,l __` "� /Y.n personally appeared M rJ •1 i1 •''.•� • "nrrrfiAli is - Place Notary Seal Above Descri Title or Type of Docume Name(s) of Signer(s) personally known to me e on to be the person(s) whose name(s)-4s/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that #e�/they executed the same in _W.&41 exltheir authorized capaciW(ies), and that by _WeAs e4their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESSMS7ignat d icial seal. re of Not y Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. ption of Attached Document h - _ n . _ . _ _ _ . „ I n _ _ t — Document Date: ! V�— Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: N gTL& Capacity(ies) Crj ime by, Si r(s) Signer's Name: jrtrm,tt�T ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardia o Conse ator Other: Signer Is Representing: © 2004 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatswor Signer's Name: �oz_-) pt 101 A f ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator �hr: Signer Is Representing: h, CA 91313-2402 Item No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827 CITY OF LA QUINTA SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT MAP NO. 32279 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between STANDARD PACIFIC COACHELLA VALLEY, a Division of Standard Pacific Corp, a Delaware Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider," and the City of La Quinta, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." RECITALS: A. Subdivider has prepared and filed a final map or Tract map (the "Map") of a unit of land in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, which unit of land is known as Tract No. 32279 (the "Tract") pursuant to the provisions of Section 66410, et sec. of the California Government Code (the "Subdivision Map Act"). B. Prior to approval of the Map, Subdivider is required to install or agree to install certain public and private improvements (the "Improvements"). C. The Improvements have not been installed and accepted at this time. D. It is therefore necessary that Subdivider and City enter into an agreement for the installation of the Improvements as provided in Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map Act. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Improvement Plans. Prior to submittal of the Map for approval by the City Council, Subdivider shall furnish original improvement plans meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 2. Improvements. Subdivider shall construct the public and private street, drainage, utility, landscaping, and other improvements required to be constructed or agreed to be constructed under this Agreement as listed in Exhibit "A", and shall bear the full cost thereof. The methods, standards, specifications, sequence, and scheduling of construction shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Improvement Security. A. One class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "performance security," shall assure the faithful performance of this Agreement including construction of the Improvements, payment of Subdivider's fair share of Improvements which have been or will be constructed by others ("Participatory Improvements"), and payment of plan check and permit fees. A second class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "payment security," shall assure the payment of the cost of labor, equipment and materials supplied to construct the Improvements. A third class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "warranty security," shall serve as a guarantee and warranty of the Improvements for a period of one year following the completion and acceptance of the Improvements. Subdivider shall furnish performance and payment security prior to and as a condition of City Council approval of the Map. Subdivider shall provide warranty security after Improvements are complete and accepted by the City Council and prior to or concurrently with the final release of performance security. Warranty security shall not be required for Monumentation or Participatory Improvements. However, the City may utilize Monumentation Security for performance of or payment for the work in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. As part of the obligation secured by each of the performance security, payment security and warranty security, and in addition, to the face amount of each such security, each such security'! shall include and assure the payment of costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing the obligations thereby secured. 19 TAProject Development Division\Development Projects\Agreemen ts\SSA\SIAs in Progress\Mirage TM 32279\ONSITE_SIA.doc B. Improvement security shall conform to Section 66499 of the California Government Code and one or more of the following: 1) A cash deposit with City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company, at City's option. 2) Surety bonds, of the form specified in subsection 66499.2 of the California Government Code, issued by a surety or sureties listed in the U.S. Department of Treasury Circular 570 (latest version). 3) Certificates of deposit, in City's name, from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the state or federal government and having a financial quality rating of "A" or better and a commitment reliability rating of "R-2" or better on the Investment Data Exchange (of the Los Angeles County Treasurer's office). 4) Irrevocable letters of credit, issued by one or more financial institutions meeting the requirements of Paragraph (3), pledging that the funds necessary to carry out the completion of the Improvements are on deposit, guaranteed for payment, and constitute a trust fund which is not subject to levy or attachment by any creditor of the depositor until released by City. Letters of credit shall guarantee that all or any portion of the funds available pursuant to the letters of credit will be paid upon the written demand of City and that such written demand need not present documentation of any type as a condition of payment, including proof of loss. The duration of any such letter of credit shall be for a period of not less than one year from the execution of the agreement with which it is provided and shall state, on its face, that the letter of credit will be automatically renewed until such time that City authorizes its expiration or until sixty (60) days after City receives notice from the financial institution of intent to allow expiration of the letter of credit. 5) A lien upon the subdivided property, if City finds that it would not be in the public interest to require the installation of the Improvements sooner than two (2) years after recordation of the final map or Tract map for which the Improvements are required. The lien shall provide a collateral value of three (3) times the estimated cost of the Improvements and shall include the power of sale of the real property, all buildings and improvements thereon, or that may be erected upon or made thereto, together with all hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reservations, remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof. The collateral value of the property shall be established at Subdivider's expense through an appraisal approved by City. 6) An instrument of credit from an agency of the state, federal or local government, when any agency of the state, federal, or local government provides at least Twenty Percent (20%) of the financing for the Improvements. 7) When Subdivider is a non-profit organization, security may be negotiable bonds, of the kind approved for securing deposits of public moneys with City or in favor of City, as specified in Section 16430 of the California Government Code, deposited, at City's option, with City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company. C. All securities shall be furnished in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit A. The amount of the performance security shall equal One Hundred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of constructing the Improvements, including payment of plan check and permit fees, as estimated by the City Engineer or a duly authorized representative of the City Engineer. The amount of Payment security shall equal the amount of the amount of performance security, except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A, and shall be furnished as a separate security. Warranty security shall equal Ten Percent (10%) of the amount of performance security except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A. D. At the time of submittal of security, Subdivider shall pay to City administrative fees applicable to the form of security provided. Administrative fees shall apply to the subdivision (final map, Tract map or waiver of Tract map) rather than to individual security instruments. The fees shall be paid separately for each different form and/or source (surety or financial institution) of security initially submitted and for substitution of securities but shall not be required for submittal of warranty 20 lJASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0NSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc security if the warranty security is of the same form and from the same source as the performance security it replaces. Administrative fees for security shall be as follows: 1) For certificates of deposit, bonds and letters of credit as described in Paragraphs 2), 3) and 4) of SECTION 3.B., which require the establishment of evidence of the reliability of the surety or financial institution, the administrative fee shall be One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00). 2) For liens on real property as described in Paragraph 5) of SECTION 3.B., for which City will prepare lien agreements and subordination agreements, administer valuation of the real property and administer the agreements over the life of the lien, all of which require legal assistance and financial advice, Subdivider shall pay to City an administration fee of One Half of One Percent (0.5%) of the estimated cost of the improvements secured but not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). 3) For other forms of security listed in Section 3 B, above, there will be no administrative fee. E. Participatory Improvements, if any, are identified in Exhibit A. Security for Participatory Improvements shall remain in place until the Participatory Improvements are constructed and actual costs are known and paid by Subdivider, or until Subdivider pays to City the estimated cost of the Participatory Improvements, and shall guarantee the reimbursement by Subdivider of Subdivider's share of the cost of the Participatory Improvements. Payment security and warranty security shall not be required for Participatory Improvements. Upon written demand from City, Subdivider shall deposit cash with City in lieu of or in replacement of security guaranteeing Participatory Improvements. If Subdivider fails to deposit said cash within 30 days of the date of the written demand from City, City may present a written demand to Subdivider's Surety for payment of said cash and Subdivider's Surety shall pay to City the lesser of: 1) the amount demanded, or 2) the amount of the security. F. Security shall not expire, be reduced or become wholly or partially invalid for any reason, including non-payment of premiums, modifications of this Agreement and/or expiration of the time for performance stated in this Agreement, without express authorization from City unless the surety provides City with sixty (60) days written notice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. G. Security shall be released in the following manner: 1) Performance security shall be released upon the final completion and acceptance or approval, by the City Council of the Improvements subject to the provisions of paragraph B. 2) The City Engineer may authorize partial reduction of performance security as work progresses, upon application by Subdivider. However, no such reduction shall be for an amount less than Ten Percent (10%) of the total performance security provided for the faithful performance of the act or work. In no event shall security be reduced below that required to guarantee the completion of the act or work or obligation secured, plus Ten Percent (10%). The City Engineer shall not allow more than two partial reductions of security furnished for any improvement agreement. 3) Participatory Improvement security shall be released upon payment by Subdivider of Subdivider's share of the cost or estimated cost of the Participatory Improvements. 4) If City receives no notice of recorded claims of lien, labor and materials security shall be released in full 90 days after final acceptance and/or approval by the City Council, of the Improvements. If City receives notice of any recorded lien, the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act shall apply. 5) Warranty security not utilized during the warranty period shall be released one year after final acceptance or approval by the City Council of all Tract Improvements. However, if at the end of the one-year warranty period, there are one or more outstanding requests by City for performance of work or provision of materials under the terms of the warranty, warranty 21 lJASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0NSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc security shall be retained until the outstanding requests are satisfied or until Subdivider has made other arrangements satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. Permits Required. Prior to commencing any phase of work, Subdivider shall obtain all permits required for that phase of work and pay all required fees. Work performed under a permit or permits shall comply with all provisions of the required permits. 5. Off -site Improvements. When the construction of one or more of the Improvements requires or necessitates the acquisition of real property not owned by Subdivider or City, Subdivider shall use its best efforts purchase such real property at a reasonable price. In the event that Subdivider is unsuccessful, despite its best efforts, to acquire such real property at a reasonable price, Subdivider may request in writing that City attempt to acquire such real property. City may, but is not required to, agree to attempt to acquire such real property on behalf of Subdivider. If City so agrees, City and Subdivider shall enter a separate written agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Said separate agreement shall provide that Subdivider advance to City One Hundred Fifty Percent (150%) of the appraised fair market value of the real property. Any unexpended portion of said advance shall be refunded to Subdivider. Any additional funds required for acquisition of the real property shall be paid by Subdivider to City upon the conveyance of said real property to Subdivider. In no event shall the failure of Subdivider or City to acquire such real property excuse, waive, or otherwise terminate Subdivider's obligation to construct the applicable improvement pursuant to this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval. 6. Completion of Improvements. Subdivider shall begin construction of the Improvements within ninety (90) days and shall complete construction within twelve (12) months after the approval of this Agreement. Portions of the Improvements may be completed at a later date, as determined by the City Engineer or as set forth in Exhibit A. Failure by Subdivider to begin or complete construction of the Improvements within the specified time periods shall constitute cause for City, in its sole discretion and when it deems necessary, to declare Subdivider in default of this agreement, to revise improvement security requirements as necessary to ensure completion of the improvements, and/or to require modifications in the standards or sequencing of the Improvements in response to changes in standards or conditions affecting or affected by the Improvements. Said failure shall not otherwise affect the validity of this agreement or Subdivider's obligations hereunder. 7. Force Majeure. In the event that Subdivider is unable to perform within the time limits herein due to strikes, act of God, or other events beyond Subdivider's control, the time limits for obligations affected by such events will be extended by the period of such events. 8. Time Extension. Subdivider may make application in writing to the City Council for an extension of time for completion of the Improvements. The City Council, in its sole and absolute discretion, may approve or deny the request or conditionally approve the extension with additions or revisions to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. As a condition of the time extension, Subdivider shall furnish securities, similar in form and substance to those required in SECTION 3 hereinabove, to cover the period of extension. The value of the securities shall be sufficient to ensure the performance of and payment for Improvements that remain incomplete at the time of the extension, and to provide warranty security on completed Improvements. 9. Survey Monuments. Before final approval of street improvements, Subdivider shall place survey monuments in accordance with the provisions of Sections 66495, et sec. of the Subdivision Map Act and of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Subdivider shall provide the City Engineer written proof that the monuments have been set, evidence of payment and receipt thereof by the engineer or surveyor setting the monuments, and intersection monument tie -outs for monuments set in public streets. 10. Final Acceptance of Improvements. At the completion of construction and prior to acceptance of the Improvements by City, Subdivider shall submit a request for final approval by City. The request shall be accompanied by any required certifications from Subdivider's engineers or surveyors, approval j letters from other agencies having jurisdiction over and approval authority for improvements required by this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval, and any required construction quality documentation not previously submitted. 22 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0NSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc Upon receipt of said request, the City Engineer or a duly -authorized representative will review the required documentation and will inspect the Improvements. If the Improvements are determined to be in accordance with applicable City standards and specifications, and as provided herein, obligations required by the Conditions of Approval and this Agreement have been satisfied, and Subdivider has provided revised plans as required in Paragraph 11, hereinafter, the City Engineer shall recommend acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council. 11. Revisions to Plans. When the Improvements have been inspected and approved by the City Engineer, Subdivider shall make any necessary revisions to the original plans held by City so the plans depict the actual Improvements constructed. When necessary revisions have been made, each separate sheet of the plans shall be clearly marked with the words "As -Built," "As -Constructed," or "Record Drawing," the marking shall be stamped by an engineer or surveyor, as appropriate for the improvements thereon, who is licensed to practice in California, and the plans shall be resubmitted to the City Engineer. 12. Improvement Warranty. Subdivider hereby guarantees the Improvements to City for a period of one (1) year, beginning on the date of final acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council, against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished, and shall repair or replace such defective work or materials. 13. Release of Security. City shall retain and release securities in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this agreement. Prior to the release of payment security, the City Engineer may require Subdivider to provide a title report or other evidence sufficient to show claims of lien, if any, that may affect the amount of payment security released. 14. City Right to Cure. If Subdivider fails to perform any obligation hereunder and such obligation has not been performed within sixty (60) days after written notice of default from City, then City may perform the obligation, and Subdivider shall pay the entire cost of such performance by City including costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in enforcing such obligation. In cases of emergency or compelling public interest, as determined by the City Engineer, the requirement for written notice of default and/or the passage of sixty (60) days shall be deemed waived and all other provisions of this Article shall remain in effect. 15. Indemnification. Subdivider hereby binds itself, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, executors, administrators, guarantors, heirs, and assigns, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City and its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and assigns harmless from and against any losses, claims, demands, actions, or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way connected with Subdivider's performance herein under, including costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 16. No Modification of Conditions. This Agreement shall in no respect act to modify or amend any provision of the Conditions of Approval. In the event that any requirement or condition of this Agreement is inconsistent with or fails to include one or more provisions of the Conditions of Approval, which document(s) is (are) incorporated herein by reference, the provisions in the Conditions of Approval shall remain in effect and shall control. 17. Severability. In the event that any provision or provisions of this Agreement are held unenforceable, all provisions not so held shall remain in full force and effect. 18. General Provisions. A. All notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at their respective addresses indicated hereon. Notices personally delivered shall be effective upon delivery. Notices mailed as provided herein and sent postage prepaid shall be effective upon the dato Qf j delivery or refusal indicated on the return receipt. Either party may change its address for notices hereunder by notice to the other given in the manner provided in this subparagraph. B. The terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements set forth herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors of the parties hereto. 23 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\ONSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc C. Neither party to this Agreement relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Agreement. D. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted with respect to the laws of the State of California. E. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to prompt payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees from the non -prevailing party. F. Any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies provided for hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760/777-7075 Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Date ATTEST: City Clerk DEVELOPER ADDRESS Standard Pacific Coachella Valley, a Division of Standard Pacific Corp. 15326 Alton Pkwy Irvine, CA 92618 By. 9&Date Title: By: Title: Reviewed and Approved: City Engineer Approved as to Form: City Attorney Date Date e UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0NSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc 24 Exhibit A ON -SITE SECURITY — TRACT MAP NO. 32279 Improvements designated as "Participatory" have been or will be constructed by others. Security for Participatory Improvements shall remain in place indefinitely until called upon or released by City. Monumentation security shall guarantee performance of or payment for the work and shall be utilized or released as specified in Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Subdivision Map Act. As elements of the work are completed, Subdivider may request a maximum of two partial releases of performance security. Partial releases shall be for not less than ten percent (10%) of the total performance security for the tract and shall not reduce total performance security below the amount necessary to complete the Improvements plus ten percent (10%) of the original amount. Partial releases of performance security will be evaluated and may be granted, in whole or in part, by the City Engineer. Requests for partial releases, setting forth in detail the amount of work completed and the value thereof, shall be made in writing to the City Engineer. Labor & materials security shall remain in place until 90 days after all required tract improvements are complete and accepted by the City Council. Improvement Description Performance Labor & Materials Grading $ 126,803 $ 126,803 Storm Drainage $ 116,665 $ 116,665 Street Improvements $ 178,601 $ 178,601 Domestic Water $ 101,833 $ 101,833 Sanitary Sewer $ 90,355 $ 90,355 Dry Utilities $ 68,750 $ 68,750 Perimeter Wall $ 64,320 $ 64,320 Monumentation $ 1,000 Totals $ 748,327 $ 747,327 Standard 10% Contingency $ 74,833 $ 74,733 Total Construction Cost $ 823,160 $ 822,060 Professional Fees, Design 10% $ 82,316 $ 82,206 Professional Fees, Const 10% $ 82,316 $ 82,206 Bond Amount $ 987,792 $ 986,472 25 UASRahemtulla\Projects\La Quinta 53\Bonds\0NSITE_SIA, Final, 11.14.05.doc VK. y]. Tc,3� sa 2*� State of California ss. County of aln 6& 1 I j"> On before me, .V� fits Date � Name anq TitllO, "Ja � Notary PubliC�� appeared L/►1� TDR personally pp Name(s) of Signer(s) LC. ORTIiZ Commiissiion#t I SW60 r Notary wft - CCMO IO Orange County My Comm. Expires Mar 2 7,=4 Place Notary Seal Above p rsonally known to me as to be the person(s) whose name(s)-4s/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ,i.e><sh.e/they executed the same in _hi -�/their authorized capaciW(ies), and that by-.k� their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS ha n official seal. nature of tary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached o M ent I-D11V � �3 �C/ Title or Type of Document: Vl�� Document Date: I V 0-HCI-I Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: / Capacity(ies) C1'jij a by,Sign � (� s) _ Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian r onse atorA `0 Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER .I of thumb here Signer's Name i o�at,i !'�° ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardia,or �onser atoms r Other: 1U` Signer Is Representing: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER © 2004 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Item No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll Free 1 800 876-6827 26 T 0 -/d4f 4 4Q" AGENDA CATEG0RN : c'OUNCIL/RDA YIEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 B<<slNEss sEssloN: _ ITEM TITLE: CONSENTCALENDAR: Consideration of Recipient for the Senior Inspiration Award Program. S'ITI)N' SESS10N: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Select the City of La Quinta recipient for the Senior Inspiration Award. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The Senior Inspiration Award provides an opportunity to recognize and honor outstanding seniors throughout the Coachella Valley. The City Council is being asked to select one outstanding senior recipient who meets the following criteria: the honoree should be at least 70 years old; reside in the City of La Quinta; demonstrate involvement in community affairs for a lengthy period of time; and personify a healthy and active attitude and lifestyle. Staff sent out a letter to the following organizations: La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, La Quinta Historical Society, La Quinta Rotary Club, Friends of the La Quinta Library, La Quinta Arts Foundation, Soroptimist Club of La Quinta, Lions Club of La Quinta, Friends of the La Quinta Senior Center and the La Quinta VFW requesting nominees for the 2006 Senior Inspiration Award. The letter is provided as Attachment 1 . Two nominations were received, one for Diane Adolph from the La Quinta Rotary Club and one for Frank Handler from the La Quinta Arts Foundation. Both candidates met the criteria for the award and brief synopses are provided as Attachments 2 and 3. The Senior Inspiration Awards Luncheon will be held on Thursday, March 30, 2006. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Select the City of La Quinta recipient for the Senior Inspiration Award; or 2. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, s l ] Christina T. Calderon, Recreation Supervisor Approved for submission by: r f '° /� e ,.�,.�,.,. ,� �,,. _ . .-.� ,�"` :. -' • � - �,e~"�.... fir` �+"� '�,. �� ±'" r' Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Letter requesting nominations from the 6 organizations 2. Nomination form for Diane Adolph 3. Nomination form for Frank Handler Rn FIRSIM. Urt'WE: 4090 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, (-'A 92502-1647 (951) 955-1040 Fax (951) 955-2194 SUPERVISOR ROY WILSON FouRTH Dis'rRICf �'la�l)l l )till `�dl)lph City of La QUIlIta --19� Calle Tanlplco a I 01111ta. C ahf�lrnia I )CIII MLI Or 'Adolph ATTACHMENT DISTRICT OFFI('FAIAII.INC AunkFSs: 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222 Palm Desert, (:A 92260-2574 (760)863-8211 Fax (760) 863-8905 The County Of 1Zi�crsido: and the nine incOrp1ll;ilcd cities Ot'the C(lacIle IIa �'aliev ha�'c started plannintia lilt 11C�t scar s Seni(►r [aspiration .-\wards. The luncheon ��ill he hckl March ,U. '!)OU at 1 l:,(1 a.m. ut(�n�t)11��ri(11�t�cltlrs 1'alnl Splines C(1n�entiOn Centel e(l�a,crk IOok 1')nv:ird to another- successlttl cv'cnt iu the trad►t1 slll'�l'ti�eti. I'aCll L ll\ s Itl�Ol�enll'nl 111 tilC SCICCIII)Il plYll'Css U11�i participmio I1 Ill lllc prO'graill Is LsSClltlat. i�t lily Vla��l'� ll( 11LIC ari(i (';IN, N1at1zI1_1c .S IllCCIin � in .1mi �(IU�. cacll pity a��rcc�l t�� lal c� (lntl1� Sp�lntii+rJI-C nc�`ltlill" Oil (NOW PZIrtiClpatIOI1 l ) a suhscyucnt incctin�a. the anlOunt Of c1t� sponsorship was set at �_._t)(1. �� arc coon I III(AL 11cm "Car"s event :I 1_11-eat success. TO this end- vie are t1gam a;kim-i each C IV to select ("le i�rdit�i�lual loan Or ��lnlun OutstandillL. Senior rc::iplcn who elects the t011(l�� in�� crlt��ria: four unc hOI1OreC must he al least %O �'etlrs old: KCsidC in your city; • n conullullit� affairs tilt a len�athy period Oftinlc: Ile activck ill%Oked i • DCSCI%'C' 1O ICCeIV"� I-CCO�_'llltl(111 111d Or 111�1\' lilt othcl-wiso:ICCel\C rL' cl:Oilltloll 101-their 'lCl l�� to[hC��1111t11111111V; PCI-sOI1i11 a hcalthN. aCIINC. and COntrihutin�a attitude and lil�st�lr \VC ask that each City' plovldc a hriCI sunIIImI\ (nrt�inlunl ?OO ��(lldsl (ul shy �uulls�linl'le )Ianaiti��llilyyilllhlk: per,On..�1 nonunati011 furnl is CnCiOtiCol. and shOuld he rc(t►rncd hN� l tiday, .lanuary (), _OO(). 1I incorporated unto the pt-O�aram. Which will he distrihtlteti tO all attendees at the \\��ard> Luncheon. 1 ltC �,;{}O (�it� Sp(�nsOrshlp pacl:a�.�C incluLics tv"O IaIbics for lit (tolai file Ill the event pio-1ianl. an( 1 rccO��nition al lltc c� cnl. l able One should iIICludc yOur rcctplcnt and then One auC t'�O{)� elected ofliCialS and Or ~tali; and Tahlr 1 ��0 sltuuld include tanl"N' nlenlhCrs Or your recipient' tile C�lnlplinlCntarN recipient and Or additional CitN staff Or other CIt\` attests. (Itly up to v('tl O(ild0fhclnladCtOLIIIto) Selli(w Inspiration } ink ilati011 to vOur ?O(i 1 recipient.) Additional tahlcs O1 10 an �a�(1. (becks s l t .-��ar(ls. and mailed lO I-vnda Kerney, cO titip�. EZ�1�� \V`ilsOn ?�-?1ll f rCci \V'arin�t 1)rt��C �ultc Palm [)csCtt. CA ti nclOsed. We lnnst receive your sp011sOrsllip check hN .lanuary 6. �1?Ob. `v��c arc also ;cckin" 1)hl). All ins OicC 1. � Or loratC ;pOnsOrs lOr this c\'ent. :� letter has hcCli enclosed for p()tcntial CoilrihutOrs ()f whiCh v(1tl may he avv are. 1 YOU may contact I_Vilda Kcrilo in t11y OIIIcc at I r�O) ��l' ;? I 1 ;hound v(1u reyuirc anti turthCr inii1lm�It1uII about s1unsOrships (,r lla�C any (}uC�tiOns, AVC look fOrv\ard to vOur parlicihatlon Ill thls 1110S1 unglue tribute tO Our } seniors. [lice rC IN,, 'h(lnrth District tiupCn�► ro Cncl. 1N ERNh:r: distr 04Cn)co. riverside. ca-us ATTACHMENT 2 2006 SENIOR INSPIRATION AWARD SUGGESTED RECIPIENTS Diane Adolph 55-105 Riviera La Quinta, CA 92253 Telephone: 771-0577 DOB: 9/ 8/ 33 Age: 72 Diane Adolph is a long-time resident and volunteer in the City of La Quinta. She has been active in numerous organizations, including the Friends of La Quinta Library Board, La Quinta Historical Society, Arts Foundation Board and La Quinta Chamber of Commerce. She currently serves as treasurer of The Friends of La Quinta Library Board and president of the Coachella Valley On -Stage and La Quinta Playhouse. Her past honors include the 1992 Volunteer of the Year from the La Quinta Arts Foundation, 1994 Citizen of the Year from the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, and 1999 Woman of Distinction from the Soroptimist Club. A list of the many local clubs and organizations in which she has been active over the years is as follows: • Currently serving as President, Coachella Valley On Stage and La Quinta Playhouse. • La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Ambassador — 1990-1993. • La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Executive Ambassador — 1993-1996. • Arts League Vice President — 1991-1992. • Arts League President — 1993-1994. • Arts Foundation Board — 1993-2001. • Arts Foundation Board Vice President — 1998. • Viva Foundation Board — 1994. • Viva foundation Board Vice President — 2000-2003. • La Quinta Historical Society Board — 1996-1998. • La Quinta Historical Society Board Chairman of Gala Silent Auction — 1992-2002. • Community Concerts Board — 1994-1998. • Friends of La Quinta Senior Center Board — 1997-1999. • Friends of La Quinta Library Board — 1997. • Friends of La Quinta Library Board — currently serving as Treasurer. • H.O.W. Foundation Board — 1998-1999. • Round Table West — 1993 — to present. Chairman: Books for the Bookless Project — 1993. Keeper of the Scrap Book — 2001. Chairman of the Desert Chapter — 2002. 01 f 13i 2©©6 10: 46 6�5646884 LA LIUINTA ARTS FOUND ATTACHMENT 3 2006 Senior ,Inspiration Awards NOMINATION FORM Please do not embarrass your nominee by not meeting the award criteria Must be at least 70 years old; reside in your dty; actively involved in owwwnity affairs for a lengthy period of time; Deserves to receive recognition and/or may not otherwise Deceive recognition fur their service to the communf#y; Personify a hea", active, and contributing attitude and lifestyle NomZnatwg oty La Qv t.*.j -7-A Recipient's First and Last Name: F"tjju-io e lie, 00B: 7Ia133 Mo Ater than March 28, 1935 Age: 7.Z Mailing -gddress: c.t 77 (Z �" j�i�4 ACA/7-14 o Aj T-A, CA q2,z e-3 Tel: _710 O 57 6 Li — 3 3 8 F;masl:.(�hgncl ! e V @Ae . rr. e or;, _We ► t s Big (200 -words or less, Prank Handler volunteered in Long Beach for 4 years before moving to La Quinta 7 years ago, where volunteering has became a full time commitment. Some of his ongoing community projects include: • La Quinta Arts Foundation - managing retail for La Quinta Arts Festival, Artist Ambassador for Art Under the Umbrellas at Old "town weekend shows, and assist with the Foundation supported Golden Feather Classic • American Red Cross - member of the Disaster Team assisting individuals finding food, clothing, or shelter; sell earthquake survival kits • Citizens Helping the Indio Police (4 years) - procure donations for underprivileged children; patrol services for Indio and the Southwest Art Festival; provide traffic control for parades. • The Indio Chamber of Commerce - Ambassador for Chamber events including the Indio Date Festival and the Tamale Festival • Palm Springs Film Festival - managed the event at the high school (2 years); managed volunteers (4 years) • Lake La Quinta Yacht Club — assist with the Holiday Party and Boat Rides for unprivileged children 'lease fax information to Supervisor ` (son's affice 760-863-8905 fry Jan. 6 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Discussion of the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) RECOMMENDATION: t� N AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Provide direction to the Mayor and staff in preparation of the February 6, 2006 CVAG Executive Committee Meeting. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The CVMSHCP ("The Plan") proposes a new updated development fee in the amount of $5,270 (previously $1 ,975) per acre to assist funding acquisition, administration and management of the CVMSHCP. For residential development, the fees may be higher due to per dwelling unit fees. The revised Nexus (Fee) Study has not been finalized as of the writing of this report. Implementation of the CVMSHCP may result in reduced levels of development in certain portions of the City, which in turn, may reduce City property and sales tax revenues. The adoption of the Plan will also add costs to development throughout the City because of the imposition of the fee. However, there would also be a corresponding reduction in the need for City services in the undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. City staff time would be expended in the implementation of the Plan. City Attorney involvement may also be required. It is therefore difficult to assess the long term fiscal implications of the Plan. The Plan has provisions that state the City's financial obligations are limited to funding outlined in the Plan (fees) . The Joint Powers Authority has the ability to impose assessments for participating entities if funding shortfalls occur. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: A. General Overview The CVAG Executive Committee will hold a public hearing at its meeting of February 6, 2006. Action items include certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) `' and approval of the Plan. If approved, CVAG will distribute the final Plan to all Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) members for review and approval. CVAG's goal is to have all CVCC agencies approve the Plan by the end of April 2006. Staff will continue to review the 155 pages of the Plan edits and respond to comments in preparation for this City Council meeting (Attachment 1). Additional comments will be made at the meeting. Discussion regarding this Plan started in 1994. In 1996, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed and approved by CVAG agencies, Wildlife agencies and other entities. At this time, the following agencies are participating in the planning process: all cities in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Forestry Service, National Parks Service, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) , Riverside County Recreation and Park District, Riverside County Waste Management Department, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy (CVMC). The Plan is intended to balance protection of the environmental and economic development and to simplify compliance with endangered species and related laws. If approved, the Plan will allow the "take" of species covered by the Plan and will mitigate the impacts of "taking" by providing for conservation of covered species. See the attached CVAG Energy and Environment Committee staff report (Attachment 2) for a discussion of the Plan benefits and consequences if the Plan is not approved. The proposed Take Authorization, if permitted, will have a 75-year term. The Plan contemplates completing all land acquisitions within the first 30 years of the Plan. The Plan will require a monitoring program, management program, adaptive management program, and on -going administration over the life of the Plan. The CVCC had its first meeting on January 12, 2006. A summary of the meeting actions is attached (Attachment 3). The Plan area covers approximately 1 .2 million acres of which 69,000 acres are Indian Reservation Lands. Indian Reservation Lands are not included in the Plan. Cities in the Coachella Valley make up 16 percent of the Plan area and the remaining 84 percent is unincorporated. Privately held land comprises 45 percent of the overall land area. Approximately 92% of proposed conservation areas are in unincorporated areas. The Plan will provide Take Authorization for 27 species and 23 Natural Communities. The Natural Communities provide habitat for the Covered Species. B. Conservation Areas — General Information The Plan is based upon the establishment of the "MSHCP Reserve System." Lands would be assembled into 21 Conservation Areas. 4 , Section 4.3.21 of the Plan (pages 4-1 69 — 4-186) establishes the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain Conservation Area. Within this Conservation Area, the Plan establishes a series of mitigation measures, including restriction on development designed to preserve certain levels of PBS Habitat and imposition of the "Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS), which is discussed further below. C. Required Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation in Conservation Areas (Section 4.4) An area of concern for staff is the seasonal limitations on construction activities. In La Quinta, the most important aspects of the Plan relate to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep's lambing season. In Section 4.4, page 4-194 — 4-195, the Plan imposes severe restrictions on construction, maintenance and other activities from January 1 to June 30, sheep's lambing season. Such activities are prohibited unless authorized through a Minor Amendment to the Plan with approval of FWS and CDFG. The PBS habitat covers 332 square miles and the number of potential development projects with or adjacent to, PBS habitat are relatively low. This restriction could extend the construction period for infrastructure and/or other development by up to one year if two seasons are affected. Extending construction periods is counter productive since it will cause a longer period where construction activities occur causing a more significant impact on this species. CVAG Response: CVAG decided not to make any adjustments to the seasonal construction limits. D. Restrictions on Land Use Adjacent to Conservation Areas (Section 4.5) The purpose of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines is to avoid or minimize indirect effects from development adjacent to, or within the Conservation Areas. Such indirect effects are commonly referred to as edge effects, and may include noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into the adjacent conservation Area, and the introduction of non-native plants and non-native predators such as dogs and cats. Edge effects are proposed to be addressed through reserve management activities such as fencing. This section of the Plan includes a list of Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants. Two forms of rye grass are listed as prohibited within or adjacent to Conservation Area. Perennial Rye Grasses (Lollium perenne) is utilized by most golf courses in the Coachella Valley and its prohibition would severely impact all future golf course development. This type of rye grass is necessary and cannot be prohibited. CVAG Response: Perennial Rye grass (Lollium perenne) has been removed from Table 4-113 as a prohibited plant. CVAG proposed adding Washingtonia Robusta (Mexican fan palms) to the prohibited plant list since they can cross pollinate with Native Washingtonia Filiferia (California Fan Palm). E. Restrictions on Take and Habitat Loss (Section 4.6) The Plan was revised to increase Authorized Disturbance of PBS habitat from 96 to 114 acres within the City. This Conservation Area includes a portion of one approved project (Travertine), as well as the Section 5 area which has been subdivided into parcels ranging in size from five to 80 acres. Other isolated hillside parcels are also included in this Conservation Area. The Plan contains special provisions on Travertine. (Page 4-1800) — (4)) As proposed Travertine is a Covered Activity (Take Authorized) with Revised Special Provisions as follows: The Travertine Specific Plan has initiated a Section 7 consultation with USFWS. If a Permit for specified endangered or threatened species is issued through the Biological Opinion, then no Permit will be provided through the MSHCP for those species. Any provisions listed below for those species will not apply unless incorporated within the Section 7 Biological Opinion If no Section 7 Permit is provided, and, in any event, as pertains to non -listed Covered Species, Travertine Specific Plan is a Covered Activity with the following special provisions: (1) The portion of the Travertine Specific Plan property for which Take Authorization is provided is outside the Conservation Area, as depicted in Figure 4-26(e)(3)(A). (2) The remainder of the Travertine Specific Plan property is inside the Conservation Area, as depicted in Figure 4-26(e)(3)(A), and shall be dedicated to Conservation in perpetuity. (3) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent will provide a no - interest $2,000,000 loan to the CVCC or its designee upon mutually agreeable terms to acquire Essential bighorn sheep Habitat in the project area. This provision may be revised or substituted for in a manner of equal of greater benefit to the Plan upon mutual agreement of CVCC, the Wildlife Agencies, the City of La Quinta, and the project proponent. (4) The project proponent will provide $500,000 for bighorn sheep monitoring and research, with $100,000 due prior to the issuance of grading permits, and an additional $400,000 provided during the succeeding eight years. (CVAG Revisions Underlined) .a. CVAG Response: 1. Travertine Trail Issues. Take Authorization does not specifically include the public trails shown in the General Plan, including the trail to the Martinez Landslide and the connection of the trail system with the Boo Hoff trail loop. However, in meetings with FWS, CDFG and CVAG it was agreed upon that the General Plan Trails will be included in the Take Authorization. Staff will ask for clarification on this point. 2. Travertine Mitigation. Travertine is not subject to the Mitigation Fee since the Special Provisions require payment of substantial funds. 3. Section 5. The City requested Take Authority provided for the development of single-family dwellings as an allowable use subject to special provisions. CVAG did not change the Plan in this regard and Section 5 remains subject to the HANS process. 4. Jefferson Street Extension. The portions of Jefferson Street extension located on private land is a covered activity. A short section of Jefferson Street south of the Green property is subject to separate Bureau of Land Management review. 5. Authorized Take. The City requested that Table 4-1 1 1 d be modified to increase the amount of PBS Authorized Take and clarify its intent. As previously noted CVAG increased Authorized Take. However, CVAG added a footnote that affects a 49 acre parcel located in the Cove. This parcel is designated as a 10% Take Authorization area. Staff recommends that CVAG amend the footnote from 4 acres to 4.9 acres. In discussion with CVAG contractors it was indicated that this change will be made (per Bill Havert, 1-1 2-06). F. Water Source Designation and Restrictions. Need for Identification of Locations. Staff is concerned about the requirement on Page 4-178 of the Plan, which states: Item 1 .c - "Development shall be sited a minimum of a quarter mile from known water sources as identified on a reference map on file with the CVCC." In order to assess the impacts of this restriction, the referenced map must be included in the Plan and must be subject to public review, evaluation, and comment. The City obtained a copy of this map (Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Water Resources), but staff was informed at a January 24, 2005 meeting with CVAG staff that the map is incomplete and that there may be additional water resources that are not shown on the map. CVAG staff further indicated that this map may be amended prior to and even after Plan approval. This creates a significant concern in that it becomes impossible to evaluate the effect of the quarter -mile buffer if the points from which the * '� measurements are taken are unknown. Staff strongly recommended that CVAG prepare a complete and comprehensive map to include in the Plan. If after Plan adoption this map needs to be amended, this should be accomplished through either a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment depending upon the significance of the changes. Additionally staff recommended that this requirement be expanded to allow adjustments based upon topography. CVAG Response: CVAG recommends that the Penninsular Bighorn Sheep Water Resources Map referenced throughout the Plan not be included in the Plan. This document has not been publicly reviewed. Staff still recommends that once the Plan is approved, including this important map, any changes to this map shall require either a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment depending upon the significance of the change(s). CVAG added topographic considerations to this measure. G. Clarification regarding the HANS Process. When development is proposed by private land owners within Section 5, the City will not be able to approve until the property owner has completed the "HANS Process" — a property owner initiated "Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy". In summary, it provides as a process by which the CVCC and the wildlife agencies would be brought into the development loop, and the importance of the subject property would be reassessed. Specifically, the proposed development will be reviewed to determine whether all or part of the property is necessary to be purchased for inclusion in the "MSHCP Reserve System." In order to facilitate this review, the project applicant will have to provide, among other things, • a written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of any available mapping or surveys, and specifically information regarding the proximity of proposed Development to Peninsular bighorn sheep lambing areas and water sources, and • quantification of anticipated impacts to biological resources identified for the project. If all or a portion of the subject property is determined to be necessary for the MSHCP Reserve System, negotiations with the property owner will begin. The negotiations are to focus on purchase price and non -monetary incentives. If only part of the property is needed for the Reserve, then negotiations for the part of the property needed is to focus on incentives in exchange for the property. These incentives can include monetary compensation or other incentives, such as increased densities. The Plan anticipates that after the initial review of 45 days, the negotiations are to be completed in 120 days. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the conflict resolution process may be commenced. If no agreement is reached, the parties may try informal conflict resolution process, involving appraisals. If the owner consents, a" more formal arbitration process may be followed, lasting up to 180 days. The entire, w ` HANS process could take 4 — 5 years. The Plan provides that if a price is agreed upon and funding is available, the acquisition would occur promptly. The Plan also attempts to provide for situations in which the acquisition funds are not immediately available. The City requested that the HANS process be modified to expedite process proposed development. CVAG Response: CVAG provided an extensive response to the City's and other comments on the HANS process. CVAG chose to not make any amendments to the HANS process. H. Plan Implementation The Plan will be administered by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), a joint powers authority. The CVCC will be made up of an elected official from each city, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, CVWD, and IID. A number of committees will be required to assist in implementing the Plan. The Reserve Management Committee (RMCO) will be an inter -agency group that will coordinate the implementation of the Conservation Area and Conservation Plan. The RMCO shall include one representative from BLM, CDFG, State Parks, CVCC, FWS, and County and up to five other parties, public or private, that hold land dedicated to Conservation. Staff recommended that additional Local Permittee representatives need to be added to RMCO so there is a balance between environmental and economic needs. CVAG Response: CVAG chose to not add any additional Local Permittee positions. I. Costs of Funding for Plan Implementation Cost of, and funding for the Plan includes direct and indirect costs including land acquisition, monitoring, management, and administration. The following Table has I- __ - -_...__A __.J r.orrm;+too r+r%ct¢ nx/Ar the 7r; \/Par term of the hermit. vVV11 1%/V IVW. ..---..........--- Amount r"- ---- Item $75,54 4,040 Non -acquisition program administration costs $76,266,000 $188,054,000 Monitoring Program $189,934,000 $201,622,99 Management Program $201,775,000 $27,127,000 Adaptive Management rj Land acquisition costs $227,068,000 $491 ,363,000 $2,429,0 8,683,000 Land improvement costs $ $19,572,000 Acquisition program administrative costs $5,000,000 Management Contingency Fund $ $1,019,720,000 TOTAL Expenditures $789,4 78,4 00 $ $785,739,000 Endowment Fund balance in Year 75 $4,150,000 $175,000 Fund balance in Operating Fund in Year 75 $1 ,160,000 Repayment of conservation Trust Fund advance to complete Plan $ 1 ,G2a,n 1 a,G_OO $1,810,794,000 TOTAL Funding for the Plan is proposed to include a combination of annual revenue and debt financing (revenue bonds) . It is intended this would provide sufficient revenue to acquire lands and fund an endowment program to fund on -going Plan implementation. - 1 w 1 _ _ -1 il_ - -. --f r i r%1 1,-� nn ff-din\A/C' �, v r��'J 1 U V 10UU 11 1Ci 1.) Amount 1 1 11 1 1LA, - Revenue Source $�� Local Development Mitigation Fee $503,163,000 $14 3,34 9,000 Habitat Conservation Trust Fund $218,296,000 $ 189,000,000 Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust Fund $31 ,077,000 $32 501 ,nnn Regional Infrastructure Mitigation (Caltrans, CVWD, and IID $52,976,000 contributions to acquisition and endowment) $30,000,000 Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A total for acquisition and $234,000,000 endowment) $3,200,000 Transfer from CVFTL HCP Endowment $852 62 nnn Interest on Investments; interest generated on money in operating $768,082,000 fund, acquisition fund, and endowment fund) $1 09 4 1 G 4110 TOTAL Revenues $1,810,794,000 The revenue sources are estimates ana over ine ine ui ait F!C111, rGI1111LLUV,0 u11�A Wildlife agencies will need to annually evaluate the project budget. A key component is that the Plan requires a rough proportionality between acres acquired and acres developed. This will be evaluated every five (5) years. Each local agency and the CVCC will need to ensure that acquisitions are balanced throughout the Plan area so that this "rough proportionality" is balanced geographically and so one local agency is not determined to be out of balance. The Plan is not dependent upon State and federal governments adhering to any specific schedule for land acquisition or appropriations for land management. Staff has been concerned that State and federal participation may not be committed at the same level as local permittees. Additionally, one could argue that the cost of implementing and managing State and federal endangered and threatened species is being shifted to local governments. Traditionally, management of large open space networks has been the responsibility of BLM, USFS, NPS, State Parks or other similar entities. Mitigation Fee: As a result of numerous comments regarding the proposed development fee CVAG updated the Nexus Study in October 2005. Staff has requested a copy for review and as of this date CVAG has not provided a copy. The following mitigation fees are currently proposed: Residential Fees 0-8 units/acre $1 ,180 per unit 8.1 — 14 units/acre $ 490 per unit Over 14 units $ 216 per unit Commercial and Industrial $5,270 The Draft Plan utilized a $1 ,975 per acre fee to project revenue. The difference between the $1 ,975 and $5,270 fees is $224.4 million. The following example and comparison of a range of one acre developments is provided. nr,o Orrin gitp Number of Units Fee/Unit Per Acre Equivalent 2 $1 ,180 $2,360 4 $1,180 $4,720 8 $1 ,180 $9,440 g $490 $4,410 14 $490 $6,860 15 $216 $3,240 As shown above, the actual fee, when broken down by project type, is arbitrary and not easily justified. The mitigation fee is intended to mitigate physical take of Covered Species, not the impact of the number of units developed. Staff recommends that CVAG re-evaluate the fee and base it upon a per acre or portion thereof formula. As shown above, high end and low density residential development will pay a lower fee { than more affordable higher density lands. Additionally, the proposed fee does not address many land use types including golf course developments, hotels, institutional and other land uses. Eagle Mountain: The Plan currently relies on Eagle Mountain tipping fees as a substantial revenue generator. Due to on -going legal concerns, this revenue source is questionable. Virtually all of the alternatives to Eagle Mountain tipping fee revenue will require the imposition of a new tax or fee. All of these options will require voter approval. A major policy decision needs to be made by local agencies to take on this significant funding and management responsibility. J. Restrictions Regarding Trails. The Trails Plan has been substantially revised and essentially replaced with a future monitoring and trails plan development program. Staff has not been able to fully review the revised trails program FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Provide direction to the Mayor and staff in preparation of the February 6, 2006 CVAG Executive Committee Meeting; or 2. Provide Mayor and staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, s' Douglas Evans Community Development Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . CVAG response to City comments 2. CVAG Energy and Environment staff report for January 12, 2006 3. CVCC meeting summary (January 12, 2006) CVAGAttachment #1 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Blythe • Cathedral City Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rarc ho Mirage County of Riverside Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla ',id an:.; January 9, 2006 jiv� `J Tom Genovese, City Manager City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Genovese: Thank you for your comments on the Draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP/NCCP). Enclosed are the Lead Agencies responses to your comments. A copy of the complete Draft Final CVMSHCP/NCCP, which includes responses to all comments, was sent to your agency in mid -December. The Draft Final CVMSHCP/NCCP documents are also available online at http://www.cvmshcp.org/. A public meeting to consider the Final EIR and the CVMSHCP/NCCP will be held on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 6 p.m., in the Palm Desert City Council Chambers, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Sincerely, ?Johnohlmuth Executive Director 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (760) 346-1 127 • FAX (760) 340-5949 4 i 1 Y 1 b) P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247 150 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 March 7, 2005 Mr. John Wohlmuth, Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, #200 Palm Desert, CA 92201 Mr. James Bartel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 777-7000 FAX (760) 777-7101 Il MAR ' 7 2005 0 RE: COACHELLA VALLEY MULTI -SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLAN, DRAFT EIR/EIS, AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Wohlmuth and Mr. Bartel: The City of La Quinta appreciates all of the work that has gone into preparing the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan), Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS), and Implementing Agreement (IA). The subject documents and process that has been undertaken have taken considerable time and effort by a number of entities and individuals. The Plan is intended to be a 75 year document that when approved must meet the needs of CVAG member agencies and we must ensure that all issues are fully addressed prior to approval. To this end, the City requests that CVAG coordinate a meeting with all participating agencies to create a process to resolve issues which have been raised during the public review process. In doing so, each agency would become a e of each entities concerns, public comment, and what the affects are on the Plan The City Council has directed City staff to prepare written comments on the Plan and related documents. The City's comments focus on direct and indirect effects on the City and will likely have ramifications for other agencies. The City s specific comments are as follows: � G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC q 0 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 1 . Section 4.3.21. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area and Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS) and Species Accounts/Conservation Measures. The Plan was developed in consultation with the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) using the best available science for a species with the exception of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The PBS Conservation Program was primarily based upon the Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Range, California (Recovery Plan). Over the years, City staff and others have raised significant questions and objections to using this document almost exclusively as the basis for the Plan. City staff recommended at Project Advisory Group (PAG) meetings that CVAG create a separate SAC or add experts in PBS to the existing SAC to advise the Plan preparers on PBS conservation strategies. CVAG utilized FWS, CDFG and other agency staff for guidance for the PBS conservation strategies and made a decision to not retain independent scientific advisors. Additionally, it appears that CVAG did not utilize comments from John Wehaussen, a noted PBS expert, in developing the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. The City requests copies of all correspondence between CVAG and its agents, and John Wehaussen. The Mountain Conservation Area affects all of the mountainous land, alluvial fan areas and some Valley floor areas. Specific areas within La Quinta affected by this Mountain Conservation Area are Travertine Specific Plan, Green property, Section 5, and trails within the City. By not creating a PBS SAC, the City is concerned that the balance between environmental protection and economic development objectives, have been weighted heavily to environmental protection and that best available scientific information was not utilized to prepare the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. The City requests that CVAG retain independent scientific experts to evaluate the Mountains Conservation Area, to assist CVAG in preparing the Final Plan, EIR/EIS and I.A. The Plan and Draft EIR/EIS have significant weaknesses since the best available science and the use of a SAC were not utilized in preparing the subject documents. This has resulted in this Mountain Conservation Area having numerous unresolved issues which has caused a heavy reliance upon the HANS process. Heavy reliance on the HANS process has effectively deferred evaluation and decision making regarding large tracts of land until after Plan approval. The Plan and its full environmental and economic impacts have not been fully evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS. G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 2 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 The City is concerned that the Plan does not have specific provisions regarding the recovery of a listed species. if a species, such as PBS, recover how will the Plan be modified to deal with this type of situation? For instance, PBS recruitment has been very strong over the past eight years and is nearing thresholds of recovery. If PBS meet the thresholds of recovery prior to acquisition of all lands within a Recovery Unit, will the Plan be amended or modified to reflect recovery? Will conservation measures be modified? The City wants to be assured, in the Plan and I.A., that the stated conservation goals are the guiding principal in the Plan and that the Plan does not become a de facto open space land acquisition program. _ 2. Page 4-173, Item #2. This section requires the City to conserve at least 2,584 acres of Essential Habitat for PBS and allows Authorized Disturbance of 96 acres. This Section of the Plan and Table 4-1 1 1 d are vague and should have a better description of how 2,584 acres of conservation and how 96 acres of Take were calculated and how they are justified. The City has consistently requested that adequate Take Authorization be provided for Travertine, Green property and Section 5 or that these areas be removed from the proposed Mountains. Conservation Area. The City believes that the requirement to conserve 2,584 acres is unreasonable and not supported by any science, let alone best available science. The amount of land conserved arguably exceeds the amount of conservation land that could be justified and greatly exceeds the amount of land that would be conserved in the absence of the Plan if private property were subject to FESA and CESA. _ 3. Table 4-1 1 1 d footnote #1 and the related Plan text needs to be revised to specifically clarify the following concerns per discussions with CVAG staff: A. That Authorized Disturbance acreage figures do not include any identified habitat located outside of Conservation Areas and there is unlimited Authorized Disturbance for all lands located outside of Conservation Areas. As such, Authorized Disturbance outside of Conservation Areas is not included in this Table and will not be counted for purposes of monitoring Authorized Disturbance in this or any other Conservation Area. O 4 3 0 3 0 0 G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 3 Mr. John Wohimuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 B. That Authorized Disturbance acreage for lands subject to Special Provisions is not included in Table 4-1 1 1 d (or any other such Table in the Plan). Authorized Disturbance pursuant to Special Provisions is a Covered Activity and will not be included in this or any other similar Table in the Plan. C. CVAG needs to clarify if Authorized Disturbance approved as a result of the HANS process is included in Table 4-1 1 1 d and all other similar Tables. Since the HANS process will result in a negotiation to determine what properties are developable and what properties need to be acquired, th e amount of Authorized Disturbance cannot be accurately predicted at this time or evaluated by anyone evaluating the Plan. Based upon this, Authorized Disturbance for all properties subject to the HANS process is unknown and cannot be "locked -in" at this time. The City recommends that the HANS process be amended and that footnotes be added to Table 4-1 1 1 d and all similar tables as follows: "Any Authorized Disturbance approval as a result of the HANS process shall be automatically added to Table 4-1 1 1 d or that such Authorized Disturbance shall not be counted against the Authorized Disturbance shown in Table 4-1 1 1 d." P Table 4-1 1 1 d and its footnotes are confusing and after discussion with CVAG on January 24, 2005, there seemed to be agreement that the Table and corresponding text need to be revised. 4. Page 4-177, First Paragraph. This paragraph makes a reference to improved management prescriptions to be adopted by the relevant agencies. Are the "improved management prescriptions" included in the Plan? If so, the page o number should be referenced. If not, either a new section to the Plan needs to be added to the Plan or this statement should be deleted from the Plan. 5. Page 4-178. The City is concerned about the requirement on Item 1.C. which states: 0 "Development shall be sited a minimum of a quarter mile from known water sources as identified on a reference map on file with the CVCC." G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 4 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 The Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Water Resources Map referenced throughout the Plan was not included in the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS and not made available for public review. In order to assess the impacts of this restriction, the referenced map must be included in the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS and must be subject to public review, evaluation, and comment. The City obtained a copy of this map from CVAG (Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Water Resources), and was informed at a January I 241h meeting with CVAG staff that the map is incomplete and that there may ' be additional water resources that are not shown on the map. CVAG staff further indicated that this map may be amended prior to and even after Plan approval. This creates a significant concern in that it becomes impossible to evaluate the effect of the quarter -mile buffer if the points from which the measurements are taken are unknown. The City strongly recommends that CVAG prepare a complete and comprehensive map to include in -the Plan. If f; after adoption of the Plan, the PBS Water Resources Map ne eds to be i g amended, any changes should be accomplished through either a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment depending upon the significance of the changes. Additionally, the "Quarter Mile" setback restriction is vague, broad, and needs to be refined. In addition to the concerns above, the following needs to be added, "Except where topographic features obscure the view of the water source from proposed development or trails." The City is concerned that a blanket statement does not reflect biological A facts relative to PBS, human activity, development, trail use, and use of a watering site. PBS routinely use water sources which are adjacent to existing development (within '/4 mile) and hiking trails and development may not have any effect upon PBS use of water sources. The Blixseth property in Rancho Mirage is a good example. g 6. Page 4-178, Item 13. "Habitat shall not preclude Habitat connectivity o movement." This recommendation is vague and overly broad. As written, it i is either unenforceable or will lead to arbitrary determinations during review of development projects. On Page 4-172 in the "Biological Corridor" a Section, it clearly states that there are no specific areas delineated as Biological Corridors. PBS science has not identified any corridors and based upon this PBS move freely through its range. G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 5 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 The City requests that CVAG, CDFG, and FWS verify in writing that there are no known corridors, known connectivity or movement areas or similar issues within the City of La Quinta. If there are any such areas they need to C5, be disclosed in the Plan, fully documented with best available science and 1 fully analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS. 7. Page 4-180(1) — (4) Travertine. As proposed the Travertine Specific Plan is a Covered Activity (Take Authorized) with Special Provisions as follows: A. Take Authorization is for the property outside of the Conservation Area (northwest 2/3's of the property). B. The remaining property cannot be developed. This would require an amendment to the Specific Plan and the loss of approximately 150 acres of development area or approximately 300 units. Additionally, the golf courses would need to be scaled back to 27 holes and relocated. C. Provide a $2,000,000 loan for PBS habitat acquisition. D. Provide $500,000 for PBS monitoring and research to be paid over time. The City recommends three additional Special Provisions be added to this portion of the Plan. The first is that the entire site, areas inside and outside of the Conservation Areas, shall not be required to pay any additional fees beyond those listed in Items C and D above. The second deals with adding a trail corridor to the Trail Plan to accommodate the General Plan Trail located on the south side of the project area. This Trail Corridor would allow for new trails to be constructed on the south side of the project as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. The third request is to clearly state that the extension of Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 to serve Travertine and Section 5 are Covered Activities and that there are no additional restrictions or requirements in the Plan or Draft EIR/EIS. 8. Section 5. The City is concerned that the Plan overly restricts the future use of property within Section 5, T7S, R7E; S.B.B.M. This area is currently subdivided into lots ranging in size from five to 80 acres. Currently, this property is designated "HANS Process". The City requests that this area be re -designated as a Special Provision area with the following Special Provisions: GAWPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 6 Mr. John Wohimuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 A. That each parcel be allowed to be developed with one single-family estate without imposition of the HANS process. The City, CVAG, FWS, CDFG, and property owners need to meet to discuss any additional Special Provisions applicable to single-family estates. B. This area may develop up to two dwelling units per acre provided density is clustered under an overall development plan such as a Specific Plan. The City, CVAG, FWS, CDFG and property owners need to meet and discuss any additional Special Provisions for this area. ert The City and property owner have evaluated this area and ! 9. Green property. Y believe that Area boundaries need to be modified to follow more current topographic maps. Mr. Tom Cullinan submitted a letter dated March 3, o 2005 regarding this minor clarification. The City looks forward to meeting with CVAG to make this minor adjustment to the Mountain Conservation . Area boundary. — 10. Page 4-181 , Item #3. Areas where the HANS process will *be used to meet Conservation Objectives. The HANS process is described starting on Page 6- 22 of the Plan. This Section describes an acquisition program which the City would have to employ to evaluate private property, its suitability for development, and determine whether it can be developed or partially developed. The Plan also includes a process to determine land value and to resolve disputes. The HANS process is complex, lengthy, and defers substantial decisions regarding the Plan's impact on private property to future decision -making. The City is very concerned about this process and how it affects private property rights, State Permit Streamlining Act, and exposure to takings claims. During the preparation of the Plan, staff has expressed concerns about where the HANS process may be conditionally acceptable. The CVMSHCP currently states the following regarding the use of the HANS process: In areas where the HANS process will be used to meet the Conservation Objectives, at least 90% of the private land as of June 2003, within the relevant Recovery Unit and jurisdiction must be conserved. In evaluating whether a portion of a property subject to the HANS process may be developed, the Local Permittee and the Wildlife Agencies will consider whether the Development would significantly adversely impact the Conservation of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. June 2003 date was used because that is the most recent date for which data is available." \ G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 7 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 The wording in this provision is vague and must be revised. CVAG needs to add a table to the Plan which clearly breaks down private land within each Recovery Unit by jurisdiction. Limiting development within a recovery unit .� and jurisdiction to 10% is arbitrary since there may be cases when more v than 10% take within a Recovery unit or jurisdiction may be biologically justified. Without this additional information, this provision cannot be fully evaluated. It is impossible to evaluate how the HANS process will be interpreted in the future. 11. CVAG must amend the Plan and HANS process to address how the Joint Project Review Process, HANS Process and the State Permit Streamlining Act can work in concert. As currently written this process could take up to 4 to 5 years to complete and if funds are not available to purchase land it could take even longer. CVAG needs to revise this process so the following scenario cannot happen: A. HANS and Joint Project Review Process take up to one year. B. If funds are not available up to four (4) years are allowed to secure funding. C. If funds are not available the Plan must be amended to take the project out of the Plan. D. State and Federal permits may still be required so the property owner needs to start negotiations with FWS and CDFG. E. Revised CEQA/NEPA document may be required since the project no longer is covered by the Plan. F. The project may be subject to third party litigation by a private environmental group. G. The City may be subject to takings claims due to the length of time to process a development application through the Joint Project Review Process, HANS process, and City approval process. The City has additional concerns about this process. First, how will it apply to developers who are unwilling sellers? is eminent domain to be used in any circumstances? If so, what agency would be exercising that power? G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 8 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 g 12. Page 4-184 (Table 4-1 11 d). The Plan allows for 96 acres of Authorized Disturbance of PBS habitat within the City. The exact location of the 96 Authorized Take for any habitat acres is not specified. As noted, any o located outside of the Mountain Conservation Area is not shown in this Table a 4-111 d. The City interprets this to mean that 96 acres within this Mountain Conservation Area can be fully developed, provided other provisions oft Plan are complied with. The City requests that CVAG verify this assumption in writing. -7 13. Page 4-187. In reviewing this Section of the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS, it appears that there are no identified biological corridors within the City of La in the Quinta. The City requests that CVAG, CDFG, and FWS verify Response to Comments that there are no known identified biological corridors within the City of La Quinta. If any biological corridor exists, they must be added to the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. _ 14. Page 4-194- 195. An area of concern for the City is the seasonal limitations g on all Covered Activities. In La Quinta, the most important aspect of the Plan relates to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep's lambing season. In Section 4.4, Pages 4-194 — 4-195, the Plan imposes severe restrictions June 3 n construction, maintenance and other activities from January sheeplambing season. Such activities are prohibited unless authorized through a Minor Amendment to the Plan with approval of FWS and CDFG. The PBS habitat covers 332 square miles and the number of potential development projects within or adjacent to, PBS habitat is very limited. Data regarding PBS activity levels in areas of La Quinta adjacent to or within conservation areas indicates construction activity will have little or no significant effects on PBS. This restriction could extend the construction period for a golf course s o other development by a year or more. Extending construction c lion periods is counter productive since it will cause a longer period where nstruction activities occur causing a greater impact on this species. This measure is not supported by any biological analysis describing the location or distribution of PBS, impacts from short-term construction impacts and other considerations. The Plan should encourage that Covered Activities be completed in the shortest time frame possible to minimize the effects o PBS and other covered species. G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 9 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 The City opposes blanket seasonal restriction regarding construction activities and PBS lambing season. It is unrealistic to expect construction to stop between January 1 and June 30. If CVAG does not remove this restriction, the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS need to be revised to address the feasibility, both technical and financial, on imposing a restriction which would require the stopping of maintenance and construction activities. The cost of such work stoppage is significant and makes this recommendation technically and economically infeasible. This conservation measure alone may make it economically infeasible to construct and maintain public infrastructure (flood control and water facilities) and private development projects. - 15. Page 4-195-200. This section of the Plan includes a list of Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants. Two forms of rye grass are listed as prohibited within or adjacent to Conservation Area. City staff has contacted golf course landscape firms to ascertain whether this restriction would cause a problem with golf courses within or adjacent to Conservation Areas. Perennial Rye grass (Lollium perenne) is utilized by virtually all golf courses in the Coachella Valley. Its prohibition would severely impact operation of o existing and proposed golf courses. CVAG should contract with a qualified golf course and landscape expert to evaluate the Table and determine if all of the plants listed are actually invasive in a dry desert climate. Perennial Rye grass must be removed from Table 4-1 13 as a prohibited plant ' (Pages 4-195 — 4-200) or CVAG must conduct a detailed evaluation of the impact, including the economic impact of prohibiting Perennial Rye grass. 16. Page 6-5. At least one additional Local Permittee representative needs to be� added to the Reserve Management Oversight Committee so there is a better balance between environmental and economic needs. 17. Plan Funding and Rough Step and Rough Proportionality Analysis (Pages 5-2 and 6-12) . As currently written, a development fee of $1,975 per acre is proposed as local governments sole funding requirement. The Plan and I.A. state that other City and County funding sources are not at risk to fund the Plan. The land value data included in the Plan is based upon 2003 data and the Plan assumes an annual land value increase of 3%. The City is very concerned that the data contained in the Plan does not reflect current fair market land value. If this is the case the funding mechanism for the Plan has G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 1 n Mr. John Wohimuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 a significant flaw. Land values in La Quinta and other areas have at a substantially higher rate than 3% since 2003. CVAG ne, evaluate the 2003 market study and assure its member agencie Plan will be adequately funded through its life. increased ds to re - that the The Plan (Pages 6-12-6-14) addresses the concept of Rough Step Rough Proportionality. This concept requires a review every five years to ensure adequate balance between land acquired for conservation and lands developed. The City is very concerned that achieving rough proportionality can be influenced by a number of factors which may have not been fully evaluated in the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS and are outside of the control of CVAG member agencies. A critical component to maintain rough proportionality will be consistent funding. As currently written the State and Federal governments funding commitment is not assured. This could result in a substantial lag in acquisition funding and could result in a failure in maintaining rough proportionality. Local developer fees and other funding sources may not be adequate to maintain rough proportionality. If this is the case, local agencies will be prohibited from approving development projects which would otherwise be allowed. In such instance cities and the County may be required to utilize other funding sources to acquire sufficient land, delay project approvals, or face a regulatory taking claim. A second key issue which could affect maintaining rough proportionality is how the CVCC decides to acquire lands. If not carefully managed any number of Conservation Areas could be thrown out of balance due to a number of factors including land costs (see previous comments regarding market value), lack of willing sellers, or acquisition decisions to avoid purchases within certain Conservation Areas. If a Conservation Area does not maintain rough proportionality, and a city is precluded from approving a development project, the City may be forced to utilize other funding sources " to avoid taking claims by private property owners. The City is concerned that the Plan may not be adequately funded and that the City may be forced to contribute funds not currently addressed in the Plan to avoid legal challenges. G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 1 1 Mr. John Wohimuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 18. Page 7-53. Recommendations on the Trails Plan are as follows: A. The Plan and Draft EIR/EIS Sections dealing with trails, trail restrictions, seasonal closures and trail closures must be evaluated pursuant to the Federal Data Quality Act. Staff and many others z believe the selective use of data regarding direct and indirect impacts of the use of trails (hiking and equestrian) has led to the creation of an overly restricted trails management plan which cannot be supported o by scientific review and evaluation. � The Coachella Valley Hiking Club's Critique and Recommend Report, dated January 12, 2005, provides excellent examples of the data quality flaws in the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. B. The Draft EIR/EIS does not fully evaluate the cultural and historic merits of existing trails and the Plan's proposed restrictions. Many of the existing trails network meet criteria to qualify as a National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places provides that a site, which includes trails, that is in the location of a significant event or activity, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archeological value may be considered qualified for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The site or district can possess those values regardless of the value of any existing structure. These sites and districts usually must have achieved significance over 50 years ago, but sites and districts can be included j if they are under 50 years old if they are of "exceptional" significance I within the local historic context. The Desert Riders established in 1930, have documented this issue in their response to the Plan. C. The Plan and Draft EIR/EIS did not use the best available and, most importantly, most current available science in evaluating the Trails Plan. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep have increase in numbers over the a past eight years and are nearing thresholds of recovery in the Recovery Plan. This simple but critical fact is not in the Plan or Draft EIR/EIS. D. The Plan and Draft EIR/EIS did not consider, evaluate and properly disclose the varied opinions on the actual effect of trail use on N Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Key scientific research reports were not used in the crafting of the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. Publications by Wehaussen, 1997 and 2000, Hicks and Elder 1979, Purely and Shaw G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 12 -3- ` '~' Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 1981, and Hamilton 1982 provide no support for the proposed Trails Plan. The Plan and Draft EIR/EIS did not provide adequate documentation to support the proposed trail restrictions and closures. E. The Plan and Draft EIR/EIS do not provide any analysis regarding the recreational impacts resulting from the reduction of recreation opportunities. F. The proposed trail system is not supported by best available scientific N information or even best available information and is unenforceable and will not be supported by trail users. G. The allowable period for construction of perimeter trails needs to be expanded to allow longer construction periods to reduce the need for N multiple -yeas construction periods. Most perimeter trails are located on the fringes of PBS habitat and areas that are infrequently occupied by PBS. Limiting construction periods may make construction of perimiter trails economically infeasible. _ H. There are no references or figures which address which trails are designated for equestrian use in the CVMSHCP (see Page 7-70, #1 5). This document must be added to the CVMSHCP or this recommendation needs to be deleted. The City does not support restrictions on equestrian use since equestrians will have the least impact on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (number of users and sheep response to hoofed animals). Additionally, staff does not support restrictions after heavy rainfall. The Desert Riders have maintained trails for many years and equestrians do not have a significant impact upon trails. I. In 2005-2007, gather data on trail use on as many trails as possible. Install where feasible at trailheads a research- oriented permit system CN 0 — a voluntary written trail permit which is self -issued at the trailhead � and deposited in a locked box. This is a common trail monitoring and safety permit technique. J. Enforce the removal and decommission of trails only when clear need is established based upon a detailed study abased upon best available o science. G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 13 Mr. John Wohimuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 K. Make the Trails Plan consistent with the overall Conservation Plan by M adopting an eco-systems approach to bighorn sheep and their habitat. a Create educational programs to discourage cross-country travel and dogs on selected trails with emphasis on the benefit of on -trail use. L. Build the proposed system of perimeter trails to supplement, not substitute for, the existing trails system. These new trails will serve M as buffer between urban interface and bighorn habitat and provide 3 lower elevation, moderate exercise opportunities. Inventory current parking and projected future parking for all access point to perimeter trails. 19. The City has reviewed the Draft I.A. and has the following concerns: A. Page 9, in Section 2.80. It is our understanding that despite the court challenge to these types of "no surprises" assurances, the USFWS can o now abide by this provision. The City would like assurance of this point. — B. Page 16, Section 5. The City suggests that the entire Plan not be o made part of the contract. C. Page 18, in Section 7.5. It is not appropriate for the City to enter into an agreement that all development in Conservation Areas will be limited to uses that are compatible with the Conservation Objections. There may be situations in which the HANS process is not successful, o and even minimal development will not be compatible with the Conservation Objectives. However, the City may not be able to legally deny all rights of development. This needs to be changed to allow some level of development. D. Page 21, in Section 1 1 .1 .1 . The Agreement purports to compel the City to take certain future legislative actions. It is inappropriate for cities to precommit to taking such actions. Instead, these items should be conditions precedent to the City being bound by the Agreement. The City has concerns with the proposed procedures and requirements for implementation summarized on pages 21-22 and set forth in Exhibit "E". These procedures place the City in a position where it G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 14 Mr. John Wohlmuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 may not be able to approve any development on private properties o U located within Conservation Areas. E. Page 27, in Section 11.3.4. The language regarding condemnation is confusing. It is unclear what is intended. In addition, the City would like to see additional language inserted in the Agreement (and in the Plan) clarifying that in no event is the City required to acquire property through the eminent domain process for conservation. F. Pages 30-32. The City would like clarification as to the source of ' funding. The City would specifically request an .express provision that to the extent funding through the fees is inadequate to cover the cost of implementation, that local funding sources (e.g., General Fund monies) are not being committed to fund the implementation of the Plan. The sentence on Page 34 (Section 13.2.1.) does not go far enough in providing this assurance. Given that Sections 12.1 .2 and ii 12.1.3 (and numerous other sections) appear to impose financial obligations on the City, the City needs to have this assurance in order to avoid a situation in which the City's General Funds would be at risk. Further, the City would like assurances that to the extent that funding for implementation is not available, that the City's obligations will be limited accordingly. What is the consequence of unfunded obligations? _ G. Pages 33-34. There are numerous obligations imposed on the City which are of concern. The City is prohibited by law from contractually 0 limiting its legislative powers. This limitation seems to be inconsistent with Section 13.2.A. H. Page 70. The "Defense" provision is inadequate. What is7 "appropriate support"? Is it a defense and indemnification? The language also appears to be limited to the adoption of the Plan and the Agreement. The larger concern is the implementation of these items. I. Page 79, in Section 27.10. The USFWS is given some assurance that it will not be saddled with an unfunded mandate. The City would like a similar assurance. G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 15 Mr. John Wohimuch, CVAG Mr. James Bartel, USF&WS CVMSHCP March 7, 2005 The City suggests that CVAG prepare a list of all the oral and written comments in advance of meeting with all participating agencies. In addition, CVAG should prepare diagrams for each Conservation Area showing the areas where there are specific concerns. Both of these tasks will be important for a complete understanding of the extent of public and CVAG member agency comments. The comments contained in this letter are a good starting point for future discussions regarding the Plan. The City looks forward to working with CVAG, CDFG and FWS to ensure that the Plan and EIR/EIS provide a balanced program for habitat preservation and community development purposes. Sincerely, k4O4 eZrXr�� DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director DE:bjs c: Mayor and City Council City Manager City Attorney CVAG Member Agencies b G:\WPDOCS\MSHCP\Response LetterK.DOC 16 The preceding comment letter number W01 included an attachment or attachments, which have been reviewed and considered in the responses on the . following pages. Because the attachments are collectively voluminous, they are not reprinted in this document. The attachments have been scanned and are on the CD that accompanies this document. This page is intentionally blank Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Comment Letter W01— City of La Quinta W01-01 The comment requests that "CVAG coordinate a meeting with all participating agencies to create a process to resolve issues which have been raised during the public review process." In this regard, the CVAG Executive Committee directed CVAG staff to work through the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee comprised of the city managers and the County's Deputy Executive Officer) to identify and address issues of concern to all jurisdictions, as well as to meet individually with cities that had issues specific to their jurisdiction. Following this direction, CVAG staff worked with the TAC and two meetings, April 29, 2005 and May 20, 20051, were devoted to issues of concern to all jurisdictions. In addition, following the close of the public review and comment period CVAG staff met with representatives of individual cities to discuss issues specific to those cities on at least the following occasions: City of La Quinta on August 3d, 2005; City of Palm Springs on July 8, 2005 City of Indio on July 14, 2005; City of Cathedral City on March 15, 2005, May 5, 2005, and July 18, 2005; City of Desert Hot Springs on May 18, 2005 and August 15, 2005; City of Rancho Mirage on July 6, 2005. The comment also requests that independent scientific experts evaluate the SRSJM Conservation Area and data and scientific determinations regarding PBS. The comment asserts that best available science was not used for PBS. The comment further asserts that the balance between environmental protection and economic development is weighted toward environmental protection. The comment letter refers to objections by city staff regarding use of the Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular. Range (Recovery Plan). It should be noted that CVAG worked with IJSFWS, CDFG, BLM and other agency staff in developing the conservation strategies for all the species proposed for coverage under the Plan, including PBS. The element of the recovery plan used was the Essential Habitat boundary for PBS. During the process of developing the reserve boundaries, CVAG held a workshop on March 2, 2000 (see Appendix I, Table 3-4) regarding the "Essential Habitat Boundary for PBS," with representatives of participating jurisdictions, including La Quinta, to review the PBS Essential Habitat mapping and receive input from the jurisdictions. For further discussion of best available science in the Plan see Major Issue Response S. The Recovery Team that assisted in the preparation of the Recovery Plan for PBS was composed of scientists with expertise on PBS from state and federal agencies, universities, and research institutions. Dr. John Wehausen was a member of the PBS Recovery Team. The Recovery Team consisted of a team of scientists, like the SAC, with specific A 01 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan expertise on PBS. In addition, Dr. Wehausen served as an independent scientific expert consultant to CVAG during the preparation of the Draft EIR./EIS. He provided input to the Trails Plan, in particular on the alignment of the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail. He also provided comments and suggestions for the proposed trails and PBS research and monitoring programs. Dr. Wehausen was involved in rewrites of the Draft EIR/EIS with respect to trails and PBS. As was the case for input from other independent scientists, some but not all of Dr. Wehausen's comments were incorporated in the draft Plan. The ISA also reviewed the Administrative draft of the Plan and commented on the species conservation issues. Although .their comments with respect to PBS were more general than specific they were provided with and given the opportunity to comment on all aspects of the Plan, including PBS. Regarding the concern that with respect to PBS the Plan is weighted heavily toward environmental protection, this assertion is without merit. The Plan provides coverage for PBS for economic development projects in the City of La Quinta including the Travertine and Green projects. Comment letters received from the proponents of these projects were generally supportive of the Plan and did not suggest that the Plan inappropriately favors environmental protection. The Travertine project could receive Take coverage as a result of the MSHCP, pending a decision on Permit issuance by the Wildlife Agencies. Alternatively, Travertine may receive Take through Section 7 based on a consultation between BLM and USFWS. Moreover, demonstrating certain environmental protections are required in order for the Wildlife Agencies to issue the permits. Without such protections, the HCP would not be acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. W01-02 The HANS process is one of several implementation tools described in the Plan and is applicable to a very limited area. It is not possible at this time to ascertain the results of the HANS process until development applications are received and the HAN S process completed by the applicable Local Permittees. The implementation of the MSHCP and its economic and environmental impacts are evaluated in the EIR/EIS to the extent such impacts can be ascertained at this time. This comment fails to provide specific 'descriptions of which economic or environmental impacts the commentor feels are not fully addressed. Therefore, the Lead Agencies do not have sufficient information to enable further response. WO I -03 If a Covered Species meets the criteria for delisting, an amendment could be proposed through Section 6.12 of the Plan and Section 20 of the IA. The Conservation Goals and Objectives of the MSHCP are the guiding principle for the Plan and its implementation, and the Plan is not a "de facto open space land acquisition program". The commentor presented no 02 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan evidence that the Plan is in some way a "de facto open space land acquisition program". W01-04 The portions of the Travertine and Green specific plan areas approved for development are outside the Conservation Area, and, therefore, an allocation of Take in the Section 4.3.21 table for Take and Conservation is not necessary. These projects would receive Take Authorization as described in Section 7.1. Those portions of Section 5, US R7E, not conserved as depicted in Figure 4-26e3 A, are subject to the HANS process, which may allow disturbance on land that is not determined through the HANS process to be necessary for the conservation of PBS. See also Major Issue Response 10 regarding the HANS process. Table 4- 11 Id has been revised in the Final MSHCP to reflect updated information on lands already conserved in La Quinta through deed restrictions and conditions of approval for various projects, whereby certain mountainous lands have already been conserved. This reduces the amount of remaining conservation that must be accomplished to -1,618 acres. This is not an obligation specifically -of the City of La Quinta. An error in the amount of Acres Authorized for Disturbance in the table has also been corrected. The new total of Acres Authorized for Disturbance is 114 acres. The commentor offers the opinion "the amount of land conserved arguably exceeds the amount of land that would be conserved in the absence of the Plan if private property were subject to FESA and CESA." This is speculative. The MSHCP proposes to provides Take Authorization based on a comprehensive regional plan rather than on a project by project basis. As such, the MSHCP must provide adequate conservation of the species, and confers benefits for projects that do obtain Take Authorization through the MSHCP rather than through individual project HCPs or Section 7 consultations, where available. Obtaining of Take Authorization on a project -by -project basis can be time-consuming and expensive. The commentor asserts that the requirement to conserve 2,584 acres is unreasonable and not supported by any science. It should be noted that the requirement for acres still to be conserved is lower in the, Final MSHCP, as described above, because new information has indicated that some of this land has already been conserved. See also Major Issue Responses 4 and 5. WO 1-05 Table 4-111 d is titled "Conservation and Take Authorization for SRSJTMI Conservation Area — City of La Quinta Area." This clearly indicates that it refers to Take Authorization only inside the Conservation Area. In addition, Section 7.1 states clearly that all Development permitted or approved by Local Permittees outside the Conservation Areas receives Take Authorization. Nonetheless, the Final MSHCP contains a footnote to the table to clarify that proposed Take for Travertine and Green is provided by the Plan as described in Section 7.1, and is not included in the Take Allocation in the table because the areas approved for development are outside the Conservation Area. A footnote in the Final MSHCP also 03 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan clarifies that proposed Take provided through the HANS process is included in the "Acres of Disturbance Authorized" in the table. WO 1-06 The MSHCP states that conservation management on conservation lands will be improved where needed through management prescriptions to be adopted by the relevant agency. The specific management prescriptions cannot be known at this time, and so are not delineated in the MSHCP. Appropriate management prescriptions could be identified by agencies such as BLM, USFWS, or CDFG for their lands, or they could be identified through the MSHCP Monitoring Program. The statement in the MSHCP is not a mandate that any specific prescriptions be implemented, but rather a notation that on some lands conservation management may be improved by the adoption of new management prescriptions where needed. To clarify the intent, the words "as Feasible" have been added in the Final MSHCP to recognize that agencies may not always have the budget or personnel to implement new management prescriptions. WO1-07 As noted in the comment, CVAG has prepared a "Bighorn Sheep Water Resources" map. This map was available for review during the public comment period through CVAG upon request and a copy was provided to the commentor. The map is based on the best available data and while there may be additional water resources that are not shown on the current version, the map identifies all known water sources. The water source map is subject to change over time based on improved surveys, potential changes in the hydrological regime in the mountains from such events as earthquakes, and potential establishment of artificial water sources. The map, as updated over time, would be used when a potential development project required review. K at that time, it is determined that there is no water source, the measure would not apply. The restriction on new development within a minimum of 1/4 mile from a known water source applies only to PBS habitat in the Conservation Areas, and the amount of development anticipated to occur in the Conservation Area is very limited thus, the impact of this restriction is minor. The intent of this restriction is to limit impacts to bighorn sheep, especially during the hot season when access to water is most critical. The I/4 mile setback from water resources is consistent with management precautions established by other land management agencies throughout the desert southwest that have established wildlife protection measures for specified human activities, such as camping, around desert water holes. Though artificial water sources have been created closer than 1/4 mile from existing development in the Coachella Valley, this situation may have contributed to the habituation of sheep to using urban environments in the City of Rancho Mirage, a problem that the Plan is attempting to avoid in the future. Section 730 in title 14 (730) of the California Code of Regulations (CDFG) states that one cannot occupy a water source (200 yards) for more than half an hour. It goes on to cite a one quarter mile distance for specific water sources. Blong and Pollard (1968) found that sheep ,.� 04 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan typically range from 0.7 5 miles to . 3 miles from water sources during the hot season. A 1/4 mile buffer was. used to separate the Canyons at Bighorn from the sheep pens at the Bighorn Institute. Based on available information, the parcel -specific example raised by the commentor appears to be greater than 1/4 mile and out of view from adjoining urban development. The proposed language has been added. See Response ZO 1- 32. WO1-08 The commentor requests written verification that there pare no known corridors, connectivity, or movement areas within the City of La Quinta or, if there are such areas, that they are fully documented 'and disclosed in the Plan. Initially, it is necessary to correct the reference in the comment, which is :incorrect. On page 4-178, Item 1 e (not Item 13) states, "Development (not Habitat) shall not preclude Habitat connectivity or movement." The comment appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the concept of connectivity. The statement referenced in the comment on page 4 172 notes that "no specific areas have been delineated as Biological Corridors" but that PBS move between ewe group areas within the PBS Habitat included in this Plan. This statement is not intended to imply that connectivity is not important for PBS or that movement does not occur, but rather that connectivity, occurs within the matrix.of PBS habitat in the SRSJM Conservation Area. Because at the present time the PBS Habitat within the Mountain Conservation Area is .relatively unfragmented, corridors are not specifically delineated. The statement describes that there is movement between ewe group areas. In his comments on various aspects of the conservation plan for PBS, Dr. John Wehausen (personal communication, 12/4/03) noted that "ewes also cross flats between mountain ranges on a regular basis." Therefore, it would not be appropriate or accurate for CVAG or the Wildlife Agencies to verify that no corridors, connectivity or movement areas exist. Nonetheless, Development in the City of La Quinta, which is along -the perimeter of essential bighorn sheep habitat, is not likely to be affected by corridor or connectivity issues. The criterion that "development shall not preclude Habitat connectivity ..." applies only to PBS habitat in the Conservation Areas, and the amount of development anticipated to occur in the Conservation Area is very limited; thus, the impact is minor. The statement that the measure is "unenforceable or will lead to arbitrary determinations during review of development projects" is incorrect and not consistent with the JPR process which provides a means for the jurisdiction and project applicant to work with CVCC to ensure consistency with the Conservation Goals and Objectives. WOl -09 The commentor incorrectly restates the Special Provisions in the MSHCP regarding Travertine. Regarding the commentor's proposal that an additional Special Provision be added regarding payment of fees, see s� 05 Response to Comments Coacbella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation'Plan r01. Regarding the addition of a trail corridor shown in a Response J 11 -map attached to -the comment letter, see Response D04-02.- A map of La Quinta' General Plan Trails is attached to the comment letter. Trails approved with -the TravertineProject have been z added to MSHCP Trail Maps. As roads outside the Conservation Area, the extension of Avenue 62 and Jefferson Street are Covered Activities under the MSHCP if they are projects permitted or approved by -a Permittee. Projects outside the Conservation Areas are Covered Activities as described in Section 7.1 of the MSHCP.: Because of the vast number .of presently known and unknown future projects outside the Conservation Areas they are categorically included rather than listed individually. To the extent either project involves crossing federal land, that portion of the project would not be a Covered Activity because the MSHCP does not apply to federal lands. WO 1-10 As noted in the comment, this area -is designated as a HAMS area under the MSHCP. See Response W01-04 and Major Issue Response 10 regarding the : HANS process and development °process. The Lead Agencies do not believe that -the Special Provisions proposed for Section 5 -by the .commentor are adequate -to ensure the Conservation of the PB S as they guarantee that development could occur on. every parcel in Section 5. This level of Development has not been assessed for impacts to the species; therefore, it would be inappropriate to incorporate such Special Provisions in the Final, MSHCP. The HANS process does not preclude development; but does provide for an assessment process to determine whether it is consistent with the conservation of the species. W01-11 CVAG ,concurs that the map in the Draft MSHCP was . in error in not accurately depicting the toe of slope and the approved development area. The Final MSHCP shows the correct boundary, based on the map submitted by Mr. Tom Cullinan. WO1-12 Tables 4-11,1a - g break ,down Take Authorization by jurisdiction and recovery unit. For discussion of the HANS and, PSA issues, see Major Issue Response 10. For discussion of property rights and takings issues, see Major Issue Response 6. WO1-13 The -comment implies that the HANS process, JPR process and PSA do not "work in concert." The HANS and JPR processes fully comply with the PSA. See Major Issue Response 10. The HANS and JPR processes allocate maximum time periods to complete each step of the process. (See Response Z02-82) Completion of each step is largely under the control of the Local Permittee and also depends on the ability of the :parties to reach an agreement. Several items in the 06 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Hahitat Conservation Plan commentor's list of potential occurrences are out of the control of the Lead Agencies (e.g. "State/Federal permits may be required"; "The project may be subject to third party litigation;" and the City may get sued under a takings challenge. For more on the Takings issue, see Major Issue Response 6. The Lead Agencies have considered the comment and believe it is not appropriate to revise the Plan in the manner suggested. The Plan does not require an unwilling seller to sell his/her property. Nor does the Plan contemplate the use of eminent domain. The Plan does not require the County, Cities, CVCC or various state and federal agencies to acquire a fee interest in every instance, just that the property be conserved. In fact, the Plan at Section 6.6.1.2 specifically provides that these entities may obtain various interests in the property, including conservation easements, deed restrictions, land exchanges, or other types of interests. WO1-14 The MSHCP provides the basis for Take Authorization for 114 acres of Disturbance in the portion of the SRSJM Conservation Area within the City of La Quinta. This includes any development approved in a HANS area. Development must be consistent with the Conservation Objectives, Required Measures, and other applicable provisions of the MSHCP. W01-15 Commentor requests verification that there are no known biological corridors within the City or if there are, that they be added to Plan. See Response WO1-08. There are no known Biological Corridors, defined as "wildlife movement area that is constrained by existing development, freeways, or other impediments." Connectivity for bighorn sheep in the La Quinta area is more accurately characterized as a Linkage area, "habitat that provides for the occupancy of Covered Species and their movement between larger blocks of Habitat over time, potentially over a period of generations. In general, Linkages are large enough to include adequate Habitat to support small populations of the species and, thus, do not require that an individual of ' the species transit the entire Linkage to maintain gene flow between populations." In other words, continuous habitat, as can be found in the mountains above La Quinta, would provide connectivity for bighorn sheep. WO1-16 The restriction on the timing of construction activities applies only to PBS habitat in the Conservation Areas, and the amount of development anticipated to occur in the Conservation Area is very limited; thus, the impact of this restriction is minor. The statement in the comment that this avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measure for PBS "alone may make it infeasible to construct and maintain public infrastructure (flood control and water facilities) and private development projects" is speculative. Construction or maintenance can occur between July 1 and December 31. Where there is a need for construction or maintenance activities to occur during the lambing season, this can be sought through 07 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan the Minor Amendment process with Wildlife Agency concurrence or in the case of projects previously scheduled to avoid the lambing season, work can be extended into the lambing season with Wildlife Agency concurrence without the need for a Minor Amendment. Therefore is it very speculative that work stoppage would ever occur as a result of the Plan. WO 1-17 The comment expresses concern about the inclusion of perennial rye grass on the list of Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants, Table 4-113. The list in Table 4-113 was compiled from various sources that track invasive species throughout southern California. This list is intended to provide guidelines for invasive species that may become a problem in natural areas if planted in developed areas. Not all of the species on the list are problem species in the desert but are included because they are problem species elsewhere in California or the southwest. However, perennial rye grass does not appear to be a likely invasive species in the CV because it is limited by water availability. It has been removed from the list in Table 4-113. WO1-18 The composition of the RMOC includes four representatives of state and federal agencies, a representative of the CVCC, a representative of the County, and up to five additional representatives appointed by the CVCC. Therefore, the CVCC can ensure appropriate representation of Local Permittees. WO1-19 See Major Issue Response 7. WOl-20 The comment suggests that failure of state and federal agency acquisitions to occur could impact compliance with Rough Proportionality. This is incorrect because only the obligation of the Permittees, as expressed in acres to be acquired or otherwise conserved by the Permittees, is considered in Rough Proportionality. The commentor's concern that CVCC's approach to acquisition could jeopardize compliance with Rough Proportionality, thereby precluding a city from approving a development project is speculative. CVCC, which is comprised of the Local Permittees, is responsible for managing the acquisition program to ensure that compliance with Rough Proportionality is maintained. For more information about Rough Proportionality, see Major Issue Response 9. Regarding concerns about the adequacy of funding for MSHCP implementation, see Major Issue Response 7. WO1-21 The comment refers to the Federal Data Quality Act and the selective use of data in the Trails Plan. The Preferred Alternative Trails Plan was developed with the goal of minimizing the risk of potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep from } U Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan recreational activities, consistent with the stated goals of the Trails Plan (p. 2-21, Draft EIR/EIS) and Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California (USFWS 2000). The Recovery Plan identifies recovery actions to address threats to bighorn sheep. One such action is to manage activities within bighorn sheep habitat that fragment or interfere with bighorn sheep resource use patterns or other behaviors to reduce or eliminate adverse effects, including the management of trail use and off -trail activity (p. 89, Recovery Plan). Since development of the draft Trails Plan, however, questions have been raised regarding the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. In light of the comments received during the Public Comment period, the Trails Plan has been revised to remove a mandatory, limited permit system. The Trails Plan will focus initially on a research program to address population -level effects on PBS from recreational trail use in the SRSIM. During the research program, use on trails may be limited consistent with the research study design, but in general trails will remain open all year. One exception will be hot season closures on some trails. Additional scientific monitoring will be carried out to describe human use levels and sheep responses. The Revised Trails Plan is described in Major Issue Response 3. The research program is described in Section 8.5.1 of the Final MSHCP. WO1-22 Certain existing trails are still under consideration by BLM, the local Tribes and others regarding their qualification for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. Concerns associated with the continued use of such trails include possible adverse impacts to these resources from an increase in visitors and usage of the trails that could lead to an increase in intentional looting or unintentional damage to important sites. The discontinued use of some of these trails could actually result in an adverse impact by allowing their traces to be lost through re - naturalization. Additional information will need to be addressed through ongoing Native American consultation and cultural resources inventory. The Tribes were advised that trails issues would be further examined during development of the National Monument Strategic Recreation Management Plan and Cultural Resources Management Plan, which is currently under way. Future action on these trails may be subject to both CEQA and NEPA, and may necessarily include consultation in conformance with Section 106 of the NHPA. These requirements are set forth in the aforementioned Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR/EIS. WOI-23 See Major Response 2 regarding the best available science used in the Trails Plan. Response K02-05 addresses the increase in the bighorn sheep populations in recent years. Population data for PBS have been added to Section 9.8.4.5 of the Final Plan. The revised Trails Plan incorporates a research program to evaluate population level effects of recreational trail use on PBS, as described in Major Issue Response 3. ".'. 09 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan WO1-24 See Major Issue Response 2. The revised Trails Plan, described in Major Issue Response 3, incorporates an Adaptive Management approach including emphasis on a research program on the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. The development of the research program will include the preparation of a problem analysis which will evaluate the available literature on this subject. The commentor is incorrect. Draft EHVEIS Section 3.19 provides a detailed discussion of recreational assets within the Plan Area, and both Sections 4.10 and 5.5 provide detailed analysis of the potential impacts of the MSHCP and Trails Plan, respectively, on "Parks, Trails and Recreation" in the Plan Area. The Trails Plan will have a limited and less than significant impact on the accessibility of trails and will have no impacts on other recreational opportunities within the Plan Area. Use of certain trails in especially sensitive bighorn sheep habitat may be subject to limitations required for research purposes during the lambing season. Hot weather closures are associated with the protection of undisturbed sheep access to water sources and will occur between June 15 and September 30. The Trails Plan will continue to provide year-round access to major trail segments across the lower elevations of the SRSJM. These year-round trails extend from Snow Creek in the northwest to Martinez Canyon in the southeast, making them available to residents and visitors in all portions of the valley. It should also be noted that existing trails in the Indio Hills and the Little San Bernardino Mountains are not affected by trail use regulations set forth in the Plan. Finally, the Plan provides the potential for the future development of an extensive trails system in the Conservation Areas. WO 1-25 See Response WO 1-24. WO1-26 See Major Issue Responses 1 and 2. Major Issue Response 3 describes the revised Trails Plan. WO 1-27 The comment addresses the time period allowed for construction of perimeter trails. The period for perimeter trail construction is set to avoid disturbance to bighorn sheep during the lambing season. The revised Trails Plan described in Major Issue Response 3 proposes that new perimeter trails would not be constructed, pending the outcome of the research program on bighorn sheep and trails. The results of this research program will be used by the Trails Management Subcommittee to develop recommendations for modification of the Trails Plan. These recommendations could include modifications to the construction period, if data from the research program support this modification. WO 1-28 The comment expresses concern about trails designated for equestrian use. The Trails Plan does not propose any restrictions on equestrian use. The intent of the trails management: program is that trails be available for all means of non -motorized conveyance (e.g., on foot, bicycle, horse). The potential for limitations on equestrian use is mentioned in the Trails Plan Y 10 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the alternative access trail which would provide access from The Living Desert to the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail. Potential limits were based on concerns expressed by The Living Desert about possible health impacts to their captive animals from having other hoofed stock in close proximity. The commentor notes that city staff does not support restrictions of equestrian use after heavy rainfall. Regarding the reference to "restrictions after heavy rainfall", the referenced guidelines described in Section 7.3.4.2 are intended to avoid and minimize impacts from the use of trails on Reserve Lands. WO1-29 The comment proposes a "research -oriented permit system" to gather data on trail use. The revised Trails Plan proposes a mandatory, self -issue permit which would not be limited in the number of permits available and would be dispensed at trailheads; they may also be available at other convenient locations. This self -issue permit would provide data on trail use as well as an opportunity to communicate educational and safety information to trail users. The self. -issue permit system is described in Section 7.3.3.2.1 of the Final MSHCP. WOI-30 The comment suggests that removal and decommission of trails should only occur after a detailed study based on best available science. Under the revised Trails Plan, recommendations regarding the decommission and removal of trails to minimize potential adverse impacts to PBS will be deferred under the revised Trails Plan until the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed. In the meantime, however, trails determined to be redundant or to adversely affect other resource values (e.g., cultural resources, soils) will be considered for removal. A more detailed response is provided in Major Issue Response 3. Section 7.3.3.2.1 of the Final MSHCP describes the incorporation of research results before decommission and removal decisions are made. WO1-31 The comment addresses use in the Trails Plan of an ecosystem approach for bighorn sheep habitat. It suggests the creation of educational programs to discourage cross-country travel and dogs on trails. The Trails Plan for the SRSJM has been revised in the Final MSHCP to allow most trails to remain open while a research program focuses on the effects of recreational trail use on PBS. This approach is intended to ensure that the two interrelated goals — conservation of bighorn sheep populations and reasonable access to trail use consistent with that conservation — can be achieved. A public awareness and education program will be developed and implemented by CVCC and BLM in consultation with the Trails Management Subcommittee and the Monument Advisory Committee, with the following objectives: 1) to inform the public about bighorn sheep ecology and conservation issues; and 2) to encourage trail users to comply with the Trails Management Program to limit potential impacts to bighorn sheep. This education program will include education to discourage cross- country travel and dogs on trails. Trail user groups will be asked to Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan cooperate in this program and assist in a self -enforcement program. The Public Awareness and Education Program element of the Trails Plan is described in Section 7.3.3.2.1. Element (6) of the Final MSHCP. W01-32 The comment addresses perimeter trails as supplements, not substitutes, for the existing trails. See Response RO1-01. The Draft EIR/EIS states that construction of new perimeter trails would be initiated as soon as feasible, depending on funding availability and acquisition of easements or other authorizations. Further, all new perimeter trails approved through the Plan were intended to be completed within nine years of Plan approval (p. 2- 29). The Preferred Alternative Trails Plan has been revised, however, to defer consideration of new trails, with certain exceptions, until the research program to ascertain the effects of recreation on bighorn sheep has been completed. Therefore, preparation of a timetable at this time would be inappropriate; a final decision to construct new trails will not occur until the research program has been completed. For discussion of the No Surprises Rule, see Major Issue Response 11. WO1-33 The IA is one volume in a multi -volume set that includes the MSHCP. It is neither practical nor appropriate to separate the volumes. WO1-34 The MSHCP provides that the CVCC will review certain project applications within a Conservation Area. However, nowhere does the Plan require a City to prohibit all development as the comment suggests. As stated in Section 6.6.1.1, the JPRP restricts the CVCC from interfering with the City's land use authority. CVCC shall have neither jurisdiction over land use decisions by Permittees nor the authority to prevent a Permittee from approving a project. The JPRP simply allows CVCC to facilitate and monitor implementation of the MSHCP. The City would consult with CVCC at the initial stages of an infrastructure project in a Conservation Area to evaluate project design for consistency with the Plan's Conservation Area Conservation Objectives. Once the CVC(` determines that a project is consistent with the Conservation Area's Conservation Objectives and Required Measures as defined in Section 4.3 of the Plan, the Local Permittee shall be so notified. In the event the: CVCC identifies inconsistencies between the Conservation Area Conservation Objectives and the proposed project, and/or failure to incorporate applicable Required Measures, a meet and confer process between the CVCC, the Permittee, and applicant shall follow. If, after the meet and confer process is terminated, such inconsistencies cannot be resolved, CVCC will provide written notice to the Local Permittee and the Wildlife Agencies. Again, the CVCC has no power to deny a Project. In addition, as discussed in Section 6.6.1.2, the HANS process will not be construed as a limitation on the City's ability to approve or deny a Development application as long as it is consistent with the conservation of PBS. HANS applies only to specific parcels in PBS habitat as identified in the MSHCP in Section 4.3.21. If the Local Permittee "12 w� Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan determines that part or all of the property is necessary for inclusion in the MSHCP Reserve System, then the property owner will be compensated for this land. WO1-35 If an implementation mechanism is not implemented within six (6) months, then the Wildlife Agencies may initiate suspension. or revocation of the Permits. Exhibit "E" is a model Resolution for cities to establish procedures and requirements for the implementation of the MSHCP. The procedures in this model resolution do not require a City to deny all development on private property. Instead, the procedures simply require a City to ensure that any such development complies with the measures and requirements set forth in applicable portions of the MSHCP. WO1-36 Section 11.3.4 states that if a City or the County condemns property which results in fragmentation of the Reserve, then the entity responsible for that fragmentation must make up the difference in the manner provided. While the commenter is correct in its assertion that no City is required to acquire property through the eminent domain process, the Lead Agencies feel that it is unnecessary to add such language to the Plan, since acquisition is limited to willing sellers. See also Response W01-34. WO1-37 Exhibit "E" is a model Resolution for cities to establish procedures and requirements for the implementation of the MSHCP. The procedures in this model resolution do not require a City to deny all development on private property. Instead, the procedures simply require a City to ensure that any such development complies with the measures and requirements set forth in applicable portions of the MSHCP. WO 1-3 8 The Lead Agencies disagree that the Plan requires the City to contractually limit its legislative powers. The commentor states that it is concerned with the obligations that pages 33-34 impose on the City. The Lead Agencies are unable to determine which "obligations" on pages 33- 34 are of concern to the commentor. Therefore, no further response can be provided. WO1-39 Generally, the obligation for adequate funding of the Plan rests with CVCC. However, Section 5.2.2 of the Plan allows the Permittees to annually evaluate and modify the funding mechanisms to address funding needs that may arise. Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2 of the MSHCP direct the CVCC to review financing for land acquisition and to review financing for the Monitoring Program, the Management Program, and Adaptive Management. These sections provide the CVCC the needed flexibility to adequately address future funding needs by specifying future funding sources. Nowhere does the MSHCP or the IA give the CVCC the power to require a City or County to either draw upon, or refrain from drawing upon, its general fund 13 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan to meet funding obligations. In fact, Section 6.6.1.2 of the MSHCP (p. 6- 25) states that the "General Fund of the County or the Cities shall not be obligated to fund the purchase of property for inclusion on the MSHCP Reserve System." And Section 27.10 of the IA states: "Nothing in this Agreement will be construed by the Parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the general funds of the County or Cities unless expressly authorized by the County Board of Supervisors and/or appropriate City Councils." Thus, whether funds are derived from a city's or the county's general fund is completely within the control of those agencies. In the event a Permittee fails to meet its financial obligations, resulting in Plan non-compliance, the Wildlife Agencies could institute revocation proceedings. See Section 23.5 of the IA. See also Major Issue Response 7. WO1-40 See Response WO1-37. WO1-41 CDFG believes it is unable to commit to additional language and will not indemnify the Permittees. The Joint Powers Agreement defines the indemnification obligations of the CVCC. See the "Attorneys pees" portion of Response Z01-07. WO 1-42 See ResponseWO 1-3 9. 14 Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Comment Letter W01 — City of La Quinta RO1-01 CVAG will hold workshops with city councils and the Board of Supervisors upon request from the individual city or the County. WOl-07 As noted in the comment, CVAG has prepared a "Bighorn Sheep Water Resources" map. This map was available for review during the public comment period through CVAG upon request and a copy was provided to the commentor. The map is based on the best available data and while there may be additional water resources that are not shown on the current version, the map identifies all known water sources. The water source map is subject to change over time based on improved surveys, potential changes in the hydrological regime in the mountains from such events as earthquakes, and potential establishment of artificial water sources. The map, as updated over time, would be used when a potential development project required review. If, at that time, it is determined that there is no water source, the measure would not apply. The restriction on new development within a minimum of 1/4 mile from a known water source applies only to PBS habitat in the Conservation Areas, and the amount of development anticipated to occur in the Conservation Area is very limited, thus, the impact of this restriction is minor. The intent of this restriction is to limit impacts to bighorn sheep, especially during the hot season when access to water is most critical. The 1/4 mile setback from water resources is consistent with management precautions established by other land management agencies throughout the desert southwest that have established wildlife protection measures for specified human activities, such as camping, around desert water holes. Though artificial water sources have been created closer than 1/4 mile from existing development in the Coachella Valley, this situation may have contributed to the habituation of sheep to using urban environments in the City of Rancho Mirage, a problem that the Plan is attempting to avoid in the future. Section 730 in title 14 (730) of the California Code of Regulations (CDFG) states that one cannot occupy a water source (200 yards) for more than half an hour. It goes on to cite a one quarter mile distance for specific water sources. Blong and Pollard (1968) found that sheep typically range from 0.75 miles to 3 miles from water sources during the hot season. A 1/4 mile buffer was used to separate the Canyons at Bighorn from the sheep pens at the Bighorn Institute. Based on available information, the parcel -specific example raised by the commentor appears to be greater than 1/4 mile and out of view from adjoining urban development. The proposed language has been added. See Response Z01- 32. Y01-37 The required measure regarding development not being sited within a quarter mile of a known water source is appropriately included in the Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MSHCP regardless of whether there is currently a known water source in the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area. See Response WO 1-07. ZO1-07 This comment objects to the HANS process on the following grounds: timing, compensation, arbitration, attorney's fees, need for additional conservation area property, priority list, and the lack of habitat evaluation criteria_ Each is discussed below. Timing: This comment raises concerns about taking and equal protection issues. With respect to the takings issue, see Major Issue Response 6. Commentor points to no authority for its claim that the Plan violates the equal protection clause under the Constitution. To successfully assert an equal protection claim against, a plaintiff must first identify a suspect classification. Suspect classifications include age, alienage, disability, gender, illegitimacy, poverty, racial status, and homosexuality. A court will vary its judicial scrutiny of the government's rationale for not treating two parties equally depending on the classification identified. In a situation such as this, where no suspect classification has been identified or even inferred, a court would give substantial deference to legislative judgment upon an assertion of a violation of the equal protection clause. Because the HANS process is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, there are no violations of the equal protection clause. Compensation: The lead agencies disagree that the HANS process differs in its treatment of compensation with respect to the amount of property being acquired. When the county or cities require inclusion of the entire parcel in the Reserve System, the Plan at Section 6.6.1.2 states that negotiations will focus on both "establishing a purchase price and the application of other non -monetary incentives which may compensate the owner." Similarly, when only a portion of the property is needed for inclusion, Section 6.6.1.2 states that negotiations will focus on "incentives [which] may include monetary compensation." The goal in either situation is to acquire the property in a mutually beneficial manner. By maximizing the compensation options available to both parties, the Plan maximizes the possibility that both parties will come to an agreeable resolution. Commentor's allegation that the incentives may not be legally sufficient is speculation and no support is provided. Regarding funding sources with respect to the City's General Plan, see Section 5.0 of the Plan and Response WO1-37. All property acquisition will be negotiated on a project by project basis. For analysis of the takings and equal protection claims, see above. �y 16 Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Arbitration: If the property owner does not give consent to the arbitration, then the arbitration procedure will not apply. Attorneys Fees: Section 27.8 of the IA states that, if any action is brought to enforce the provisions of the IA, each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees. Section 15.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement, (the agreement made pursuant to Government Code Section 6500 et. seq. between the nine cities, the County of Riverside, the CVWD, and IID) provides. " "Provided that a Party has acted in good faith and in accordance with this Agreement, the MSHCP, the IA and the Permits, CVCC shall defend, indemnify and hold such Party free and harmless from any loss, liability or damage incurred or suffered by such Party by reason of litigation arising from or as a result of any of the following: the Party's development mitigation fee ordinance; the Party's participation in CVCC; action taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP; claims of inverse condemnation or unconstitutional takings against a Party as a result of or related to its participation in the MSHCP; or any other act performed or to be performed by the Party pursuant to this Agreement, the MSHCP, the IA or the Permits; provided, however that such indemnification or agreement to hold harmless pursuant to this section shall be recoverable only out of CVCC assets and not from other Parties." Need for Additional Conservation Area Property: If a project in a HANS area is approved, the Take will simply count against the acres of take allowed in that Recovery Zone. When the Take is exhausted, no more development will occur. Rough Step, however, will ensure that Take cannot get ahead of Conservation. In the case of the bighorn sheep, the issue is moot; all Essential Habitat for the sheep — except that which is already impacted — is in the Conservation Area. Priority List: As commentor notes, such property would be purchased "when funding is available". Since timing of collection of funds depends on the intricacies of the HANS process and other factors, it is not possible to be more specific as to when such acquisition would occur. The purchase price will be based on a current appraisal. Lack of Habitat Evaluation Criteria: All of the land subject to HANS is Essential Habitat for the bighorn sheep; i.e. it all has value for the survival of the species. Sheep use of the habitat may change over time in response to population numbers and changes in the habitat itself. The habitat depicted by the Plan has been determined to be current and potential habitat for the sheep over the next 75 years. ZO 1-3 2 See Responses Y01-3 7 and WO 1-07. 4 17 Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The comment proposes the addition of wording to Required Measure l (c) in the SRSJM Conservation Area, which is acceptable and has been added to the Final MSHCP, as follows: "Development shall be sited a minimum of a '/4-mile from known water sources as identified on a reference map on file with the CVCC, except where topographic features obscure the view of the water source from proposed development or trails." The comment expresses concern that the water resources map was not in the Plan. As noted in the required measure, the map was available for inspection at CVAG during the public comment period, was provided to the planning director of Palm Springs and was available for review by any member of the public, including representatives of the Local Permittees. Response Y01-3 7 and WO 1-07 address updates and changes to the water resources map. With regard to trail restrictions, trail restrictions on the North Lykken Trail and Skyline Trail are not proposed in the revised Trails Plan. See Major Issue Response 3. K02-05 This comment erroneously included Anza-Borrego Desert State Park as part of the Plan area. The Plan area abuts, but does not include Anzac Borrego Desert State Park. Refer to section 9.8.4.5 of the Final Plan for an analysis of population trends of PBS throughout the Plan Area. The commentor is correct in stating that in general, for desert bighorn sheep, low recruitment is caused by neonatal mortality rather than low conception or lamb production rates (Borjesson et al. 1996; Ostermann et al. 2001). However, the commentor provided no evidence or data to suggest a relationship between trail use and PBS conception or reproduction. Cause -and -effect relationships cannot be established solely from observational data, although observational data can provide support for a hypothesis (James and McCulloch 1985; Ford 2000; Quinn and Keough 2002). Establishing a causal relationship would require concurrent monitoring of human use of trails and bighorn sheep demography, while accounting for confounding factors such as predation, climate, and disease. Confounding factors may either mask or exaggerate the effects of the variable of interest (human use of trails). Therefore, the fact that some PBS populations have increased while the amount of human recreation has also increased does not lead to the conclusion that trail users have no impact on PBS conception or reproduction. Simple associations and correlation are not sufficient to prove causation (Atkinson et al. 2004). Science is based on testing predictions deduced from hypotheses against data. The formulation of a hypothesis that can be falsified is the key criterion that separates science from non -science. For example, the hypothesis could be reworded to state something to the effect that human use of trails does not have more than a minor influence on sheep demography and will not prevent populations from reaching sizes that are sufficient for population viability; or conversely that human use of trails we Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan has a major influence that will prevent viable population sizes. The question needs to be dealt with realistically with falsifiable hypotheses. The commentor is using generalization, inferring a generalized conclusion from particular instances, based on increases in lamb:ewe ratios in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains between 1994-2001 to argue that trail restrictions are not needed. The logical problems with this kind of generalization are well known; no amount of confirmatory observations can ever prove a theory (Quinn and Keough 2002). The evidence provided by the commentor is likely confounded with the effects of installing a fence along the urban interface in Rancho Mirage, naturally low predation rates, and perhaps the nutritional benefits of having a population well below the habitat's carrying capacity. This points to the significance of what questions are asked and how they are asked. For example, the commentor's remarks could be framed in the form of a hypothesis: the dynamics of this population have been driven by factors other than humans on trails, including mortality factors from sheep using urban. habitats, an episode of high lion predation, and a disease episode, the dynamics of which appear to be related to precipitation patterns. With respect to confounding factors, how the question is posed and analyzed determines what variance is important. Thus, the effects of recreation need to be considered in the context of a hypothesis -based analysis. For example, one could state a hypothesis that recreation has a negative effect on bighorn sheep when the population is increasing, but the effect is temporarily masked (or confounded) by other variables, such as low predation rates. To illustrate this point further, consider the opposite situation. If bighorn sheep population numbers were declining, it could not be automatically assumed that trail use was to blame for the decline. It is also necessary to consider the direct and indirect effects of recreation, as well as other factors, on bighorn sheep, in both the short and long-term. The Trails Plan includes a research program and problem analysis to address these issues. As described in the PBS Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000), it is possible that excessive disturbance may disrupt nutritional condition by affecting optimum feeding -ruminating cycles (Wagner 2000). Ewes that fail to acquire adequate energy reserves may fail to conceive (Wehausen 1984) or they may produce small offspring with a poor chance of survival (Price and White 1985). Etchberger and Krausman (1999) found that the reproductive success of ruminants was related to the mother's body weight, access to resources, quality of home range, and age. Ewes have been found to reduce care of lambs when resources are scare to favor their own nutritional requirements over the lamb's development (Festa- Bianchet and Jorgensen 1996). The extent to which recreational trail use may impact bighorn sheep conception or reproduction is not known. These ►-, 19 Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan studies from the scientific literature will be evaluated in the context of a problem analysis as part of the research program in the revised Trails Plan described in Major Issue Response 3. Z02-82 This comment alleges that the JPR and HANS processes in the MSHCP "circumvent the mandatory time frames established in the [Subdivision] Map Act." Under the JPR process at Section 6.6.1.1 of the MSHCP, the CVCC has a limited amount of time in which to ensure that the project is consistent with the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the MSHCP. Once a Local Permittee submits the application for a development project to CVCC, the CVCC must make a consistency determination within a maximum period of either 60 or 74 calendar days. At the outset, if the Local Permittee initiates a meeting between itself, CVCC and the Local Permittee regarding the application, the CVCC will have a maximum of 44 calendar days from receipt of the development application to prepare and send comments to the project applicant, the Local Permittee and the Wildlife Agencies. If no meeting is held, CVCC has only a maximum of 30 calendar days to send these comments. The Wildlife Agencies then have a maximum of 30 calendar days after receipt of CVCC's comments to send their comments on the application to CVCC. Once received, CVCC will make a consistency determination on the project. Thus, the maximum time frame the Plan provides for the CVCC to make its consistency determination from the time it receives the application is 74 days. If the CVCC finds the Project is inconsistent with the Plan, Section 6.6.1.1 affords the CVCC, the Local Permittee, and the applicant an additional 30 days to meet and confer to identify requirements necessary to achieve compliance. Under the HANS process, the County or Cities have only 45 days from receipt of the project application to determine whether the property is needed for inclusion into the MSHCP reserve system. If it is determined that the property is not needed for conservation, the JPR process (discussed above) timelines become relevant. If it is determined that such property is needed, then negotiations commence, which trigger other - timelines. Thus, the maximum timeframe would only occur if a high value parcel must be purchased and insufficient funding exists to purchase the parcel over the subsequent 4-year period. Commentor's assertion that the County and cities will deem development applications incomplete to avoid triggering the processing deadlines of the Map Act is unfounded. When a development application is submitted, the County and cities must verify that the application is consistent with applicable laws and regulations before deeming the application complete. Thus, the Local Permittees will in good faith diligently process the application. f 20 Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The HANS and JPR processes will not prevent the County or Cities h-orn complying with the terms of the Subdivision Map Act. It is anticipated that for a majority of development applications, the applicant will wait no longer than 104 days from the date of submittal to the Local Permittee before a determination is made to either purchase the property or determine whether the application is consistent with the Plan. When the application is deemed complete by the City or county, the timelines established by the Subdivision Map Act will be triggered, including the requirements of Section 21151.5 of the Public Resources Code. Thus, the processes and time frames established by the Subdivision Ma Act will not be violated by the MSHCP. Finally, the Lead Agencies believe that the MSHCP is consistent with all federal, state, and local laws and that no evidence has been submitted that alters this conclusion. D04-02 Jurisdiction for approval of the Travertine project rests with the City of La Quinta, which is coordinating project review with USFWS. Relative to public access issues outside the footprint of the project, management prescriptions of an approved Trails Plan would need to be considered regarding trail removal and new trail construction. Until such time that the Trails Plan is approved in conjunction with the MSHCP, however, such management prescriptions do not apply; public access issues would be addressed on a case -by -case basis. Nevertheless, the Trails Plan has been revised to include a perimeter trail corridor connecting a trail system for the Travertine Project with the Boo Hoff Trail. The corridor is intended to provide for future development of a trail as no specific alignment has been identified at this time. J11-01 The purview over Local Development Mitigation Fees for this project rests with the City of La Quinta. It should be noted that in its comment letter, the City of La Quinta recommended that the Travertine project nol be required to pay any additional fees beyond the loan for PBS habitat acquisition and the funds for PBS monitoring and research. Thus, it is apparent that the City accepts the dedication of land and other mitigatiOn measures described in the MSHCP in lieu of the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee. �' 21 Referenced Responses to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 22 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Introduction Explanation Regarding the Organization of the Responses to Comments Document The Lead Agencies received approximately 310 Comment Letters from the public during the public review process. These Comment Letters include all received emails and faxes, letters sent to the appropriate addresses, and statements made during the five public hearings regarding the MSHCP, DEIR/EIS, and the IA. Once the comment period closed, the Lead Agencies reviewed each comment letter to identify, demarcate and bracket all issues within each Comment Letter. This process identified over 2000 individual comments. The Lead Agencies further identified fifteen common issues among these 2000+ individual comments, which have beeTi termed "Major Issues". In this Responses to Comments document, the Major Issue Responses section contains a comprehensive, complete analysis of the fifteen identified Major Issues. The Individual Responses section contains a response to each of the 2000+ individual comments. Where an Individual Response could be best addressed by reference to a Major Issue Response, the Lead Agencies have so indicated. In the Individual Responses section of the document, each Comment Letter is presented, with each of its individual comments bracketed and referenced to the corresponding response, followed by the Individual Responses to that Comment Letter. The Index to Comments identifies the order in which the Comment Letters (and associated Individual Responses) are presented. Generally, Comment Letters A01 through H02 are from government agencies; Comment Letters IO2 through D03 are from non -government organizations, and Comment Letters E03 through S 12 are from individuals or businesses, generally arranged in alphabetical order. In a few instances, an individual or group may not appear in the expected order in the index. The Lead Agencies apologize for any resulting inconvenience. The Major Issue Responses have been identified in numerical order, while the Individual Responses are identified first by an alpha -numeric symbol (e.g., 1301), and then by a subsequent numerical indicator (e.g., 01). Thus, an individual comment number is identified in the following format: 1301-01. Individual Responses are indicated simply by referring the reader to "Response xx-xx" (e.g., "See Response BO1-01."). Finally, the Lead Agencies have provided a list of acronyms used throughout this document. That list immediately follows this Introduction. ix .• 23 ,i Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan List of Acronyms Throughout the responses, many acronyms are used. The following table provides a reference for the acronyms used throughout the Responses to Comments document. In addition, unless indicated otherwise, defined terms used in this document employ the definitions as used in Section 2 of the Implementing Agreement and throughout the MSHCP. ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices BLM Bureau of Land Management BOR Bureau of Reclamation CAA Clean Air Act Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCARMP Coachella Canal Area Resource Management Plan CDCA California Desert Conservation Area CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CDCAP California Desert Conservation Area Plan C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations CNLM Center for Natural Lands Management CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board CV Coachella Valley CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments CVCC Coachella Valley Conservation Commission CVFTL Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard CVMC Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy CV WD Coachella Valley Water District MSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel CWA Clean Water Act CDFG California Department of Fish and Game DWA Desert Water Agency EIR/EIS Environmental Impact Report/Statement ESA or FESA Federal Endangered Species Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information Systems HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IA Implementing Agreement ISA Independent Science Advisors x �.� 24 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ITP Incidental Take Permit IWA Indio Water Authority JPRP or JPR process Joint Project Review Process or Joint. Project Review LSR Late Successional Reserve MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPA Monitoring Program Administrator MSHCP or Plan Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MSWD Mission Springs Water District MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFP Northwest Forest Plan NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOC Notice of Completion NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NPS National Park Service O&M Operation and Maintenance PAG Project Advisory Group PBS Peninsular Bighorn Sheep PSA Permit Streamlining Act PSE Participating Special Entity RMOC Reserve Management Oversight Committee RMU Reserve Management Unit RMUC Reserve Management Unit Committee RMUP Reserve Management Unit Plan RSMP Reserve System Management Program SAC Scientific Advisory Committee SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plans SR State Route SRSJM Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMS Trail Management Subcommittee TNC The Nature Conservancy TPCA Thousand Palms Conservation Area TPPS Transportation Project Prioritization Study UC University of California UCR University of California Riverside U.S. United States U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency xi Coadiella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VRM Visual Resource Management xii h' 26 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Issue Response 1 Effects of Trails Plan Preferred Alternative on Recreation Many comments on the Draft MSHCP and Draft EIR/EIS asserted the Trails Plan Preferred Alternative would result in significant adverse effects on recreation. These public comments address several elements of the Trails Plan. To facilitate review, this Major Issue Response is divided into seven issue subheadings based on the focus of comments: permit numbers, permit program operation, lost and alternate trail opportunities, costs and benefits, compliance, trail use data, and statutory requirements. General comment statements appear in bold typeface. In response to public comments and upon further review of pertinent scientific literature, key elements of the Trails Plan Preferred Alternative have been revised, as described in Major Issue Response 3. The proposed permit and voluntary trail avoidance programs, construction of new perimeter trails, and rerouting and removal of certain trails to reduce disturbance to bighorn sheep have been deferred or revised, with exceptions, pending results of research to completely ascertain the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. As a result, most assertions regarding adverse effects of the Trails Plan on recreation are no longer pertinent. Nevertheless, responses to public comments regarding the Draft MSHCP and Draft EUVEIS are provided to clarify statements in the draft documents, correct inaccurate citations of data or other information, provide additional data or information, or refute certain assertions. A. Permit Numbers The number of available permits is well below anticipated demand for the restricted -use trails, thereby representing an adverse impact to recreation. The intent of the permit program was to seasonally limit use of selected trails consistent with estimates of use levels observed by BLM staff from 2001 to 2003 in order to minimize the risk of potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep from recreational activities, not to meet public demand for the use of trails. Comments regarding recreation and its effects on bighorn sheep as the basis for trail use restrictions are addressed under Major Issue Response 2. The Draft EIR/EIS assessed that demand would exceed permit availability (p. 5-84), as noted by some comment letters, but given that permit restrictions would apply to nine trail or trail segments of the 40 existing trails addressed in the Trails Plan that occur in essential bighorn sheep habitat, the overall impacts were not considered significant. See Section 7.3.3.2 of the Final MSHCP for a list of the 40 existing trails. Of the 40 existing trails totaling 115 miles, nine trails or trail segments totaling 27 miles, or 23 % of total existing trail mileage, would be subject to the seasonal permit program in the Draft Plan. Some comment letters strongly implied that users unable to obtain permits for the nine selected trails would be denied opportunities for trail use, or at the very least, would have less than satisfactory experiences in using alternative trails on which no restrictions apply. The significance determination in the Draft EIR/EIS was primarily based on the year-round availability with no restrictions of 31 other existing trails or trail Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan segments, which total 73 miles or 63% of total existing trail mileage, in conjunction with limited availability of trails subject to the permit program. Some comments asserted that the number of actual trail users and anticipated demand for use of trails subject ' to the proposed permit program cited in the Draft EIR/EIS are underestimated. Based on new calculations undertaken by these commentors relating user demand to the proposed number of available permits, they concluded that 70% to 80% of tourists and residents would be denied a permit. One comment stated that almost 12,000 potential trail users would be denied access to trails (See Comment K02- 79, p. 72). In asserting that such a shortage of permits to meet demand would constitute a significant impact to recreation, it appears to have been assumed that potential trail users would not use any of the unrestricted trails as an alternative, as if hiking is an all -or - nothing proposition relative to use of the proposed permit trails. Authors of the Trails Plan give more credit to trail users by assuming they would exhibit a reasonable level of flexibility to take advantage of opportunities for recreational experiences on the trails not subject to restrictions. Some comments acknowledged that the assessment of effects to recreation presented in the Draft EIR/EIS recognizes a reduction of opportunities for group activities on trails subject to the permit program, but then suggest the authors rationalize away this impact by asserting that a reduction in use is concomitant with a potential increase in the quality of recreational experience for those acquiring a permit, particularly for individuals seeking "solitude" in a group setting. These comments interpret this as an even greater loss of opportunity for those not able to secure a permit based on an assignment of "satisfaction units" associated with available trail use opportunities since opportunities for solitude equate with greater satisfaction. However, they incorrectly interpret statements about increased opportunities for solitude under the permit program as having a bearing on the determination of significance relative to opportunities for trail use. The determination regarding significance was principally based on the extent of trails subject to the permit program as it relates to the amount of trails in Essential PBS Habitat for which no use limitations would be imposed. The assessment regarding opportunities for solitude being increased for individuals securing permits did not have a bearing on the significance determination. The Trails Plan has been revised as described in Major Issue Response 3. The permit program is based on flawed data regarding estimates of use. Estimates of use were derived from a statistically invalid methodology for obtaining trail use data. Therefore, the number of available permits based on these data as proposed is arbitrary. The Draft EIR/EIS acknowledged that trail use data were not gathered using a statically valid protocol (p. 5-83). Trail use data were gathered by BLM's "sheep ambassadors" during the 2001-2003 lambing seasons as an ancillary element of the sheep ambassador program, i.e., the primary intent was not to gather trail use data. Instead, the intent of the program was to encourage individuals to voluntarily refrain from using selected trails in bighorn sheep habitat, and provide information to visitors about bighorn sheep ecology. While stationed at trailheads, sheep ambassadors recorded compliance 1-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan with the request to avoid using trails, as well as noncompliance with signs stating the same voluntary avoidance message (as measured by individuals observed using trails who were not directly contacted by sheep ambassadors). Although these data were not statistically valid, they are the only data available on actual trail use during the years 2001 through 2003. The manner in which extrapolations on trail use were derived to reflect those times when sheep ambassadors were not present to observe use, as well as extrapolations regarding anticipated demand for trail use, was fully disclosed in the Draft EIR/EIS (Appendix J). Since the Trails Plan has been revised (see Major Issue Response 3) to eliminate trail use restrictions under the permit program, these data have no bearing on determining use restrictions at this time. Upon implementation of the Trails Plan, trail use data will be gathered using a statically valid protocol. The proposed allotment of 50 total permits may discourage membership in user groups, thereby potentially being counterproductive since such organizations lend support to the conservation goals of the MSHCP. Two of the CV'S largest hiking organizations (CV Hiking Club and Desert Trails Hiking Club) have for several years avoided the use of certain trails on a seasonal basis in compliance with the existing voluntary trail avoidance program. During this time, they have sponsored numerous hikes on alternate trails. No data regarding declines of membership as a result of an organization's compliance with the voluntary avoidance program in recent years were provided by individuals who submitted comments. The rationale for 2,300 individual permits and 50 group permits is lacking. The number of available permits approximated the estimated levels of use as observed by BLM on the subject trails from 2001-2003 (p. 5-84 and Table 7 of Appendix J, Draft EOJEIS). Such use occurred in noncompliance with the voluntary trails avoidance program in effect at the time. Trail use restrictions under a permit program have been eliminated pending results of research addressing effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep populations. See Major Issue Response 3. Restricting access to the Skyline Trail is unnecessary because environmental conditions already limit use: snow covers upper portions during the early part of the year, while intense heat occurs at lower elevations during the summer months. This trail is typically not used except for through hikes to Long Valley at the top of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. Assumptions regarding use patterns for the Skyline Trail as described above are not substantiated. BLM staff has encountered well -trampled snow on the trail at its upper elevations, suggesting that many trail users do not restrict use to periods when snow is absent. Also, staff has encountered many trail users with no intention of hiking to Long Valley, instead hiking to some intermediate point before turning around for the hike down the trail. 1-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan B. Permit Program Operation Trail restrictions or rationing will cause public inconvenience and tourist dissatisfaction during January, February, and March, the busiest time of the year for local trails when trail users arrive at trailheads only to learn that a permit is required. A function of the public awareness and education program would be to widely broadcast information about available trail opportunities, as well as trail restrictions. Despite efforts to publicize such information, some individuals may still be unaware of the restrictions and could be inconvenienced upon expecting use of certain trails where restrictions are imposed. However, many opportunities for trail use in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would still be available to accommodate residents of and visitors to the Coachella Valley. Of the 40 trails covering 115 miles addressed by the Trails Plan, 31 existing trails or trail segments would be open year-round with no restrictions. These open trails total 73 miles, comprising 63% of total trail mileage in essential bighorn sheep habitat. The Trails Plan has been revised as described in Major Issue Response 3. The Trails Plan does not present operational details of the permit program. It would be impossible to administer and ultimately fail. Operational details were intentionally omitted to allow trail user groups to participate in determining the allocation of available permits among the selected trails after approval of the Trails Plan (p. 2-26, Draft EIR/EIS). Equally spreading the available number of permits among trails throughout the affected period would not likely occur; trails that have historically received greater use would likely be allocated a greater number of permits relative to less popular trails. Permit allocation determinations would also be based on anticipated use levels for different days of the week. Permit programs with limited numbers of available permits for selected trails have successfully been implemented elsewhere (e.g., San Bernardino National Forest). The assertion that a trail permit program for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would be impossible to administer and therefore fail is not substantiated. The Trails Plan has been revised, as described in Major Issue Response 3, to provide for a self -issue permit with no limit on the number of available permits. The permit program is discriminatory, favoring residents over tourists, organized groups over individuals, and long-range planners over impulsive users. Permit programs almost always require advance planning where the demand for permits exceeds the available number of permits. The proposed permit program herein addressed is not unique in this regard. Such permit programs are inherently adverse to spontaneity and favor those who plan ahead. However, since many other trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would be available without restriction, adverse impacts related to the permit program would be substantially reduced. Opportunities for using alternate trails would be available. The Trails Plan has been revised, as described in 1-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Issue Response 3, to provide for a self -issue permit with no limit on the number of available permits. The permit program, once established, will be difficult to change. If the bighorn sheep population continues to increase, the permit program will be deemed a success, hence no modification of it would occur. If the bighorn sheep population declines, then increased limitations will be imposed. Some apparently do not believe that annual review by the Trails Management Subcommittee would result in any changes to the permit program once established. This position is not supported by the documents. Element 7 of the revised Trails Plan provides for the Trails Management Subcommittee to annually review the effectiveness of the public use and trails management program and to make recommendations to the RMOC and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee regarding modifications to this program. C. Lost and Alternate Trail Use Opportunities Continuation of the voluntary trail avoidance program penalizes individuals that comply with the request to avoid trails, while rewarding those that do not comply. The Trails Plan has been revised to eliminate the voluntary trail avoidance program. Upon completion of the research program study results and management recommendations will be integrated into a revised public use and trails management program as described in Section 7.3.3.2.1 and Major Issue Response 3. The Art Smith and Skyline Trails are unique; no other trails in the planning area replicate the experience gained from these two trails, including new trails proposed for construction. Restricting use of these trails, therefore, would be an adverse impact. All trails are unique in some regard due to differences in elevation gain, grade, length, tread, type of landscape traversed, scenic views, proximity to development, connectivity to other trails, and so forth. Determining the significance of reduced opportunities for the use of certain trails consequent to the permit program, then, must consider available opportunities provided by the trail system as a whole and whether forgone opportunities for individuals unable to secure a permit can be provided by other trails in the system. The Draft EIR/EIS acknowledged a unique opportunity afforded by the Skyline Trail to complete a one -day hike gaining 10,400 feet in elevation that is not available by using any other trail in the local trail system, and stated that the limited number of permits in accordance with the proposed permit program, therefore, may be adverse to opportunities for use of the trail (p. 5-85). As reported by The Desert Sun on June 5, 2005, uniqueness of the Skyline Trail, also known as the "Cactus to Clouds Trail" when combined with the trail from the top of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway to the summit of Mt. San Jacinto, was recently recognized by Backpacker magazine as one of America's 10 hardest day -hikes. 1-5 MajorIssue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Adverse impacts to recreation from restricting use of the Art Smith Trail, however, were not similarly characterized. While no other mountain trail links the City of Palm Desert with the City of Palm Springs, such connectivity was not considered sufficiently important. to assess limitations on its use as a significant impact. Opportunities for expansive views of the CV, asserted by some individuals as a unique characteristic of the Art Smith Trail, would be available from the North Lykken, South Lykken, Garstin, Berns, Shannon, Araby, Bump and Grind, and Eisenhower Mountain Trails, all of which would have no seasonal limitations or restrictions on use. Further, use of the Art Smith Trail would not altogether be precluded under the proposed Trails Plan. Unrestricted opportunities for its use would be available from October 1 through January 14 each year, and a limited number of permits would be available for its use from January 15 through June 30. In addition, satisfaction levels were not relevant in identifying trails to be incorporated by the permit program. The basis for restricting use of selected trails was importance of proximal bighorn sheep habitat and the potential for adverse effects resulting from the use of trails in such habitat. This approach was consistent with achieving the stated goals of the Trails Plan. The revised Trails Plan, described in Major Issue Response 3, has eliminated the provision for a permit system with a limited number of permits. Most trails will be open all year and will be the subject of a research program on the effects of recreational trail use on PBS populations. Removal of .trails before new trails are constructed constitutes a net loss of trail use opportunities for the public, especially if new trails are never constructed. Further, removal of trails to protect bighorn sheep from recreational impacts cannot be justified at this time. Removal of trails to protect bighorn sheep from adverse impacts associated with recreational trail use was based on the same rationale for restricting the use of certain trails through a permit program. However, modification of the Trails Plan to eliminate restrictions on use of trails, other than restrictions associated with research to ascertain the effects of recreation on bighorn sheep, also includes deferring the removal of trails that were deemed to result in potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep until research data are available. On the other hand, redundant trails and trails resulting in adverse impacts to other resource values (e.g., cultural resources, soils, visual quality, etc.) will still be considered for decommission and removal. However, as described in Major Issue Response 3 and Section 7.3.3.2.1, removal of some trails will be dealt with as part of the Art Smith Trail and Mirage Trail reroutes which is being addressed separately from the Trails Plan. Under the revised Trails Plan, recommendations regarding the decommission and removal of trails to minimize potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep will be deferred until the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed. Removal of the upper portion of the Mirage ("Bump and Grind") Trail constitutes a loss of recreational opportunity that cannot be justified in terms of bighorn sheep protection. This loss is especially acute as it is unique in the exercise opportunity it affords to users. It is not considered a hiking trail given its focus as an exercise trail. 1-6 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Some comments suggest that all users of the Mirage Trail are interested only in the exercise benefits it provides, not in using it for other values it may offer. Generally, two aspects of hiking in steep mountainous terrain, enjoyment of the trail's setting and the exercise it provides, are often inseparable. While individuals who hike to enjoy scenery acknowledge the cardio-pulmonary benefits realized from the activity, those hiking primarily for exercise often choose the location for doing it because of the setting. The Mirage Trail offers expansive scenic vistas of the central CV to be enjoyed by all individuals, whether their purpose is exercise or sightseeing. Assertions that the Mirage Trail does not constitute a hiking trail, therefore, are questionable. Management of the Mirage Trail is under the purview of the CDFG. The CDFG has proposed a closure on the upper portion of this trail to limit impacts to bighorn sheep on state ecological reserve land purchased for bighorn sheep conservation. Decisions regarding this ecological reserve are made by the CDFG independent of the MSHCP. Regarding the Mirage Trail as a one -of -a -kind exercise trail in the CV, it is unique in its width which allows for hikers to walk two or more abreast, thereby providing greater opportunities for conversation than would occur on a single-track trail. This opportunity would be reduced upon removal of the upper segment of the trail. As a graded road, it is also of a lesser, but sustained pitch than many of the single-track trails in the area, thereby appealing to hikers and mountain bikers who desire a less strenuous climb (and for mountain bikers, a route requiring less technical expertise. Although other trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains provide opportunities for regimented exercise) they generally require greater exertion. However, many individuals have been observed using the Museum/North Lykken Trail loop for routine exercise, including trail running. The CV Hiking Club often sponsors "Tables in Twenty" hikes on the Museum Trail as a challenging workout. Other steep trails in the Valley also offer excellent workout opportunities (e.g., Garstin, Shannon, and Araby Trails). These trails would be available for year-round use under the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan. Trails in the Murray Hill complex of trails, especially the Goat Trails, offer substantial recreational benefit to mountain bikers. Removal of redundant trails in this area constitutes a substantial loss of recreational opportunity. In addition, closure of certain trails to mountain bikers equally would result in adverse impacts to these recreationists. Prior to removal of trails in the Murray Hill complex, including the Goat Trails, a determination of redundancy would be made (except some trails would necessarily be removed and alternate trails constructed should the Palm Hills project north of Eagle Canyon be approved). Where trails offer different experiences, they would not be considered redundant by definition. However, where resource damage such as erosion is attributed to mountain biking, consideration would be given to potential for mitigation to reduce the effects, or removal of a trail if mitigation is not reasonable to undertake. In stating that decommission and removal of the Goat Trails will result in an adverse impact to mountain bikers, some comments imply the Trails Plan has identified all Goat Trails as subject for removal. This is incorrect. The Trails Plan addresses decommission and removal of "redundant" trails in the Murray Hill complex with particular emphasis on redundant trails in the Murray H'ill/Eagle Canyon/Goat Trails area (p. 2-33, Draft 1-7 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan EIR/EIS). In addition, certain trails are identified for closure to mountain bike use (versus removal) for consistency with existing closures imposed by the City of Palm Springs, or where use of a segment of trail would lead mountain bicyclists into the Indian Canyons where bicycles are prohibited on Tribal lands. The Trails Plan has been revised, as described in Major Issue Response 3. Recommendations regarding the decommission and removal of trails to minimize potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep will be deferred under the revised Trails Plan until the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed. The Trails Plan results in an immediate loss of hiking opportunities. Goals of the Trails Plan are to minimize the risk of potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep from recreational activities, and provide recreational opportunities throughout the SRSJM that are consistent with recovery of bighorn sheep (p. 2-22, Draft EIR/EIS). The Trails Plan has been revised, as described in Major Issue Response 3. The Trails Plan does not describe the purpose for constructing new perimeter trails. These trails are not substitutes for moderate to strenuous trails offering spectacular panoramic views of the CV. If the intent is to provide substitute trails, then the perimeter trails program constitutes an adverse impact to recreation. As noted in some comments, the description of the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan does not identify the purpose for constructing new perimeter trails. However, in the analysis of environmental effects, it is stated that new perimeter trails are proposed to provide alternative hiking opportunities and thereby reduce trail usage in more sensitive bighorn sheep habitat areas (p. 5-32, Draft EIR/EIS). Further, trail users would be encouraged to use perimeter trails during the sensitive times of the year to reduce the number of people recreating in sensitive habitat. A statement about the purpose for constructing perimeter trails has been added to the Final Plan, which has been revised to defer construction of perimeter trails pending the outcome of the research program described in Major Issue Response 3. Some comments suggest that perimeter trails would offer little opportunity for moderate to strenuous physical exercise, would offer only low -quality vistas, and would not serve as adequate substitutes for trails that would be subject to restrictions on use. First, it appears that these commentors portend to speak for all hikers as if they were of one level of physical fitness with the same values relative to scenic quality. Depending on the level of physical fitness, a moderately rolling trail can present substantial physical challenges to many individuals. For many hikers, the scenic views enjoyed from lower elevation trails —such as the Museum, southern extent of the North Lykken, South Lykken, Ga.rstin, Shannon, Araby, and Mirage Trails —would also be considered as spectacular. The Trails Plan offers a variety of opportunities to all levels of hikers instead of only the very physically fit. Several. trails offering physical challenges and panoramic views of the CV would be available with no seasonal use restrictions. Second, trails selected for the permit and voluntary avoidance programs were based on their locations in sensitive bighorn sheep habitat irrespective of recreational 1-8� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan opportunities and experiences offered by them. Such selection is consistent with the stated goals of the Trails Plan, i.e., minimize the risk of potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep from recreational activities, and provide recreational opportunities throughout the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains that are consistent with recovery of bighorn sheep (p. 2-22, Draft EIR/EIS). Although some individuals may not consider the new perimeter trails or the many unrestricted existing trails as adequate alternatives for such trails as the Art Smith and Skyline Trails, there may be many individuals who would be fully satisfied by the experiences they offer. Third, some commentors suggest that the vast majority of hikers would not be willing to use perimeter trails as a substitute for the Art Smith or Skyline Trails. However, no data supporting this assertion are provided, such as a poll of hikers, instead relying on unsubstantiated assumption. Fourth, some commentors attempt to equate enjoyment or satisfaction derived from use of a particular trail with market value as a means to determine whether one trail is an equivalent substitute for another trail. In other words, an attempt is made to ascribe relative monetary value to intangible personal preferences that are related to enjoyment and satisfaction realized from hiking on trails. Again, these commentors suggest that their values of enjoyment and satisfaction derived from the use of trails accurately reflect such values for all hikers. In response, the market value of the Art Smith Trail to one individual will not be the same for all trail users; in fact, the market value of a less strenuous trail may be higher to those less physically fit than market value of the Art Smith Trail, especially if a lack of physical conditioning prevents the hiker from using the Art Smith Trail altogether. Rather than address whether one trail substitutes for another, it is more meaningful to address potential benefits realized by a population of trail users, whether local or global, and whether those benefits can or cannot be realized through the Trails Plan. Lastly, some comments suggest that authors of the Trails Plan assume new perimeter trails constitute "substitutes" for those subject to restrictions on use. Such characterization is not made in the Draft EIR/EIS. Instead, the Draft EIR/EIS identifies new trails as providing "alternate hiking opportunities" to reduce trail use in more sensitive bighorn sheep habitat areas (p. 5-32, Draft EIR/EIS). The document does not suggest that users of new perimeter trails will realize the same experiences as would occur upon use of a restricted trail for which a permit could not be secured. Some comments, however, do recognize that new perimeter trails would expand low elevation, moderate exercise/hiking opportunities (See Comment K02-108, p. 100). The assessment that a reduction in the total number of trails in the project area due to rerouting, decommission, and removal would not substantially affect opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding is in error. The total number of trails under the Trails Plan would not only be less, but strenuous, backcountry, high -elevation -gain trails would be replaced by easy/moderate, low elevation gain trails in close proximity to the urban area. Further, since the Draft EIR/EIS does not identify all trails which may be removed, it cannot provide 1-9 �. y �' i Major Issue Responses Coachella. Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation for their loss; trails that have independent values are not excluded from consideration for removal. In addition, future identification of trails for closure and decommission constitutes illegal project splitting. Rerouting of trails, which includes decommission and removal of the rerouted segment, would not reduce the total number of trails. Rerouting would only occur in order to avoid sensitive resource values where meaningful and feasible (p. 2-32, Draft EIR/EIS), thereby retaining the same number of trails. Rerouting of trails generally does not change their character. Decommission and removal of redundant trails would reduce the total number of trails, but would not substantially affect opportunities for trail use since, by definition, redundant trails are those that serve the same or similar purpose as other trails (e.g., connect the same two points), and provide the same or similar recreation experiences (p. 2-33, Draft EIR/EIS). Sheer numbers of redundant trails would not enhance opportunities for recreation except where use levels are sufficiently high and overcrowding may be mitigated by use of redundant trails. However, such trails, then, would not be deemed as redundant since their use could be effective in addressing conflicting uses (p. 2-34, Draft EIR/EIS). Specific redundant trails identified for removal in the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan were limited to the constructed trail in Dead Indian Canyon and the western leg of the Cathedral Canyon Trail (upon construction of the Cathedral City Cove perimeter trail). Effects of removing these trails were addressed in the Draft EMEIS. Redundant trails in certain groups of trails were also identified for removal (e.g., certain trails in the Murray Hill Complex; certain trails in the Coral Reef Mountains north of the La Quinta Cove to Lake Cahuilla Trail), but no specific trails within these groups were identified. Some of these trails may have independent values and, therefore, would not be considered as redundant. Final approval for decommission and removal of trails rests with the entity having jurisdiction over the applicable lands. Prior to such approval, however, an assessment of environmental impacts would occur in compliance with NEPA and CEQA, as applicable. Decommission and removal of non -redundant trails or trail segments to protect sensitive resource values would also reduce the total extent of trails. However, few non - redundant trails or trail segments were proposed for removal in the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan. These were limited to the Art Smith Trail between Dead Indian Canyon and the Schey Trail (upon completing the Art Smith Trail reroute); the upper segment of the Mirage Trail; the Schey Trail alignment not being utilized for the Art Smith Trail reroute, a short spur off the North Lykken Trail; and a spur trail southwest of La Quinta Cove. The effects of their removal were described in the Draft EIR/EIS. Of the non -redundant trails or trail segments identified for removal, the upper segment of the Mirage ("Bump and Grind") Trail has been the subject of greatest controversy. Issues regarding alleged loss of recreational opportunity have been previously discussed (see Major Issue Response 1 C). 1-10 R Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The assertion of illegal project splitting, because the identification of some trails for closure and decommission would occur in the future, does not apply in this situation. Consistent with NEPA (40 CFR § 1508.23) the Trails Plan has been meaningfully evaluated as a complete "stand alone" project. Approval of the Trails Plan does not constitute approval to decommission and remove trails without first completing applicable NEPA and CEQA requirements, as was stated in the Draft Plan. Section 2.5.7.4.1.3 of the Draft EIR/EIS states that final approval for trail decommission and removal rests with the entity having jurisdiction over the applicable lands. At such time as a specific proposal for trail closure and decommission is developed, an assessment of environmental impacts would occur in compliance with NEPA and CEQA prior to approval of a proposed project to remove a trail or trails. This assessment would include a discussion of cumulative impacts to both wildlife and recreation resulting from the decommission and removal of the trail or trails. The revised Trails Plan has been clarified in this regard. Further, recommendations regarding the decommission and removal of trails to minimize potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep will be deferred under the revised Trails Plan until the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed. In the meantime, however, trails determined to be redundant or to adversely affect other resource values (e.g., cultural resources, soils) will be considered for removal. The seasonal prohibition of cross-country travel constitutes a significant and substantial restriction in access to open space in essential bighorn sheep habitat. The Draft EIR/EIS acknowledges that the seasonal cross-country prohibition would adversely affect access to certain parts of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains (pp. 5-87 and 5-88). While one comment asserts that a seasonal prohibition of cross-country travel constitutes a significant impact, the same person proposes a Trails Plan that includes such a prohibition (See Comments K02-79 and K02-108, pp. 72 and 100). The proposed perimeter trail system discourages, if not prohibits, contact with nature. Further, the primary goal of the Trails Plan is to alter patterns of use in a manner that prevents visual and experiential contact with nature. Such removal of human interaction with nature and denying benign uses of public lands has potential long-term adverse impacts on the environment because broad constituencies for wildlife would not be established. Regarding the assertion that perimeter trails discourage contact with nature, no information is provided to support the statement. It can be reasonably inferred that "nature," as used by the individual who submitted the comment, means an environment that is relatively free of development. Personal biases, however, dictate the point at which one perceives he or she has crossed the threshold from a developed environment to one that is predominantly natural. Whereas some individuals might feel that complete removal from the sights and sounds of development is required to experience nature, others simply require the opportunity to use an unpaved trail that is not immediately adjacent to residential or business structures. Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The assertion that the goal of the Trails Plan is to prevent individuals from a visual and experiential contact with nature is not substantiated. In the statement suggesting that potential long-term adverse impacts would result if the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan is adopted because broad constituencies for wildlife would not be built, the commentor did not specify the potential adverse impacts that might occur. The foundation %r public support of a particular management program iS belief that the goals of the program are worthy as well as confidence that the program will accomplish those goals. The Trails Plan has been revised as a result of public comment, as described in Major Issue Response 3. It can be expected, therefore, that broader support would occur for the final Trails Plan than for the trails management program identified in the Draft EIR/EIS, at least from the trail user community. The proposal to decommission the Art Smith Trailhead and remove portions of the Art Smith Trail underestimates the negative impacts to recreational trail use, encourages cross-country hiking, and exports parking and noise to residential neighborhoods. The Preferred Alternative Trails Plan as described in the Draft EIR/EIS does not propose decommissioning of the Art Smith Trailhead. Removal of a segment of the Art Smith Trail would be undertaken as a separate action only in conjunction with rerouting the trail, and would not occur prior to a reroute having been completed. However, as described in Major Issue Response 3 and Section 7.3.3.2.1, removal of some trails will be dealt with as part of the Art Smith Trail and Mirage Trail reroutes which are being addressed separate from the Trails Plan. Therefore, the Trails Plan as it addresses the Art Smith Trail and Trailhead does not encourage cross-country hiking —the trail would still exist, though one segment would be moved to a new location —and parking and noise would not be exported to residential neighborhoods since the existing trailhead would be retained. As stated in the Draft EMUS, rerouting of trails is not anticipated to substantially affect opportunities for recreation as they are expected to provide similar experiences to those derived from original trail alignments given their likely proximity (p. 5-87). The Draft EIR/EIS fails to assess the adverse impact on children of removing free trail access to backcountry trails. These children were not acknowledged in BLM's trail use data acquired from 2001 to 2003 since they complied with the voluntary trail avoidance program. The proposed permit program, seasonal trail closures, and closure to camping during the first half of the year when weather allows these activities is a de facto closure of trails to these children's organizations as well as seasonal visitors and residents of the CV. Remaining opportunities are of poor quality at the toe of the slope along the urban interface. The Draft EIR/EIS states that certain issue areas, including Environmental Justice and Children, were considered in the NOP, NOI, and Section 3 of the Draft EIR/EIS, but did not warrant further analysis because impacts would be negligible (p. 5-8). 1-12 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The assertion that the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan, as described in the Draft Plan, constitutes a de facto closure of trails during the early months of the year disregards the facts regarding trail availability: (1) Of the 40 existing trails totaling 115 miles in essential bighorn sheep habitat, nine trails or trail segments totaling 27 miles, or 23 % of total existing trail mileage, would be subject to the seasonal permit program from January 15 through June 30. Six trails or trail segments, totaling 10 miles or 9% of total existing trail mileage in essential habitat, would be subject to the proposed voluntary trail avoidance program during this period. Only one 5-mile trail would be closed during the first half of the year (Carrizo Canyon Trail). During the hot season from July 1 through September 30, five trails totaling 16 miles would be closed. Meanwhile, 31 existing trails or trail segments in essential bighorn sheep habitat would be open year-round; these trails and trail segments total 73 miles, comprising 63% of total trail mileage in essential habitat; (2) Although it is suggested that children's organizations would be precluded from the use of backcountry trails, such would not be the case. Under the proposed permit program, 50 group permits would be available for the use of any of the nine trails or trail segments subject to the program from January 15 through June 30. As stated in the Draft EIR/EIS, however, the total number of available permits under the permit program would fall short of estimated demand (p. 5-84); (3) Alternate opportunities for "backcountry" access to "free" trails not subject to restriction would also not be precluded. Such trails in essential bighorn sheep habitat would include the Martinez Canyon Trail, Cactus Spring Trail, Wild Horse Trail (and others in the "Murray Hill complex, except for the Clara Burgess Trail and Hahn Buena Vista Trail), Fern Canyon Trail, Vandeventer Trail, Dry Wash Trail, and Palm Canyon Trail south of its intersection with the Dry Wash Trail (and accessed via the Dry Wash Trail). Apparently, some individuals do not consider such trails to constitute "backcountry" trails, though they are located beyond the sights and sounds of development and urban activities in the CV. It is also asserted that children's organizations regularly use the National Monument, but were not counted by BLM from 2001 through 2003 because they complied with the voluntary trail avoidance program. Further, it is implied that many of the groups coming from urban communities in Southern California would be denied a "wilderness experience" if the proposed Trails Plan is implemented. As stated above, however, the impact to recreational trail use would be substantially reduced by the year-round availability of many other low -elevation trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains (pp. 5-84, 5-85). In addition, organizations from urban areas of Southern California have a myriad of opportunities for backcountry experiences outside the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Therefore, the Trails Plan was not considered to lead to adverse impacts to children or children's organizations. No data regarding historic or potential use of the National Monument by children's organizations were gathered by BLM, nor were they provided by any individual submitting a comment on the MSHCP or Draft EIR/EIS. The National Monument was established in October 2000. Trail use data, including data on use by children's organizations, were not collected by BLM or any other entity in any systematic way prior to 2001 so data are not available for historic use of trails. In 2001, BLM initiated collection of data on human trail use on selected trails because personnel were already 1-13 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan available and posted at trailheads. No reason was identified that impacts to children would be any greater or indeed any different from impacts to any other individual, so no specific effort was made to gather data on use of the National Monument by children's organizations. The data collected by BLM from 2001 to 2003 on trail use were summarized and presented in Appendix J of the Draft EIR/EIS. The implication that children's groups would be denied "wilderness experience" opportunities due to restrictions imposed by the Trails Plan, therefore, is refuted. The revised Trails Plan, as described in Major Issue Response 3, provides that most trails will be open all year and will be the subject of a research program on the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. D. Costs and Benefits There are no benefits to recreation accrued from the Trails Plan, only expected or possible future benefits from the construction of new trails as proposed. Cost/benefit analyses, which are lacking in the Draft EMUS, demonstrate that adverse impacts to recreation would be significant. One comment suggests a qualitative cost/benefit analysis would be appropriate to determine significance of impacts to recreation resulting from implementation of the proposed Trails Plan. In the context of this comment, the term "cost" is presumed to address "impacts", not economic costs. The Lead Agencies do not believe that such a "cost/benefit" analysis is required by CEQA. CEQA sets forth criteria for delineating thresholds of significance to use in determining whether an impact is significant or not. These criteria pertaining to impacts on recreation are set forth in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR/EIS, and the type of costibenefit analysis proposed by the commentor is not one of the CEQA criteria. Thus, the proposed analysis is not required. Nonetheless, the Lead Agencies have considered the cost/benefit analysis approach as proposed by the commentor. It is suggested by the commentor that upon considering seven key elements of the Trails Plan - trail avoidance program, hot season closures, trail permitting program, trail decommission and removal, cross-country prohibition, restrictions on bicycle access, and construction of new trails - six represent costs to recreation with only one constituting a benefit, it being the construction of new trails (K02-80, Table 7, p. 73). A flaw in this analysis is the failure to acknowledge one of the key elements of the Trails Plan: existing trails open on a year-round basis without restriction, which comprise 73 miles, or 63% of the total mileage of trails addressed by the Trails Plan. This element is the cornerstone of any significance determination that examines the extent of trails with seasonal limitations on use compared to those with no restrictions, yet the comment on the Trails Plan did not mention it. Further, in simply comparing the number of costs versus the number of benefits, it is suggested that costs and benefits are of equal value or importance. To the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that such equality of importance is not the case. For example, the closure of five trails during the hot summer months is likely to affect far fewer individuals than the permit program for nine trails during the winter and spring months. In addition, such a cost/benefit analysis is clearly a one-dimensional assessment of the recreation resource, denying that other resource values may, in fact, contribute to recreational opportunities in 1-14 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. For example, the suggested qualitative cost/benefit analysis does not acknowledge that a viable population of bighorn sheep represents a benefit to recreation - nature study, wildlife viewing, and photography, for example, are recreational endeavors to be enjoyed in the local mountains, usually in conjunction with hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding - nor does it acknowledge that costs to achieve such viability must be considered relative to potential accrued benefits in determining significance of impacts. Notwithstanding the issue regarding scientific foundations for trail use restrictions, or the lack thereof as asserted by the trail user community (see discussion under Major Issue Response 2), costs, or impacts, to one resource (in this case, recreation) must be considered not only in isolation in the final overall determination of significance, but they must also be considered relative to associated impacts and benefits to other resource values (in this case, wildlife, cultural resources, soils, wilderness, plants, air quality, scenic quality, etc.). Even the one benefit to recreation (construction of new trails) identified by the comment addressing the cost/benefit analysis may have impacts to other resource values, such as reductions of scenic quality and impacts to cultural resources. These "costs" or impacts with respect to recreation were identified and analyzed in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR/EIS. As described in Section 5.5.4 of the Draft EIR/EIS, potential adverse impacts to recreational resources resulting from implementation of the proposed Trails Plan would occur at levels that are less than significant as substantial opportunities for trail -based activities would continue. The same comment also suggests that a quantitative cost/benefit analysis should have been undertaken, and provides examples of such analyses as would be applicable to the Trails Plan. One example tallies the number and mileage of trails that represent "costs" to recreation, i.e., loss of trail access due to permit restrictions, the voluntary trail avoidance program, and trail closures. It also tallies the number of trails that constitute "benefits" to recreation as represented by new trail construction (See Comment K02-81, Table 8, p. 74). The analysis then shows how the costs, which would be immediate upon implementation of the Trails Plan, exceed the benefits, which would be deferred since these benefits are ascribed only to new trails proposed for construction. As with the qualitative cost/benefit analysis described above, this quantitative analysis is flawed. because it fails to acknowledge that 31 existing trails and trail segments totaling 73 miles, or 63% of total trail mileage addressed by the Trails Plan in essential bighorn sheep habitat, would be available for year-round use without restriction, thereby constituting a benefit to recreation. Instead, the suggested quantitative cost/benefit analysis focuses only on proposed restrictions and new trail construction. A second example of a quantitative cost/benefit analysis examines the number and mileage of trails and their relative difficulties as the basis to assess the reduction of public access (See Comment K02-81, Table 9, p. 76). This example partially overcomes the flaw previously identified of not including trails that would be available year-round with no use restrictions. However, some data, which were extracted from Philip Ferranti's 100 Great Hikes in and near Palm Springs (2000), are misleading or irrelevant in the costibenefit analysis. While some mileages clearly represent out -and -back hikes 1-15 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (e.g., two miles assigned to the one -mile Palm Springs Desert Museum Trail, and 16 miles assigned to the 8-mile Art Smith Trail), others are measured in terms of a one-way passage (e.g., trails incorporated in the "Shannon Loop" and "Hahn -Buena Vista Loop"). Some trails and their mileages are included more than once (e.g., the "Shannon Loop" includes the Shannon, Earl Henderson, and Ga.rstin Trails, yet the latter two are separately identified and their mileages are, therefore, counted twice; and the "Garstin/Wildhorse Trail" which obviously includes both trails, yet both are also separately identified and included in the "Shannon Loop" and "Hahn -Buena Vista Loop," respectively, thereby counting their mileage three times). Several trails or trail segments are located outside the Trails Plan area —essential habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep — but are incorporated in the analysis, thereby skewing the results (e.g., Pushawalla Palms and Canyon, Willis Palms and West Mesa, upper elevations of the Skyline Trail, and upper elevations of the Guadalupe Trail). Further, only 30 trails are identified as subject to the Trails Plan (redundancies and incorporation of trails outside the Trails Plan area notwithstanding), although 40 separate trails within essential habitat for bighorn sheep are addressed by the Plan. In addition, it is asserted that 195 miles of trails are located in the CV, of which 141 miles or 72% would be adversely affected by the Trails Plan through reduced access. To the contrary, the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan actually addressed 115 miles of trails within essential bighorn sheep habitat, of which 42 miles, or 37%, would be subject to some form of seasonal use restriction, be it a permit requirement (27 miles), voluntary trails avoidance (10 miles), or closure (5 miles) during the bighorn sheep lamb rearing season. Limitations on use of existing trails outside bighorn sheep essential habitat (i.e., outside the Trails Plan area) are not proposed through the MSHCP. Clearly, data provided in the comment, especially as regards mileages of trails subject to the Trails Plan, substantially differ from data used to prepare the Draft EIR/EIS. Given the flawed data presented in the comment, conclusions derived from this example of a quantitative cost/benefit analysis are incorrect. A list of trails addressed by the 'Trails Plan, their actual mileages, and trails subject to the Preferred Alternative permit and voluntary trail avoidance programs is provided below. Some comments assert that authors of the Draft EH;/EIS considered the availability of other trails in the region as a factor in determining that the proposed trail user restrictions would not constitute a significant impact to recreation. Since such opportunities require either payment (e.g., trails accessed via The Living Desert, Indian Canyons, or Palm Springs Aerial Tramway) or are located outside the CV (e.g., trails near Idyllwild and in Joshua Tree National Park), it is suggested that opportunities for the use of free public trails were not addressed in the significance determination. The Draft EIR/EIS states, lirnpacts to recreational trail use from the shortage of available permits under the proposed permit program compared to anticipated demand for permits] would be substantially reduced, however, by the year-round availability of many other low - elevation trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains that would have no permit requirements, as well as the construction of new perimeter trails and the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail" (p. 5-85). Contrary to assertions in some comments, this assessment was not based on the availability of trails that are accessed via the Indian Canyons, high -elevation trails accessed via the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, or trails near Idyllwild or in Joshua Tree National Park, all of which occur outside the Trails Plan 1-16 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area. The only fee -required trail considered in the assessment was the Eisenhower Mountain Trail accessed via The Living Desert. It is often the case that to achieve a positive outcome in one realm requires a change in behavior or reduction of opportunities in another realm. Benefits to society, therefore, may be measured by comparing positive achievements with opportunities forsaken to achieve them. Questions naturally arise about the extent to which the forsaken opportunities contribute to or have an effect on achieving the desired outcome or benefit. Many individuals in the trail user community of the Coachella Valley have questioned how proposed trail use restrictions would achieve the stated benefit, i.e., contribute to recovery efforts for bighorn sheep. The discussion under Major Issue Response 2 addresses these questions. In the course of responding to these questions and comments, it has been determined that modification of the Trails Plan is warranted such that trail use restrictions under a permit program will not occur, pending data acquired from research that focuses on the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. In the meantime, opportunities for recreation in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would be constrained to a limited degree (e.g., cross-country travel and camping would be restricted on a seasonal basis); benefits accrued from the Trails Plan, therefore, would largely continue at previous levels. Trails addressed by the Trails Plan Miles* 1. Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 4.3 2. North Lykken Trail 3.1 3. Museum Trail 0.9 4. Skyline Trail 2.3 5. South Lykken Trail 2.5 6. Picnic Table Trail 1.3 7. Araby Trail 0.8 8. Shannon Trail 1.2 9. Berns Trail 0.9 10. Garstin Trail 1.2 11, Henderson Trail 1.0 12. Alexander Trail 1.8 13. Goat Trails 3.5 14. Eagle Canyon Trail 0.3 15. Wild Horse Trail 3.2 16. Fern Canyon Trail 2.3 17. Vandeventer Trail 3.3 18. Clara Burgess Trail 2.2 19. Hahn Buena Vista Trail 2.3 20. Dry Wash Trail 2.7 21. Dunn Road 12.0 22. Dry Wash to Vandeventer Trail 0.9 23. Thielman Trail 1.6 24. Palm Canyon Trail 6.6 25. Indian Potrero Trail 1.9 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 26. Potrero Canyon Trail 2.8 27. Cathedral Canyon Trail 1.8 28. Bighorn Overlook Trail 0.2 29. Mirage ("Bump and Grind") Trail 1.9 30. Art Smith Trail (including Dead Indian Canyon) 8.0 31. Carrizo Canyon Trail 5.2 32. Schey Trail 0.8 33. Eisenhower Mountain Trail 4.0 34. Bear Creek Canyon Trail 1.3 35. Bear Creek Oasis Trail 1.8 36. Boo Hoff Trail 6.0 37. La Quinta Cove to Lake Cahuilla Trail 2.4 38. Guadalupe Trail 3.7 39. Cactus Spring Trail 4.1 40. Martinez Canyon Trail 7.1 Total: 115.2 Trails/trail segments subject to Preferred Alternative permit program; January 15 through June 30 Miles* North Lykken Trail (partial) 1.8 Skyline Trail 2.3 Clara Burgess Trail 2.2 Dunn Road (partial) 4.2 Cathedral Canyon Trail (partial) 1.3 Art Smith Trail (including Dead Indian Canyon) 8.0 Bear Creek Canyon Trail (partial) 0.6 Bear Creek Oasis Trail 1.8 Boo Hoff Trail (partial) 4.5 Total: 26.7 Trails/trail segments subject to Preferred Alternative voluntary avoidance program; January 15 through June 30 Miles* Goat Trails (partial) 2.2 Eagle Canyon Trail 0.3 Hahn Buena Vista Trail 2.3 Mirage ("Bump and Grind") Trail (partial) 0.5 Schey Trail 0.8 Guadalupe Trail 3.7 Total: 9.8 Trails subject to lambing season closure; 1-18 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan January I through June 30 Miles* Carrizo Canyon Trail 5.2 *Excludes mileage outside essential habitat for Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep and excludes mileage on Indian lands. Trails in these two categories are not considered part of the MSHCP Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. The Trails Plan dos not include a Socio-Economic Impact Report. In citing this omission, comments refer to the socio-economic analysis regarding trails and the potential impacts of trail closures contained in Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM and USDA Forest Service, 2003). This analysis states that annual losses to all CV businesses from reduced tourism as a result of trail closures would be $10,692,787.50. Combined with lost tax revenues, the total loss would be up to $11.1 million. Downplaying the loss of recreational opportunities by highlighting other opportunities outside the Trails Plan area, therefore, is inappropriate. Although the citation of data from the National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final EIS is correct, the socio-economic analysis was based on an assumption that is no longer valid. The analysis was prepared at least one year in advance of release of the Draft Trails Plan for public comment and review. The socio-economic analysis itself stated, "If it is assumed that a significant number of trails will be closed, either for significant periods of time or permanently, and that these closures would influence the decision of some tourists to come to the CV on vacation, then an impact to the Valley's economy would result" (p. N-21, National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final EIS). As it turns out, the assumption was flawed. During the winter and spring months when tourism reaches its peak, only one trail (Carrizo Canyon Trail) would be closed. During this time, the use of nine trails or trails segments, totaling 27 miles or 23% of total trail mileage in the Trails Plan area within essential bighorn sheep habitat, would be available for limited use through a permit program. Another six trails totaling 10 miles, or 9% of total trail mileage, would be subject to a voluntary trail avoidance program. Meanwhile, 31 existing trails or trail segments, totaling 73 miles or 63% of total trail mileage in the Trails Plan area, would be available year-round with no restrictions on use (other than access with dogs). This situation does not equate with the assumption put forth in the socio-economic analysis that "a significant number of trails will be closed, either for significant periods of time or permanently." Therefore, concluding that "trail closures would result in 25% of [tourists] assumed to be using the trails would not come to the Valley" (pp. N-21 and N-22, National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final EIS) is incorrect. Further, the socio-economic analysis did not acknowledge the potential for year-round trail opportunities within the Trails Plan area, instead only citing opportunities outside the area, thereby additionally impacting the analysis when considered in light of the current situation. In addition, evidence suggests that the availability of hiking opportunities in the CV is not yet a prime factor for tourists considering it as a vacation destination. On May 1-19 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 295, 2005, The Desert Sun compared the attractions of four desert tourist destinations: Palm Springs, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson. Hiking, horseback riding, or mountain biking were not mentioned at all in the profile for Palm Springs. When comparing a typical tourist's day in Palm Springs to that in Tucson, The Desert Sun reported that it consisted of "golf, spa, nap" in the former versus "golf, spa, hike" in the latter. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that adverse effects to the tourism economy resulting from trail use restrictions imposed by the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan are considerably overstated. Regarding the alleged omission of a socio-economic analysis for the Trails Plan, the Draft EIR/EIS states: "The issue areas of ... Socio-Economic Resources ... were considered in the [NOP], [NOI], and Section 3 of this EIR/EIS. These issue areas did not warrant further analysis because impacts would be negligible or the issue area is not applicable to the Trails Plan" (p. 5-8, Draft EIR/EIS). As previously indicated, the socio- economic analysis prepared for the National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final EIR, which forecast substantial economic impacts upon closure of a significant number of trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, was no longer applicable given the limited extent of trail use restrictions as proposed in the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan. Instead, economic impacts resulting from implementation of the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan would be negligible. E. Compliance Because there is no penalty for noncompliance with the Seasonal Trail Program, organized groups would ultimately be penalized because of their likely compliance while individual trails users who are less likely to know about the trail management programs, understand them, or sympathize with them would not comply upon finding the restrictions unreasonable. This could result in permanent trail closures, thereby penalizing the compliant group users. Contrary to assertions, noncompliance with restrictions may result in the issuance of citations as one approach to enhance compliance (p. 2-26, Draft EIR/EIS). Although the Trails Plan has been revised to eliminate restrictions on the use of trails, citations may be issued to individuals who are noncompliant with other restrictions, such as those on the entry with dogs, cross-country travel, and camping. Further, some comments suggest that trail use organizations would likely comply with restrictions even if no penalties would be incurred for noncompliance. To the contrary, evidence suggests that some organizations may not comply. Effective March 1, 2005, the CV Hiking Club withdrew its support of the voluntary trail avoidance program that has been in effect since 1998. With no evidence to support the permit program, the stage is set for increased noncompliance as individuals cannot see any benefits to bighorn sheep that would be derived from it. Some comments correctly state that benefits to bighorn sheep to be derived from compliance with trail use restrictions must be clearly described to gain public support for the permit program. Without such support, increased levels of noncompliance are likely. 1-20 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Increased noncompliance with the existing voluntary trail avoidance program has already occurred. Effective March 1, 2005, the CV Hiking Club withdrew its support for the voluntary trail avoidance program consistent with its declaration concerning the lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that adverse impacts to bighorn sheep result from recreational trail use. Given the limited resources available to monitor and enforce compliance, it is acknowledged that the permit program could become a "cat and mouse game" of attempting to catch increasing numbers of individuals refusing to comply with the program. The Trails Plan has been revised, as described in Major Issue Response 3, to provide for a self -issue permit with no limit on the number of available permits. F. Trail Use Data The Trails Plan provides no new data about trail use in terms of who uses trails, how often the use occurs, the size of groups using trails, the time of day of use, or the portion of trails used. BLM "sheep ambassadors" did gather data about group sizes of five or more individuals, and recorded times of day when stationed at trailheads, which varied throughout the data collection period. These specific data, however, were not included in the Draft EIR/EIS. Since several organized groups complied with the voluntary trail avoidance program (e.g., CV Hiking Club, Desert Trail Hiking Club, and Palm Springs Desert Museum), data about group use of trails were not considered useful in extrapolating projected demand by groups. Also, variations of use by time of day, as recorded by sheep ambassadors, were not relevant in developing the proposed management prescriptions, but could be useful for monitoring and enforcement efforts. It is important to acknowledge that data gathering by sheep ambassadors was not their primary task; therefore, certain specific data described as lacking were not acquired. Instead, the primary task of sheep ambassadors was to request voluntary avoidance of certain trails and provide information about bighorn sheep ecology. Estimated annual use of trails from 2001 to 2003 was provided in Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix N, BLM and USDA Forest Service, 2003). These estimates show use levels at 3,126 in 2001, 4,180 in 2002, and 4,312 in 2003, representing an increase of 37.5% from 2001 to 2003. During the same time, the estimated bighorn sheep population increased 45%. Annualized data provided in Table H-8 of Appendix N (p. N-17, National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final EIS as a measure of trail use is marginally useful. It is based on a simple doubling of trail use observations by BLM "sheep ambassadors" from data gathered between January 15 and June 30 in 2001 and 2002, and the quadrupling of use observations from data gathered between January 15 and March 30 of 2003. This approach yields skewed results since it assumes that trail use from July through December is equivalent to trail use from January through June, contrary to assertions in many comments that most use occurs during the first several months of the year. The annualized data for 2003 is particularly skewed since it assumes 1-21 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan that trail use from April through December occurs at the same level as from January through March. Some comments assert that trail use estimates provided in the Draft EIR/EIS for the Trails Plan are flawed. The raw data presented in both the Final EIS for the National Monument Management Plan and Draft EUVEIS for the Trails Plan are the same, yet these same comments cite data from the National Monument Final EIS as a credible measure of actual trail use. The National Monument Final EIS incorrectly states that Table II-8 shows "the number of persons seen on each trail for the period from January through June of each year." A review of raw data provided in the Draft EIR/EIS for the Trails Plan (Tables 1-3, Appendix J), which is also the basis for conclusions in the National Monument Final EIS regarding use levels, reveals this statement to be incorrect. For example, Table II-8 of the National Monument Final EIS shows that total "observed" use of the Art Smith Trail in 2001 was 875. Some comments suggest these data, in conjunction with other data from Table II-8, reflect actual trail use (actual trail use being the number of hikers, mountain bikers, and horseback riders using trails in noncompliance with the voluntary trail avoidance program). The raw data in Table 1, Appendix J, from the Draft EIR/EIS for the Trails Plan, however, demonstrate that actual (noncompliant) trail use observed on the Art Smith Trail in 2001 from January 15 to June 30 was 556, not 875. On the other hand, Table 1 shows that the total number of individuals directly contacted by BLM sheep ambassadors at the Art Smith Trail in 2001, which includes both compliant individuals (i.e., those that chose to voluntarily avoid use of the trail) and noncompliant users, was 875, the same number cited by some comments as representing actual use for the six-month period. Therefore, the increasing trend of trail use as suggested in the comment was incorrectly determined as a result of using figures from another planning effort. A review of Table 5-5 in the Draft EIR/EIS for the Trails Plan (p. 5-84) reveals a different trend. Actual trail users counted by BLM sheep ambassadors on an average hourly basis were as follows: 0.455 users per hour in 2001 (1,321 users counted during 2,901 hours of observation), 0.339 users per hour in 2002 (1,193 users counted during 3,519 hours of observation), and 0.492 users per hour in 2003 (714 users counted during 1,451 hours of observation —the lower numbers for 2003 are attributed to observation occurring only through the end of March instead of the end of June). A 37.5% increase in trail use from 2001 to 2003 as asserted in the comment, therefore, is inaccurate. See Response K02-05 regarding the relationship between bighorn sheep population increases and increases in recreational trail use. G. Statutory Requirements The Trails Plan does not meet the legal requirements of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act as it fails to preserve recreational values in the Monument. The Preferred Alternative Trails Plan was developed with the goal of minimizing the risk of potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep from recreational activities, 1-22 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan consistent with the stated goals of the Trails Plan (p. 2-21, Draft EMIS) and Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California (USFWS 2000). The Recovery Plan identifies recovery actions to address threats to bighorn sheep. One such action is to manage activities within bighorn sheep habitat that fragment or interfere with bighorn sheep resource use patterns or other behaviors to reduce or eliminate adverse effects, including the management of trail use and off -trail activity (p. 89, Recovery Plan). Since development of the draft Trails Plan, however, questions have been raised regarding the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. These questions are addressed under Major Issue Response 2. Some comments additionally cite Section 2(b) of the National Monument Act, which addresses the purpose for establishing the National Monument, to support the assertion that the Draft EIR/EIS fails to evaluate impacts on the objectives expressed by Congress. Section 2(b) states that the National Monument is established "to preserve the nationally significant biological, cultural, recreational, geological, educational, and scientific values found in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and to secure now and for future generations the opportunity to experience and enjoy the magnificent vistas, wildlife, land forms, and natural and cultural resources in these mountains and to recreate therein." Congress intended that the Federal agencies (BLM and USDA Forest Service) prepare a management plan (as required by Section 4 of the Act) to conserve and protect resources of the National Monument consistent with the purposes for which the Monument was established. Relative to the management of trails in essential bighorn sheep habitat, the approved National Monument Management Plan (BLM and USDA Forest Service 2004) deferred planning to the Trails Plan element of the MSHCP. It is clear, as has been suggested in some comments, there must be a "tight fit" among values to be preserved, i.e., Congress did not elevate any one value as supreme among the other values. However, Congress required that historic recreational activities continue to be authorized "as long as such recreational use is consistent with this Act and other applicable law" (Section 5(a). As explained above, this does not mean that historic recreational activities must be authorized at the expense of threatened and endangered species. Further, Congress was not so explicit as to identify on which trails and to what extent historic recreational activities are to be authorized consistent with the Act and other applicable law. Under the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan, opportunities to "experience and enjoy the magnificent vistas, wildlife, land forms, and natural and cultural resources in these mountains and to recreate therein" are not precluded. An assertion that backcountry trail restrictions as proposed constitute "de facto closures of the Monument" (S02A-39, p. 17), contrary to the purpose of the National Monument as established by Congress is incorrect. As described elsewhere under Major Issue Response 1, of the 40 existing trails totaling 115 miles in essential bighorn sheep habitat, nine trails or trail segments totaling 27 miles, or 23 % of total existing trail mileage in essential habitat, would be subject to the seasonal permit program. Of the remaining 88 miles of trails in essential habitat, 73 miles would be available for unrestricted year-round use. No limitations would be imposed on trails outside essential habitat in the National Monument. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the intent 1-23 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan of Congress to balance recreational access with the preservation of other resource values would be achieved under the Preferred Alternative Trails Plan. The Trails Plan has been revised, as described in Major Issue Response 3, to provide for a self -issue permit with no limit on the number of available permits. Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477) granted rights -of -way for trails constructed in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains on Federal lands not reserved for public uses prior to 1976, thereby removing any further BLM discretion over the historic use of these trails. Further, public rights -of -way exist over historic Cahuilla trails. R.S. 2477 provided that "[t]he right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, nor reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) repealed RS. 2477 on October 21, 1976. However, FLPMA did not terminate any rights -of -way that previously may have been established under R.S. 2477. It is outside the scope of the Trails Plan to identify if valid RS. 2477 rights -of - way exist for any trails. Determinations of RS. 2477 rights -of -way are not a planning issue. If it is determined upon processing a claim that an R.S. 2477 right-of-way may have been established, the agency having jurisdiction over the lands underlying the asserted right-of-way must also determine the nature and extent of the rights conveyed. These conveyed rights are especially important for RS. 2477 rights -of -way that conflict with reservations for public purposes, other valid existing rights on Federal lands, or the rights of private landowners. Restricting use of a trail is not a determination that an RS. 2477 right-of-way does not exist. Such restriction does not extinguish any RS. 2477 right-of-way that may exist. Conversely, unrestricted use of a trail does mean that the trail was determined to be an R S. 2477 right-of-way. Many routes and trails that are claimed to be RS. 2477 rights -of -way came into existence with no documentation on public land records. Those which came into existence after 1866 (enactment date of RS. 2477), but before withdrawal, patent, mining claim, or reservation for a public purpose and before the passage of FLPMA, may qualify as prior valid existing rights under RS. 2477. While local government can assert an R.S. 2477 right-of-way, the Federal Government is responsible for determining whether a specific R S. 2477 right-of-way had been established and, if so, for documenting that determination to land records and to Master Title Plats. Therefore, assertion by the County of Riverside that the public has acquired rights -of -way pursuant to R.S. 2477 does not, in fact, make it so. The Draft EIR/EIS fails to reflect Congressional intent as expressed in H.R. 2966, which states: "... as a general rule, all trails, routes, and areas used by pack stock and saddle stock shall remain open and accessible for such use." H.R 2966 has passed only through the House of Representatives (on September 21, 2004) and is not yet law. Until such time that a proposed bill passes both the House of 1-24 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Representatives and the Senate, it is premature to assert that it reflects the intent of Congress. Rather, a proposed bill reflects the intent of certain members of Congress only, or in the case of the "Right -to -Ride Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2004" (H.R 2966), the intent of the House of Representatives. Immediately following the statement in H.R 2966 quoted above, Section 2(b) of the proposed Act states: "The Secretary may implement a proposed reduction in the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on [public] lands only after complying with the full review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.)." In other words, the "right -to -ride" is not absolute. Should the bill be enacted as law as currently written, it would not require that all trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains be open to pack and saddle stock animals. It only requires that any proposed restrictions be addressed in a manner consistent with NEPA. Since the Trails Plan as it relates to Federal lands is being addressed by an EIS, the intent of the House of Representatives as expressed in H.R. 2966, passed on September 21, 2004, is being met. Further, precedent established in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of 2000 supports the conclusion that Congress would not likely send a bill to the President requiring that trails, routes, and areas be open and accessible to pack and saddle stock animals with no provision allowing for restrictions to be imposed. While Section 5(a) of the National Monument Act requires that the management plan prepared for the National Monument continue to authorize such historic recreational uses as hiking and horseback riding, these activities can only be authorized "as long as such recreational use is consistent with this Act and other applicable law." An absolute requirement that all trails and areas be open to pack and saddle stock animals would be in conflict with the National Monument Act. Additional discussion regarding the National Monument Act occurs under Major Issue 1G. Summary The Draft EIR/EIS acknowledged that opportunities for the use of trails subject to the permit program would be reduced. Some comments suggest that a seasonal reduction of opportunities to use specific trails, despite available opportunities elsewhere in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, would constitute a significant loss to the hiking community. The Draft EIR/EIS stated that trail closures during the hot season, the voluntary trail avoidance program, and implementation of the permitting program would not constitute a significant restriction overall in trail use opportunities and access to open space (p. 5-96). Assertions to the contrary as herein addressed are not sufficiently compelling to warrant modification of this determination. Nevertheless, the Trails Plan has been revised, though not because impacts to recreation were deemed significant. Use restrictions under the proposed permit program and the voluntary trail avoidance program have been eliminated, and the proposed rerouting and removal of certain trails to reduce disturbance to bighorn sheep have been deferred, with exceptions, pending results of research to ascertain the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep as described in Major Issue Response 3. 1-25 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 1-26 r3 i� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 2: Science and the Proposed Restrictions on Trail Use Several comments suggested that the Trails Plan was not based on the best available science, that the Draft Plan contained no justification for the proposed restrictions on trail use, and that the scientific literature provided no support for restrictions on trail use. A commentor also claimed that the Trails Plan authors improperly cited five studies of intentional/researcher/observer harassment trials of bighorn sheep, as the studies' findings were unrelated to trail use (addressed in Part 1 of this response). Comments also suggested that none of the 50 published papers on the subject produced data or findings linking the population status of bighorn sheep to recreational trail usage (Part 2). Lastly, several commentors claimed that when human disturbance is defined as hikers on trails, available research is limited to five studies, all of which find little to no impact of hikers upon bighorn sheep (Part 3). Although studies have been conducted on the impacts of recreation on bighorn sheep and other ungulates, the responses of bighorn sheep to recreational impacts is variable and not currently well understood. Consequently, the literature available to support management recommendations for recreational trails is controversial. Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the scientific literature is the extent to which that literature does or does not address the impacts of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep in general and Peninsular bighorn sheep in particular. Despite numerous studies on short- term effects of various types of human disturbance on bighorn sheep, there remains little empirical data regarding the long-term effects of recreational trail use on populations of bighorn sheep. The lack of testing for a causal connection between recreational trail use and long-term impacts to bighorn sheep populations evidences the difficulty of studying large mammal ecology with sufficient sampling intensity and duration to account for potential confounding factors. The literature ranges from published opinions which provide no supporting data to experimental studies that tested a specific hypothesis relevant to bighorn sheep and human disturbance. The lack of focused studies that address the core question of population -level effects of recreational trail use on Peninsular bighorn sheep has allowed a wide range of interpretations of what the literature does and does not say. Deciding which past work is valid and how to properly interpret and apply it is a challenge. Another major obstacle in understanding the effects of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep is that existing knowledge gaps interject a level of uncertainty into the decision making process. In the Draft Trails Plan, the uncertainty was dealt with using a precautionary approach by restricting access to a subset of trails during the lambing season and hot season. This approach was judged to be prudent in light of the endangered status of Peninsular bighorn sheep and the decline and, in some cases extirpation, of bighorn sheep that have occurred near other growing cities in the desert southwest, including Albuquerque, Phoenix, and Tucson, and major population decline in the mountains north of the Los Angeles basin and San Gabriel Valley. The pattern of population decline adjoining human population centers prompted Krausman et al. (2001) to suggest that it is difficult for bighorn populations to persist in the presence of heavy 2-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan human activity and that aggressive management is needed, though it is likely that factors beyond human recreation also were involved in these extirpations and declines. Some human activities clearly can be detrimental to bighorn sheep, but it is important to distinguish what is detrimental and what is not. As stated by Miller and Smith (1985) 20 years ago, "in general, the feeling of bighorn managers is that they should act conservatively until there is better information on the actual effects of human activity." In response to public comments, key elements of the Trails Plan Preferred Alternative have been revised. Given the controversial nature of trails management and the limitations of the scientific literature, the MSHCP will implement an adaptive management approach to trails whereby information is gathered through management policies that are treated as experiments. This approach will emphasize a research program which, as stated in the Final Plan, "will initially focus on multi -agency scientific data gathering to evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on Peninsular bighorn sheep health, habitat selection, and long-term population dynamics. The overarching goal of this research program is to obtain empirical data from the Plan Area -to guide trails management." This research program will be coordinated with monitoring of human trail use, and will be integrated with educational and public awareness efforts, and other trail management prescriptions. This response addresses the best available science as it relates to the Trails Plan with regard to public comments regarding the Draft MSHCP and Draft EIR/EIS. Major Issue Response 3 describes the revised Trails Plan. To ensure that research is focused on the relevant questions, a problem analysis will be prepared as part of the development of a request for proposals for the research program on the impacts of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. This will involve an objective analysis of the problem that follows a forward logical path. The problem analysis ultimately decomposes a question into components and hypotheses and deduces measurable variables that have bearing on those hypotheses. The logical next step then is to analyze existing data in that context and ask what additional data would be meaningful. In so doing, such an analysis also will determine what the limits of resolution are relative to potential data and conclusions. Part of this process will involve critically examining the literature to distinguish observational studies from ones with experimental designs and critical evaluation of' study results. An important element is to evaluate whether studies began with an adequate problem analysis and derived hypotheses and tests in an objective way from that analysis. PART 1 Trails Plan was not based on the best available science and the Draft Plan contained no justification for the proposed restrictions on trail use. The scientific literature provided no support for restrictions on trail use. The science that formed the basis of the draft Trails Plan reflects the state of the science available on the effects of recreation on bighorn sheep. In developing the draft Trails Plan, it became apparent that most studies of the effects of recreation on wildlife (especially bighorn sheep) were plagued by the common problems associated with recreation and wildlife studies (Knight and Cole 1995; Taylor and Knight 2003): 2-2� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ambiguous terminology, comparisons using inconsistent methodology, inadequate study duration, inadequate controls or replication, and inadequate treatment of potentially confounding factors. For example, in a review of the wildlife literature to describe the behavioral responses of wildlife to recreation, Taylor and Knight (2003) found inconsistencies in the methods used to address specific research questions (e.g., whether animals were approached directly or tangentially, and whether the approach was continuous or interrupted (see Papouchis et al. 2001). These seemingly minor differences in methodology may dramatically influence the selection of analysis techniques as well as the interpretation of study results. In some cases the published article may essentially contain no more than the opinion of the author. Therefore, in reviewing the literature related to recreational trail use and bighorn sheep, it was also necessary to consider each study's strength of inference, or in other words, the study's ability to provide support for the conclusions it drew. For each study considered, the duration of the study, experimental design, handling of potentially confounding factors, and the use of adequate controls and replication all needed to be evaluated. Ultimately, the available literature was also considered in conjunction with expert opinion to develop the draft Trails Plan. It is important to realize that although publications regarding the effects of recreation on bighorn sheep extend over the past 70 years, the standards and techniques of wildlife science have improved in recent years, with an increasing emphasis on quantitative, manipulative studies, and decreasing reliance on anecdotal information and observational studies. This is not to discount the value of observational data. Observational data play an essential part of the scientific process, as they provide a means to quantitatively describe a pattern (Manly 1992), which is an important step in developing testable hypotheses (Quinn and Keogh 2002). Natural, but uncontrolled, experiments can provide as useful data as purposeful experiments in some situations. However, when evaluating observational studies, it is essential to consider whether appropriate controls, baseline data, or replication were incorporated into the study, and how these factors may affect the conclusions of the study. The research design should reduce the affect of confounding factors to the extent possible. It is also important to recognize, however, that in field research on ecological systems, controlling for these factors may be difficult or impossible. The literature reviewed for the draft Trails Plan was not restricted to studies that examined relationships between bighorn sheep and recreational use of trails. In order to glean all information possible from the literature, it is necessary to consider results from studies of similar topics (e.g., various types of human disturbance) and similar species (e.g., other ungulates). However, it is also necessary to critically review study results from other species, study areas, or generalized topics with attention to ecological or geographic differences that are limited in their relevance to bighorn sheep. For example, studies conducted on bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada may not be directly applicable to the Peninsular Ranges because of differences in the amount of available escape terrain, limits on human use of trails, trail density, and the juxtaposition of the trails, escape terrain, humans, etc. Still, for example, despite a short study duration and the lack of a control or baseline data, Hicks and Elder (1979) identified several factors that influenced how Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep responded to disturbance and these factors are 2-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan expected to be similar for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. Another example of this principle is the study by King and Workman (1986). These authors compared responses of hunted and unhunted populations of bighorn sheep to intentional human disturbance (hikers and vehicles). The responses of the hunted population are expected to be more severe (87% of encounters for the hunted population resulted in bighorn fleeing) than the expected response of Peninsular bighorn sheep; however, their data on the unhunted population (43% of encounters resulted in bighorn fleeing) is useful for understanding how Peninsular sheep may respond to disturbance. A clear cause -and -effect link between trail use and reduced bighorn sheep fitness (defined as survival and reproduction) and population levels does not exist. Studies of appropriate duration and design have not been attempted to establish this link. Nonetheless, the scientific literature does provide some support for the premise that recreational use of sensitive bighorn sheep habitat (particularly during lambing and hot seasons) may negatively affect bighorn sheep (Horejsi 1976; Graham 1980; Stemp 1983; Miller and Smith 1985; Etchberger et al. 1989; Krausman et al. 2001; Papouchis et al. 2001). Researchers have determined that, under certain circumstances, human recreation may temporarily displace bighorn sheep, disrupt foraging which may reduce nutrient acquisition, and cause uncertain levels of stress. However, uncertainty remains where the long-term effects on bighorn sheep populations are concerned. As described in the PBS Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000) for Peninsular bighorn sheep, excessive disturbance may reduce an animal's conception or reproductive abilities indirectly by disrupting optimal feeding and ruminating cycles (Wagner 2000) and consequently reduce the nutritional condition of the animal. Ewes that fail to acquire adequate energy reserves may fail to conceive (Wehausen 1984) or they may produce small offspring with a poor chance of survival (Price and White 1985). Etchberger and Krausman (1999) found that the reproductive success of ruminants was related to the mother's body weight, access to resources, quality of home range, and age. When resources are scarce, ewes have been found to reduce care of lambs to favor their own nutritional requirements over the lamb's development (Fiesta-Bianchet and Jorgensen 1996). The unanswered question is the extent to which these impacts have long-term effects on bighorn sheep populations. The extent to which recreational use of trails may result in habitat fragmentation or loss in bighorn sheep habitat also needs to be further evaluated. Evidence of bighorn sheep avoiding trails in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains was reported by Osterman (2001). Etchberger et al. (1989) found that habitat used by desert bighorn sheep in the Santa Catalina Mountains was twice as far from human disturbance as habitat that had been abandoned by bighorn sheep. However, these authors also found that the habitat used by the remaining sheep had characteristics that made it better bighorn habitat and that lack of fires may have been a factor in the habitat selection. The study was not conclusive as to whether interactions with humans played a role in. habitat use patterns and the demise of that population. Papouchis et al. (2001) also documented habitat loss through avoidance behavior in certain situations. For another species, a well -designed experimental study of antelope (Antilocapra americana) found groups of antelope were significantly farther from trails in years with recreational use than in the year before recreational use (Fairbanks and Tullous 2002). 2-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan In examining the scientific evidence on whether recreation (hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding) is a disturbance to bighorn sheep and what the long-term and population level effects of this disturbance may be, it is critical to recognize the complexity and difficulty of studying and quantifying these effects. Although disturbance from recreation is not generally recognized as a major influence on bighorn sheep population dynamics, many biologists have expressed concern over the effect of recreation in bighorn sheep habitat (Weaver and Light 1973; Stemp 1983; Etchberger et al.1989; USFWS 2000; Krausman et al. 2001; Papouchis et al. 2003). Even researchers who reported that human recreation was not adversely affecting bighorn sheep in their study area (Hicks and Elder 1979) recommended for the Mt. Baxter area in the Sierra Nevada, that managers "continue current regulations (the maximum Bighorn Zoological Area limit of 25 hikers per day) with increased restrictions on off -trail hiking and alteration of the Baxter Pass trail to route people away from areas intensely used by sheep." Flather and Cordell (2001) stated, "The fact that outdoor recreation is dispersed over large areas has undoubtedly contributed to the perception that it has little environmental impact compared to extractive uses of natural resources such as timber harvesting or livestock grazing. Given the growing number of outdoor recreationists ... the notion that recreation has no environmental impact is no longer tenable." It is clear that rigorous, scientific investigations of the impacts of recreation on wildlife are lacking (Knight and Cole 1995; Taylor and Knight 2003). However, it is also clear that that human population in the CV is increasing and the number of recreationists will also increase. Based on these concerns and a review of the scientific literature, the Draft Trails Plan recommended a precautionary approach of restricting recreation during biologically sensitive periods (e.g., lambing season and the hot season), particularly given the endangered species status of Peninsular bighorn sheep. Developing a logical and biologically meaningful trails management plan for bighorn sheep in any area requires a basic understanding of three key elements. The first is knowledge of the habitat requirements of bighorn sheep in general. The second is knowledge of the habitat and its use as it relates to the requirements of individual male and female bighorn sheep. The third is knowledge of how sheep react or interact with trail users. With these understandings, it is possible to begin to determine how human activity may influence, or at times, disrupt an individual bighorn's use of its habitat and to what degree that disruption may impact the life cycle of an individual or threaten its existence. PART 2 Some individuals suggested that none of the 50 published papers regarding bighorn sheep and human disturbance were able to link the population of bighorn sheep (assume the comments meant population number of bighorn sheep) to trail usage. As noted above, none of these research projects were designed to detect long-term population effects or involved an experimental design of sufficient duration to provide definitive conclusions. The Trails Plan did not state or infer that recreational trail use was the main parameter influencing bighorn sheep population numbers. The October 2004 2-5 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Draft Plan and EIR/EIS cited habitat loss as the main threat to PBS. Predation by mountain lions (DeForge et al. 1997; Hayes et al. 2000), disease (DeForge and Scott 1982; DeForge et al. 1995; USFWS 2000), and urbanization (DeForge and Ostermann 1998; Ostermann et al. 2001) are also recognized as having important influences on bighorn sheep population dynamics. Recreational activity is ultimately just one of many cumulative factors affecting bighorn sheep that a comprehensive conservation strategy such as an HCP must address. PART 3 Several commentors stated that when human disturbance is defined as hikers on trails, available research is limited to five studies, and that all five studies found little to no impact of hikers upon bighorn sheep. In response to this comment, each of these five studies is summarized and evaluated below. The implication that substantial levels of cross-country hiking does not occur in the Plan area is unsupported in light of the numerous trails bisecting bighorn habitat that could not have formed without repeated cross-country use, have proliferated over the years, and are not recognized on existing trails maps. The hillsides above the cities along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains have extensive networks of unauthorized trails leading up numerous ridgelines and emanating from various neighborhoods. Wehausen, J. D., L. L. Hicks, D. Garber, and J. Elder. 1977. Bighorn sheep management in the Sierra Nevada. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 21:30-32. Wehausen et al. reconsidered and refined hypotheses developed by Dunaway (1971) regarding bighorn sheep and human disturbance in the Sierra Nevada. Wehausen et al. tested the hypotheses that (1) bighorn sheep cannot tolerate repeated human presence and abandon use of areas receiving regular human use, and (2) frequent human encounters significantly affect the yearly nutrient budget of bighorn due to disrupted feeding patterns and energy expended in flight. The authors tested these hypotheses by observing bighorn sheep and hiker interactions (n = 10) on Baxter Pass, and by monitoring recruitment for 2 years. Results indicated that "[w]hile bighorn activity patterns were clearly influenced by frequent encounters with hikers on Baxter Pass, it is apparent that this influence is not extreme and that no permanent spatial displacement is occurring", therefore the first hypothesis was rejected. Data obtained on reproductive success suggested that the energetic costs associated with responding to human disturbance did not affect bighorn sheep reproductive success; therefore, the second hypothesis was also refuted. Wehausen et al. cautioned that results from this study could not be extrapolated to a situation of substantial increase in human use of the Baxter Pass area, and it should not be applied to other herds without data suggesting that sheep reactions to humans parallel those of the Baxter herd. In light of the findings of this study, Wehausen et al. concluded that the existing restrictions on public use in the Bighorn Sheep Zoological Areas were not entirely appropriate. 2-6 �Y Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Evaluation: The paper evaluated the hypothesis that human disturbance has been a significant adverse influence on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep population. It also described a process of making timely management decisions with respect to bighorn sheep, based on development of a hypothesis, testing of that hypothesis, and altering "management in accordance with the results of such testing" (Wehausen et al. 1977). The Wehausen et al. study did not attempt to present baseline data on bighorn use of Baxter Pass in the absence of human disturbance to conclusively test the hypothesis that bighorn sheep abandon habitat that receives regular human use. As has been shown by Papouchis et al. (2001), not all bighorn sheep within a population respond similarly to disturbance. Whittaker and Knight (1998) cautioned against labeling individuals or populations as habituated based on the behavioral responses of a few animals. Wehausen et al. were able to demonstrate that human use of Baxter Pass did not cause immediate or complete abandonment of the area by bighorn sheep; however their results were not presented as evidence of "no effect" from hiking, as suggested by commentor. The authors cautioned the reader on the generality of their conclusions. Other factors to consider when interpreting the results of this study are that limits on recreation (a permit system with quotas, no off -trail use) were already in place before the study, and that the topography of Baxter Pass contains much escape terrain. Both MacArthur (1982) and Wehausen (1983) suggested that the slope and/or topography of the habitat influence how bighorn sheep respond to disturbance. As for testing their second hypothesis, Wehausen et al. concluded that human disturbance was not causing any overt decreases in reproductive success. However, the study was of short duration, lacked a control population or scenario for testing this hypothesis and did not account for confounding factors such as climate, nutrition, and predation, which may exert important influences on reproductive success. It should be noted that this study is best viewed as part of the larger picture of research in the Sierra Nevada in that time period. Research in the Sierra Nevada employed a clear problem analysis on the question of behavioral interactions with humans prior to data collection. In a later paper Wehausen (1980) presented data spanning numerous years, including pertinent demographic data and a statistical model that indicated that population dynamics were driven largely by environmental variation. Hicks, L. L. and J. M. Elder. 1979. Human Disturbance of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:909-915. Hicks and Elder conducted this study after Dunaway (1971) concluded that disturbance by humans was the most important factor limiting populations of bighorn in the Sierra Nevada and the California Bighorn Sheep Zoological Area was established in 1971. The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the amount of overlap in current use by humans and bighorn, (2) the nature and extent of the interactions, and (3) whether the interactions have a deleterious effect on bighorn. The study was conducted from May to August 1976 and "coincided with the peak periods of activity of both humans and sheep" (Hicks and Elder 1979). Direct observations of sheep and people, pellet transects and hiker interviews were used to assess overlap in areas of use and the nature of the interactions. 2-7 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan "Our observations of the Mt. Baxter sheep indicate that the herd is not declining due to recreational use of the area.....Intrusions into bighorn areas were transitory since the purpose was to travel through the area or see some feature, such as peaks or bighorns, and then depart. Areas of frequent contact were limited to specific areas, such as the Baxter Pass trail; and the bighorn sheep did not seem to be affected adversely. Bighorns continued to return to Baxter Pass despite repeated encounters with humans, and have become conditioned to hikers on the Baxter Pass trail....The results of this study were based on the current hiker use of the Bighorn Zoological Area limit of 25 per day. Increased recreational use might adversely affect bighorns in the Mt. Baxter area. Light and Weaver (unpublished, USFS, SBNF, California) found that intense recreational activity reduced desert - bighorn occupancy of an area in the San Gabriel Mountains of southern California," Evaluation: While this study provides useful descriptions of encounters between bighorn and humans, in general the remarks are unsupported by the methodology. The concluding remarks need to be evaluated in the context of the methodology. Hicks and Elder were able to verify that bighorn sheep did not completely abandon Baxter Pass when it was subjected to moderate human use. The study did not account for confounding factors and did not measure bighorn use of this area both with and without human use. The authors did not conclude that human use of the trail had no effect on bighorn sheep but rather that "humans and bighorns in the Mt Baxter summer range usually are separated spatially," and that "the overall distribution of bighorns was related positively to food resources and not negatively to human presence and use." They did not discuss the possibility that the observation of spatial separation is evidence that bighorn avoidance/habitat loss had already occurred. As noted above, Hicks and Elder did recommend that current regulations on hiking continue and suggests that "Increased recreational use might adversely affe;,t bighorns in the Mt. Baxter area." The statement that all solitary ewes and 4 of 9 sheep groups "may have left the pass because of disturbance to humans" contradicts the later statement "hiker foot -trails did not affect sheep movements in the summer range." It important to evaluate this paper and the issues related to impacts to bighorn sheep in the Baxter Pass area in the larger perspective of habitat available to those sheep. It is the only location for that entire summer range where female sheep might encounter people frequently enough to result in permanent displacement_ .In the final analysis, the facts that sheep were coming to that area regularly despite human use, and that the vast majority of their summer range lacked similar human use, limits the potential for :human interactions to have more than a very minor influence on the population, if any. Similar to Hicks and Elder, Leslie and Douglas (1980) documented that some sheep tolerated human disturbance; however, through the use of radio -collared animals Leslie and Douglas also documented an avoidance reaction by a portion of the bighorn population. However, the Leslie and Douglas study involved a sudden change in human activities around a desert water source, thus was not a completely analogous situation. The authors provided short-term data (high lamb:ewe ratios for the current year and a lack of diseased animals) to support their conclusion that "bighorn -human 2-8 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan encounters were limited to specific locations and were not adversely affecting the bighorn population." Because their study did not incorporate marked animals, Hicks and Elder were not able to determine if a proportion of the bighorn population avoided Baxter Pass. Data -supported conclusions and information to draw from this study: 1. Distance, herd size, and elevation of humans in relation to sheep were important in determining the reaction of bighorn when approached by people. 2. Groups of rams may react to human disturbance differently than groups of ewes, lambs and yearlings. 3. Hicks and Elder (1979) provide an example of differing bighorn responses to human disturbance with light to moderate human -use (without dogs). 4. Sheep did not completely abandon habitat adjacent to a moderately used human trail, although the study was not able to determine the variation in bighorn sheep responses to trail use. It is unknown whether some bighorn sheep abandoned the area. Purdy and Shaw. 1981. An Analysis of Recreational Use Patterns in Desert Bighorn Habitat: the Pusch Ridge Wilderness Case. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 25:1-5. The objectives of this study were to: (1) Determine numbers and activities of recreators; (2) determine preferences and perceptions regarding resources and management of Pusch Ridge Wilderness (PRW) for individuals using specific areas; (3) estimate numbers of recreators using lower portions of several specific canyons; (4) determine degree of interaction between recreators and bighorn sheep in PRW; and (5) assess recreational impacts on bighorn sheep in PRW and develop management recommendations. Photoelectric trail traffic counters, unmanned survey stations, self-administered questionnaires, telephone surveys, and direct observations were used to meet the objectives. "...the majority of respondents felt as if their activities in PRW had little, if any, effect on the sheep... [G]iven a hypothetical situation of a declining sheep population... [and] four possible courses of action concerning restrictions of recreational use... [reepponses indicated a preference for mandatory restrictions of recreational use in specified bighorn habitat areas during certain periods of the year ... The intensities of recreational activities in most lower canyons over the past years have probably precluded bighorn sheep use of these areas... Activities of backcountry users would appear to pose the greatest threats to bighorn... Behavior of bighorn sheep towards humans appears to be a reflection of the way humans behave towards sheep. If disturbances continue, sheep may completely abandon habitat near recreational areas ... PRW user -education could be extremely useful for increasing awareness regarding the needs of the bighorn sheep... The major emphasis... should be placed on discouraging the following activities: (1) cross- country travel in backeountry areas, (2) camping near wildlife water catchments, and (3) traveling with dogs in backcountry regions ... The long-term future of desert bighorn in PRW is by no means secure. Until a better understanding of the biological parameters of the population is obtained and the effects of increasing human use of its habitat can be determined, management should take basic precautions against recreational overuse of 2-9 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan sheep habitat. At this time, stringent restrictive use measures do not appear appropriate. However, the following recommendations are made as safeguards...: 1. Continue to monitor trail traffic... in order to obtain long-term indications of total canyon use. 2. Provide backcountry users ... with information... to increase users' level of knowledge -of bighorn sheep in PRW... to make visitors aware of the possible consequences of activities in bighorn habitat ... 3. Enforce existing regulations against camping within 1/4 mile of wildlife water catchments... 4. Provide no improvements of backcountry trails... in order to maintain low volumes of backcountry use. 5. Obtain accurate PRW bighorn population data including numbers, health, productivity, lambing areas, distribution, resource utilization, and seasonal movements. 6. Use information from recommendation 5 as data base for monitoring the physiological and behavioral effects of recreational use on bighorn sheep in PRW. Evaluation: It is important to note that this study was primarily focused on describing and evaluating recreational use of the PRW and attitudes and beliefs of recreational users about the value of bighorn sheep and the impacts of their recreational use on bighorn sheep. The study also addressed the opinions of trail users regarding recreational use restrictions with a hypothetical declining bighorn population. It was not a study of the impacts of recreational trail use on bighorn sheep. Therefore, this paper could not be used to conclude that there is "little to no impact of hikers upon bighorn sheep" (Comment K02-70). Interestingly, the study found that when respondents were given a hypothetical situation of a declining bighorn sheep population in PRW, "responses indicated a preference for mandatory restrictions of recreational use in specified bighorn habitat areas during certain periods of the year. The second most popular alternative was voluntary restriction." The authors stated that "[t]he majority of users are lower canyon visitors and appear to present little threat of bighorn disturbances." The authors did not provide data to support this statement. The authors speculated that "the intensities of recreational activities in most lower canyons over the past years have probably precluded bighorn sheep use in these areas." Therefore, the authors are suggesting there is little threat of bighorn disturbance in lower canyons because the habitat was probably already abandoned. No data were provided to support the speculations that: (1) habitat was abandoned due to human use, or (2) that lower canyon visitors appear to present little threat of bighorn disturbance. They also stated that "while less than 10% of total users can be considered backcountry visitors, their activities and lengths of stay may pose a greater threat to bighorns." As stated by the authors in their conclusion, "the results of this study should provide managers with a basic understanding of the recreational uses and users of bighorn habitat in PRW, consequently laying a groundwork for further investigations concerning the physiological/behavioral effects of this use upon bighorn sheep." The management recommendations they provided (see above) appear to suggest that potential impacts to bighorn sheep should be addressed in part by educational 2-10 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan information for trail users and limitations to backcountry access and that further study is needed. Hamilton, K., S. A. Holl, and C. L. Douglas. 1982. An Evaluation of the Effects of Recreational Activity on Bighorn Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 26:50-55. Hamilton et al. conducted this study in the San Gabriel Mountains after Light (1971) concluded that heavy human was excluding bighorn from high quality habitat and Weaver and Light (1973) developed a set of guidelines to minimize bighomlhuman interactions. Hamilton et al. attempted to test the hypothesis that sheep were abandoning areas of heavy human use by determining (1) whether the presence of people was adversely affecting bighorn use of a point (or localized) resource like a mineral lick, and (2) whether the high number of hikers on foot -trails in sheep summer range caused abandonment of nearby habitat. The authors concluded that "To date there is no evidence that sheep have shifted mineral lick use to a time when fewer people are in the canyon, nor is there evidence that the duration of a visit to the Narrows lick is less than the duration of lick use per visit at an undisturbed lick. Correlations between the number of people in the canyon and the number of sheep using the lick were insignificant, but the frequency of people traveling in the vicinity of and directly upstream from the lick did have an effect on lick use. It would appear that bighorn have adapted to the presence of people in the canyon by waiting until the lick was free of disturbance before using it, but otherwise were not disturbed by the presence of people." They did note, however, that "the frequency with which people crossed it (the lick) did have an effect. Bighorn never were observed using the lick when people were at the lick or directly upstream from it." Also, as described in the Draft Implementation Strategy to Restore the San Gabriel Mountains Bighorn Sheep Population (March 2004, unpublished report CDFG, Los Angeles County Fish and Game Commission, US Forest Service), "Hamilton et al. compared the distribution of bighorn sheep along a heavily used trail (Devil's Backbone Trail; 6,401 summer visitors) and a lightly used trail (Cucamonga Peak Trail; 24 summer visitors). An evaluation of the distance 36 groups of bighorn sheep was observed from the trails failed to identify a significant difference." Use of trails in sheep summer range did not appear to cause avoidance of nearby habitat. Evaluation: Through simple linear regression analyses, Hamilton et al. found evidence of temporal resource partitioning at the Narrows Lick (i.e., bighorn were never observed using the lick when people were present or for the following 60 minutes after people left the lick area. The frequency of people crossing the lick was negatively correlated with sheep use of the lick). The results of this comparison of the timing of sheep use of two different licks led the authors to conclude that "bighorn did not avoid the lick, they used it only when no humans were in the immediate vicinity." The study does not provide a completely conclusive test of whether sheep use was altered by human use because the authors did not account for confounding factors (weather, group size, bighorn age/sex, slope, aspect, vegetation, terrain roughness, viewsheds, etc.). The Draft Implementation Strategy for the San Gabriel mountains referenced above concluded from Hamilton et al. and Leslie and Douglas (1980) that "these studies demonstrate that recreation can result 2-11 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in bighorn sheep avoiding these point resources; therefore, disturbance should be avoided or minimized at mineral licks." The comparison of sheep distances from the Cucamonga Peak Trail and Devil's Backbone Trail may not be a valid comparison. The authors described stark differences in terrain/vegetation/visibility surrounding the two trails but did not address the .influence of these differences in their conclusion. Given these differences in visibility, etc., there is no reason to expect bighorn use of habitat surrounding the trails to be similar. Therefore, the authors cannot use a comparison of bighorn use of two trails to conclude that recreational use of trails in sheep summer range did not appear to cause avoidance of nearby habitat. The authors did note, however, that the actual levels of recreational use in the area were probably higher in that estimates of use "were based on records from trail head registers and not everyone using the trail may have registered." An accurate test of hypothesis 2 proposed by Hamilton et al. would require comparing bighorn use of habitat with and without human presence while controlling or accounting for confounding factors. Although Hamilton et al. did not discuss the implications of their evidence for temporal resource partitioning; this is clearly a significant finding from their study. Similar evidence of bighorn exhibiting temporal or spatial resource partitioning of a localized resource (water source) in response to human use or disturbance were reported by Jorgensen (1974), Leslie and Douglas (1980), and Campbell and Remington (1981). Another factor to consider with the San Gabriel Mountains sheep is that this population has declined dramatically in recent years for unknown reasons. It has been hypothesized that fire suppression and increased mountain lion predation are to blame (Roll et al. 2004), but there are no cause -specific mortality data to support this speculation. The indirect effects of heavy human -use of the area should be considered as a potential contributing factor to the population decline. As Stemp (1983) discussed, the consequences of stressing bighorn sheep (e.g., habitat use shifts, reduced fitness, increased susceptibility to disease, etc.) may be delayed. Data -supported conclusions and information to draw from this study: 1. Hamilton et al. found evidence of bighorn sheep exhibiting temporal resource partitioning of a mineral lick in response to human use of the lick. 2. Sheep did not completely abandon habitat adjacent to a highly used human trail, 3. Additional research would be required to expand on the results of and address the limitations of this study. Wehausen, J. 2000. Locations of Human Interface with Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Unpublished report. 3 pp. Mount Langley herd. "...the sheep show a high degree of habituation... and have not been displaced from habitat. The habitat here is very open and sheep are very unlikely to be surprised at short range by humans." Mount Williamson herd, "In the 1970's I recorded a number of occasions in which the sheep in this herd reacted particularly strongly to my presence ... The result is 2-12 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan that the initial very restrictive closure of this area to human use has been largely maintained." Mount Baxter herd. "The original closures were very restrictive and were relaxed as a result of the initial research we did there ... There is no evident conflict here, nor was there a problem when the sheep were more numerous." Wheeler Ridge population. "...these sheep are very habituated to human use there and no conflict exists ... Given how readily these sheep habituate to human use that is geographically predictable, it is unlikely that a conflict will develop." Lee Vining Herd. "The sheep —have shown very high habituation to the frequent human use there." "The question is whether influences of humans are limiting population growth rates and the ultimate sizes that bighorn populations can reach... A historical perspective is very useful... For instance, the Mount Baxter herd was a large and productive population through the mid 1980s under summer human use similar to and perhaps somewhat greater than at present. It would be difficult to argue that human use is a problem today given this historical information, unless that use has increased or changed in some other meaningful way... Efforts to recover these sheep need to focus on the primary factors affecting population dynamics and not place emphasis on factors like human disturbance that appear to be at most very minor influences. A useful exercise relative to the question of human disturbance would be to map human use patterns by intensity and changes over time to look for areas that might be of concern because of increasing trends." Evaluation: The reference to and discussion of Wehausen (2000) in the Draft Trails Plan has been removed from the Final Plan. The author has pointed out that this paper was written solely to the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Recovery Team and was not intended for use outside that group. It included observations and opinions based on the author's many years of experience. The paper was not a report on experimental studies and it was not intended to present data or to be considered in the context of a research study. The criteria or methodology for classifying bighorn populations as habituated was not provided. No quantification of human use or bighorn use of trail areas was provided. In this regard, the reference to this paper by several of the comment letters is probably not appropriate in relation to Peninsular bighorn sheep, according to the author (Wehausen, pers. comm., August 2005). 2-13 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 2-14 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Issue Response 3 Revised Trials Plan The Trails Plan for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area was the subject of many comment letters received from the public. These comments included letters submitted to CVAG as well as comments made in person at one of the public hearings on the MSHCP held between November 2004 and January 2005. Approximately one-third of the comments received on the MSHCP were comments on the Trails Plan. In response to these comments, the Lead Agencies (CVAG, USFWS) worked with CDFG and BLM to address some of the concerns raised by trail users regarding restrictions on trail use and other elements of the Trails Plan. After careful review and consideration, a revised Proposed Trails Plan has been considered consisting of elements of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS. The description of the Trails Plan alternatives is presented in the Draft EIR/EIS in Section 2.5.7.4.1 (Preferred Alternative) and Section 2.12.1 for the other three alternatives analyzed (See Table 2-14 in Section 2.12.1 for summary of all four alternatives). The Trails Plan alternatives analysis is presented in Section 5 of the Draft EIR/EIS. Table 5-1 presents a comparison of the Trails Plan Alternatives. This table is presented below, incorporating the Revised Preferred Alternative, now referred to as the Proposed Trails Plan. As the table illustrates, the revised alternative consists of elements from each of the analyzed alternatives presented in the Draft EIR/EIS. The Final EIR/EIS includes the project description for the revised Trails Plan in Section 2.5.7.3.2.2 and the analysis of the revised Trails Plan in Section 5. The revised Trails Plan is presented in the Final MSHCP in Section 7.3.3.2. The Trails Plan in the Draft MSHCP took a precautionary approach to trails management in Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat. The public comments brought to light concerns about whether the effects of recreational trail use in Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat are understood well enough to make management decisions. In response to public comments, the approach to trails management has been revised in the Final Plan to one of Adaptive Management with a research emphasis, where learning is placed as the highest priority. The revised trails plan emphasizes research on the effects of trail use on bighorn sheep and monitoring of human use on trails and bighorn sheep populations. As stated in Section 7.3.3.2.1 of the Final Plan, "the trails management program in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area has adopted an Adaptive Management approach. The Trails Plan will initially focus on multi -agency scientific data gathering to evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on Peninsular bighorn sheep health, habitat selection, and long-term population dynamics. The overarching goal of this research program is to obtain empirical data from the Plan Area to guide trails management." The research and monitoring were elements of the Draft Plan. Trails will remain open all year (not including three trails which will be closed during the hot season) except if closed in accordance with the research methodology. The focus of the research program will be on trails which affect bighorn sheep lambing habitat; this list of trails may be adjusted as the research study design is developed. This research may include manipulation or limitation of use levels or closures on selected trails as an element of the study design to address specific hypothesis -based research questions. While changes to the Trails Plan have been made to respond to comments from the public, there are also provisions which have been added to provide for management of trails if sheep population levels reach specified thresholds. 3-1 1_1 , AW 0 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Revised Table 5-1 I ''n "pari.con of Trails Plan Alternatives Alt A Alt B Revised Alt. B Alt. C Alt D Alternative Proposed Proposed No Action Action/Preferred Trails Plan Alternative Alternative Open year- 31 trails 31 trails 35 trails 18 trails 40 trails round Seasonal trail 2/ 15 1115 n/a 1/1 n/a program to to to 6/30 6/30 6/30 Voluntary 15 trails 6 trails, n/a n/a n/a avoidance 2/15-6/30 1/15-6/30 program Permit n/a 9 trails, 11 trails, year-round n/a n/a Program 1/15-6/30 mandatory self -issue 2,300 individual & permit; no limit on 50 group permits permits available Closures, none none none 26 trails, none lambin� except as part of 1/1-6/30 season Research Program Hot season 4 trails, 4 trails, 3 trails 21 trails, none limits, voluntary closure 3 closure closure 7/1-9/301 avoidance Cross- voluntary prohibited, prohibited, prohibited, none country travel avoidance, 1/15-9/30 1/1 - 9/30 year-round limits 2/15-9/30 allowed 10/1 — 12/31 Camping voluntary prohibited, prohibited, prohibited, none limits, avoidance, 1/15-9/30 1/1 - 9/30 year-round 2/15-9/30 allowed 10/1— 12/31 Entry allowed in 4 allowed in 4 allowed in 2 allowed in generally not with dogs locations locations locations' 3 locations restricted Murray Hill retained retained retained removed retained facilities Does not include the Carrizo Canyon Trail which is closed per CDF order from January 1 through June 14, and closed per California Code of Regulations (CCR) from June 15 through September 30. , Camping is prohibited under all alternatives within 1/4 mile of wildlife water sources. Carrizo Canyon and Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserves are closed to camping (CCR, Title 14 Section 430). 3 The northern Schey Trail, which connects Cat Canyon with the Art Smith Trail and which was included in the list of hot season closures in the Draft Plan, will be changed. A portion of the trail will be incorporated by the proposed Hopalong Cassidy perimeter trail, and a portion of the trail will be decommissioned and removed in actions taken separate from the Trails Plan and MSHCP (See Section 7.3.3.2.1 of the Final Plan). 4 Identification of two areas for entry with dogs instead of four areas as indicated in the Draft Plan is a correction. Only three dog areas were identified in the Draft Plan; the additional dog area south of La Quinta Cove was listed in the Draft Plan as occurring outside Essential Habitat for bighorn sheep and outside the SRSJM Conservation Area, but was erroneously counted in the table that compared Trails Plan alternatives. The proposal for a dog use area in the Andreas Hills has been modified (See Section 2.5.7.3.2.2 of the Final EIR/EIS). 3-2 s . 0 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan A number of comments expressed concern that statistically valid data on human trail use were not available. The Draft and Final versions of the Trails Plan include a monitoring program to gather data on human use of trails. The monitoring of trail use would use a statistically valid protocol developed by CDFG. and USFWS biologists and statisticians, with input from BLM and CVCC. A mandatory year-round self -issue permit system would also be implemented on selected trails (see Section 7.3.3.2.1) to provide data on trail use. The monitoring program will also increase the population level monitoring of bighorn sheep for the first five to seven years to gather data on distribution, abundance, recruitment, survival, and cause -specific mortality. Intensive monitoring will continue until the results from the research program are complete and the trails management program is revised to incorporate the results and recommendations from both the research and monitoring, as described in Section 7.3.3.2.1 of the Final Plan. The elements of the revised Trails Plan are within the framework of the analysis completed in the Draft EIR/EIS for the range of alternatives identified in Table 5-1.The revisions incorporated in the Final MSHCP are consistent with the goals set out for the Trails Plan in Section 2.5.7.4.1 of the Draft EIR/EIS. The Trails Plan for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains is designed to meet two primary goals as follows: Goal 1: Minimize the risk of potential adverse impacts to bighorn sheep from recreational activities. Goal 2: Provide recreational opportunities throughout the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains for hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers that are consistent with recovery of bighorn sheep. The eight elements of the revised Trails Plan and the way they are addressed in. the alternatives analysis in the Draft EIRIEIS are reviewed in the following paragraphs. These elements are summarized in Table 5-1 a. The revised Trails Plan in Element 1 provides for "use of existing trails in bighorn sheep habitat areas which will remain open all year." This element was analyzed under all Alternatives. The list of trails that will remain open all year under this element in the Final Plan is expanded to include trails that were subject to the proposed permit and voluntary avoidance programs in the Draft Plan, excluding those that would be subject to hot season closures. The revised Trails Plan does include a provision that "As part of the research program, some of the trails listed below may be subject to manipulation of trail use levels —including increases, decreases, or, prohibitions of use altogether —to determine the effects of recreational trail use on Peninsular bighorn sheep." Manipulation of trail use under a research program was addressed in Alternatives B and C in the Draft Plan. The potential manipulation of trail use is consistent with the goals and objectives and is not expected to have a significant impact on recreational use (see Major Issue Response 1). Many of the comment letters recommended that more research be done to evaluate the relationship between Peninsular bighorn sheep populations and trail use. Element 2 of the revised Trails Plan provides for: "initiation in Plan year 1 of a research program designed to ascertain bighorn sheep response to, and any significant adverse 3-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan impacts from, recreational trail use in the Santa. Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. This research may include manipulation or limitation of use levels or closures on selected trails as an element of the study design to address specific hypothesis -based research questions." The research program was analyzed as part of Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIR/EIS. The revised Trails Plan allows those trails that would be the subject of the research program to remain open all year except as dictated by the research study design; keeping these trails open all year with no limits on the amount of use was analyzed under Alternative D. The revised Trails Plan also incorporates a process to address declines in the sheep population and thresholds for initiation of management action if the number of ewes drops below identified levels. These thresholds are described under Element 7. The research program will be part of an Adaptive Management approach whereby data from the research, including interim feedback, will be integrated in a revised public use and trails management program. This approach is consistent with the Trails Plan goals and objectives, as well as the overall approach to management for the MSHCP. With respect to the research program, some comments addressed concerns about the proposed research program, the objectivity of the potential researchers, and the questions identified for this program. Some commentors made suggestions about the research program. The complete description of the research program for bighorn sheep and trails is presented in Section 8.5.1 of the Plan. This section has been revised and updated in the Final Plan to provide for the completion of a problem analysis and to more thoroughly describe how feedback from the initial trails research program will be incorporated in the Trails Plan. The problem analysis will take the question of human disturbance and break it into its components and the potential implications of these components. This problem analysis will be prepared by CVCC, BLM, USFWS, and CDFG with input from independent scientists, prior to preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP). The revision to Section 8.5.1 also includes a delineation of how the research program will be implemented and completed in years one through seven of Plan implementation. Specific tasks and the roles and responsibilities in implementation of this program are provided in Appendix II, which has been added to the Final Plan. A number of comment letters question the reliability of the trail use data provided in the Draft EIR/EIS. While the data presented in the Draft EIR/EIS represented best available data at the time, the Draft Plan also provided for a monitoring program to track human use of selected trails. Element 3 provides for "gathering of data on human trail use, primarily on trails within sensitive bighorn sheep lambing habitat and other trails as appropriate." The monitoring of human use levels on trails was analyzed under Alternatives B and C. As recommended by a number of the comment letters, the revised Trails Plan will include a mandatory self -issue permit system for selected trails which will help gather data on human use of trails. The year-round permit program will affect 11 trails or trail segments, nine of which were subject to the seasonal permit program in the Draft Plan and two of which were subject to the previously proposed voluntary trails avoidance program. Element 3 also addresses ongoing monitoring of bighorn sheep populations which will be expanded to include regular monitoring of the distribution, abundance, recruitment, survival and cause -specific mortality of bighorn sheep throughout the plan area. This element was analyzed as part of Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIR/EIS. 3-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The revised Trails Plan provides for "closure of three trails from June 15 through September 30 to minimize the potential impediments for access to water by bighorn sheep and other wildlife during the hot season." As shown in Table 5-1, this element was analyzed as part of Alternative B in the Draft EIR/EIS. The difference in the Final Plan is that three trails instead of four trails are proposed for closure during the hot season. The northern Schey Trail, the fourth trail analyzed, in the Draft Plan, will be partially incorporated in the proposed Hopalong Cassidy perimeter trail, which would be open all year, and partially closed as a result of construction of this perimeter trail. These actions will be completed prior to final MSHCP approval and will be analyzed separately. The Draft EH?/EIS addressed the "Schey Trail alignment incorporated in the Art Smith Trail reroute" (page 5-30). The Schey Trail as referenced was the northern of the two existing Schey Trails. It connected Cat Creek with the Art Smith Trail, and was depicted in the Draft Plan exhibits. Since release of the Draft Plan, it is proposed that the Art Smith Trail reroute incorporate the southern Schey Trail; this southern trail of the same name was not depicted in the Draft Plan exhibits. The October 2004 Draft Trails Plan included analysis of the construction of new trails, including perimeter trails and the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail, within 9 years of the issuance of permits for the MSHCP. An analysis of the perimeter trails was done for Alternatives B and C; an analysis of the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail was provided for Alternative B only, the Preferred Alternative. The revised Trails Plan under Element 5 states that proposals to construct perimeter trails and other new trails will be deferred until the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed. This deferral will ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use levels) are as consistent as possible once the research and monitoring programs are initiated. Construction and use of new perimeter trails will be a Covered Activity unless research results indicate that the proposed trails would adversely affect bighorn sheep. One exception is the construction, prior to approval of the Plan, of perimeter trails which are part of an overall effort to reroute the Art Smith and Mirage Trails (Hopalong Cassidy Trail, Desert Crossing Trail) to address specific resource concerns (See Section 7.3.3.2.1 of Final Plan); these actions will be analyzed separately by the City of Palm Desert and BLM as lead agencies. A number of comments suggested that a public education program would be a benefit in implementation of the Trails Plan. Element 6, implementation of a public awareness and education program, was analyzed as part of Alternatives A, B, and C in the Draft EIR/EIS. The provisions for the public awareness and education program have not changed in the Final MSHCP. Specific tasks and the roles and responsibilities in implementation of this program are provided in Appendix II, which has been added to the Final Plan. Element 7, annual review of the effectiveness of the public use and trails management program, including results of monitoring, research, and trail management prescriptions, was analyzed as part of Alternatives A, B, and C in the Draft EIR/EIS. The basic elements of the annual review were described in the Draft Plan. The Trails Management Subcommittee will review effectiveness of the overall public use and trails management program, including progress reports and recommendations from the researcher(s) working on bighorn sheep within the Plan Area; an assessment of bighorn 3-5 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan sheep population trends; recreational trail use data; compliance with the hot season closures, mandatory self -issue permits, and other trail management prescriptions; and other new data acquired. The revised Trails Plan incorporates the addition of a process whereby management actions will be taken if the number of ewes in a ewe group or if adult mortality rates reach designated thresholds. These threshold levels are consistent with the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000) thresholds for other management actions. This annual review will consider prudent management actions, including potential trail closures, in response to scientific data or sheep population declines below these threshold levels. The provisions of the annual review are consistent with the Adaptive Management approach that is applied in the revised Trails Plan. Under Element 7, the revised Trails Plan includes additional discussion and data on the bighorn sheepewe groups and subgroups within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. Table 7-13 has been added to identify the ewe groups and subgroups and the associated trails that occur within their home range. Table 7-14 provides adult population estimates for the ewe groups and subgroups for Recovery Regions 1 through 4 within the Plan Area. As with the construction of new trails, Element 8 has been revised such that rerouting and decommissioning of trails will be deferred pending completion of the initial research program. The rerouting and decommissioning of trails was analyzed under Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIR/EIS. This revision in the Final Trails Plan will ensure that decisions about changes to the trails management program are consistent with the results of the trails research and monitoring programs. An exception is the rerouting of a portion of the Art Smith Trail near Dead Indian Canyon and closure of the upper portion of the Mirage Trail together with construction of the Hopalong Cassidy perimeter trail described under Element 5. These actions are being addressed separate from the Trails Plan and will be initiated prior to potential approval of the Plan. Environmental analysis required by CEQA and NEPA will be conducted for these actions by the City of Palm Desert for CEQA and the BLM for NEPA. This remainder of this page is intentionally blank 3-6 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Table S-I a Comparison of Trails Plan Elements by Alternative Alternative Alt A Alt B Revised Alt All. C Alt D Proposed B No Action Action/ Proposed Alternative Element Preferred Trails Plan Alternative Trails 31 trails 31 trails 35 trails 18 trails 40 trails Open year-round Research no yes yes yes no Program Monitoring Program Human Use of no yes yes yes no Trails, Monitoring yes Program - no yes expanded for yes no PBS populations first five years pending Perimeter Trail no yes outcome of yes no Construction Research Program pending Palm Desert to La no Y es outcome of no no Quinta Trail Research Program Public Education & Awareness yes yes yes yes no Program yes Annual Review mechanism to of Trails yes yes address sheep yes no Management population declines pending Rerouting & outcome of Decommissioning no yes Research yes no of Trails Program Trail by Trail Review of Revisions to Trails Plan Trails Element 1 lists the Trails open all year, this list is expanded to include trails that were subject to the proposed permit and voluntary avoidance programs in the Draft Plan, excluding those that would be subject to hot season closures. Several trails subject to the proposed permit and voluntary avoidance programs in the Draft Plan were actually open all year, i.e., most "permit program trails" would be available year-round to individuals and groups securing permits, and most "voluntary avoidance trails" would be available for year-round use to those choosing not to comply with the request. One 3-7 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan change, which is expected to have minimal effect, is that trail use on these trails could be manipulated as part of the research program. Trails Element 2 lists the trails that will be the focus of the research program. This list includes trails that were proposed for a permit system and voluntary avoidance in the Draft Plan; Under the revised Trails Plan these trails would be open all year, except to the extent that trail use must be manipulated for the research program and excluding those closed during the hot season (segments of the Art Smith and Bear Creek Canyon Trails, and all of the Bear Creek Oasis Trail). Specific changes or analysis issues are addressed below: I. Existing Trails The analysis for Alternative D evaluated the impact of all trails being open year- round. The analysis concluded that this alternative "would have impacts to biological resources that could be significant" and would have a positive impact on recreational resources. The analysis suggested that allowing use of these trails year-round might result in potential disturbance to bighorn sheep during the lamb rearing and watering seasons. Both the Draft MSHCP and the Draft EIR/EIS recognized that the impacts of trails use on PBS could not be definitively stated. Thus the analysis of Alternative D stated that impacts could be significant (emphasis added). The Draft MSHCP took a precautionary approach; i.e., it limited trail use in a manner to ensure that trail use would not impact PBS, without asserting that continuing current levels of trails use would definitively adversely impact PBS. The revised Trails Plan alters the approach of limiting trail use in the Draft MSHCP to an approach focused on a research program to ascertain the effects of trail use on PBS while carefully monitoring PBS and providing mechanisms to enact limits or other appropriate measures should the research and monitoring show it to be warranted. This revised approach is not the same as Alternative D in the Draft MSHCP; and finding that the revised Preferred Trails Plan Alternative will not have significant adverse impacts on PBS is not inconsistent with the analysis of Alternative D in the Draft EIR/EIS. The research and monitoring programs will focus on evaluation of the extent to which disturbance impacts bighorn sheep, particularly for those trails which affect lambing areas. Feedback of these data to the Reserve Management Program (Trails Management Subcommittee, RMUC, RMOC) and thresholds for ewe groups associated with these trails will allow management actions to be taken if necessary. Upon completion of the research program, study results and management recommendations will be integrated into a revised public use and trails management program. II. Changes to Trails Prior to Plan Approval As described in Section 7.3.3.2.1 in the Final Plan, "Due to specific resource concerns associated with the Art Smith Trail and the Mirage Trail, management actions to benefit Peninsular bighorn sheep recovery are addressed separate from the Trails Plan and will be initiated prior to approval of the Plan, execution of the IA, and issuance of the associated Permits. These changes are addressed below: Art Smith Trail Reroute, including portion of the southern Schey Trail. The benefits of rerouting the Art Smith Trail between Dead Indian Canyon and its intersection. with the Schey Trail are described on page 5-46 of the Draft EIR/IIS, concluding with 3-8 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan "the temporary adverse construction impact of rerouting is outweighed by the benefit to bighorn sheep from the reroute." To avoid or minimize trail use impacts to the ewe subgroup using the Dead Indian/Carrizo Canyon area, management actions are being addressed separate from the Trails Plan and will be initiated prior to issuance of the Permits. As described in Section 7.3.3.2.1 this involves a reroute of the easternmost segment of the existing Art Smith Trail from the Art Smith Trailhead parking lot off Highway 74 to remove the trail from Dead Indian Canyon. This reroute will avoid Dead Indian Canyon and the bighorn sheep ewe subgroup in this area. The Art Smith Trail, incorporating the reroute, will be subject to the research program; only the segment northwest of its intersection with the proposed Hopalong Cassidy perimeter trail will require a mandatory, self -issue permit as part of the monitoring program. The Hopalong Cassidy Trail and the remaining segment of the Art Smith Trail that connects to the Art Smith Trailhead will be available for year-round use without a permit. Hopalong Cassidy Perimeter Trail. The Hopalong Cassidy perimeter trail, which connects the Art Smith Trail to the Mirage Trail, is proposed for construction prior to Plan approval in conjunction with rerouting of the Art Smith Trail. The Hopalong Cassidy Trail will begin where the Art Smith Trail reroute incorporates the southern Schey Trail, and then continue north toward Homme-Adams Park, incorporating a portion of the northern Schey Trail, and ultimately connecting with the Mirage Trail in Rancho Mirage. The northern Schey Trail occurs partially within Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve, which was established to protect and conserve bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. Portions of the Hopalong Cassidy Trail. a perimeter trail as proposed in the Draft Plan, have been changed to provide for the Art Smith Trail reroute and to address specific bighorn sheep concerns in the vicinity of Ramon Peak. The revised route of the Hopalong Cassidy Trail is shown in Figure 7-16. Mirage (Bump and Grind) Trail. An alternate access trail will be provided to the Mirage Trail prior to Plan approval. This trail will allow for parking on the street and trail access beginning on land owned by the City of Palm Desert. The trail will connect with the existing Mirage Trail and allow a trail user access to the Hopalong Cassidy Trail. As described in the Draft Plan, the upper portion of the Mirage Trail will be closed; this portion of the trail is on State of California lands within Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve and is subject to decisions made by the State. 3-9 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 3-10 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 4 Adequacy of Conservation of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep The MSHCP protects sufficient PBS habitat. The MSHCP includes in the Conservation Areas 91% of the Essential Habitat identified by the USFWS, using the recovery Plan model of PBS habitat. The areas not included in the Conservation Areas reflect areas already approved for development with concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies (in many cases already developed since the MSHCP planning process was initiated) and areas already disturbed by agriculture or other activities. Further, approximately 7,300 acres of alluvial fan habitat included in the Essential Habitat identified by the USFWS are included in the Conservation Areas. One commentor asserts that the HCP "does not fulfill the guidelines of the recovery Plan, nor does the HCP minimize and mitigate impacts to PBS to the extent practicable, nor does it provide assurance there will be no jeopardy to PBS." This comment expresses opinions but provides no specific examples or information to substantiate these opinions. Because of the extensive conservation measures for PBS in the MSHCP, which are summarized in this response, CVAG is confident that the MSHCP meets all issuance criteria and provides for the conservation of PBS. The Wildlife Agencies will make independent judgments in this regard in determining whether to issue Take Authorization for PBS. One commentor expresses the opinion that the MSHCP "will facilitate the development and destruction of alluvial habitats because they will be the areas selected for the percentage of allowable development." The commentor provides no analysis or information to support this claim nor cites any specific provisions in the MSHCP that are alleged to facilitate the development and destruction of alluvial habitats. The MSHCP, in fact, delineates 1,235 acres of alluvial fan habitat as 10% habitat loss areas, thus limiting habitat loss in these areas; 965 acres as HANS; thus providing a process to determine when land is needed for the conservation of PBS and must be acquired; 401 acres as subject to Special Provisions, where habitat loss is allowed because these areas were deemed by the Wildlife Agencies to be of minimal value to PBS because of such factors as proximity to Highway 111; 2 acres where a Major Amendment is required before habitat loss could occur; and 2 acres where existing public facilities need to be maintained. The remaining alluvial fan PBS habitat has already been conserved. Since 1996, approximately 3,000 acres of alluvial fan habitat, including land beyond the limits of Essential PBS Habitat, have been acquired. These acquisitions protect Essential PBS Habitat and provide an additional buffer of open space to benefit PBS from urban development. One commentor asserts that the MSHCP "fails to identify or perform an analysis of the critical components of PBS habitat, including corridors between ewe groups, lambing areas, and water source areas that must be protected for the long term survival and recovery of PBS." The comment further asserts that "adequate data on the current population of PBS was not provided, nor was there an adequate analysis of expansion habitat needed for PBS recovery." Corridors between ewe groups and lambing areas have 4-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan not been delineated by the Wildlife Agencies, nor has a complete delineation of all water sources been made. Notwithstanding the unavailability of this information, the MSHCP adequately provides for the conservation of all of these in several ways. In the first instance, as described at the beginning of this Response, the MSHCP includes virtually all of the Essential Habitat for PBS delineated by the Recovery Plan in the Conservation Areas. Habitat disturbance in these areas under the MSHCP is limited to a maximum of approximately 4,050 acres out of approximately 169,900 acres in the three Conservation Areas where there is Essential Habitat for PBS: Cabazon, Snow Creek/Windy Point, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas. This means that only approximately 2.4% of the Essential Habitat in these Conservation Areas is subject to potential disturbance. Of the acres of potential habitat disturbance, 1,154 acres are in "Special Provisions" areas, which the MSHCP through discussions with the Wildlife Agencies have identified as being areas with impacts that are minimized by mitigation measures and various site -specific characteristics. These areas are identified in Section 4.3.21, Required Measure #2. In all areas, the MSHCP provides that with respect to such new development as may be approved: a. Development shall be clustered in one area of a site to the maximum extent Feasible. b. Development shall be sited at the lowest possible elevation on the site and shall avoid the mouth of any canyon to the maximum extent Feasible. c. Development shall be sited a minimum of a quarter mile from know water sources as identified on a reference map on file with CVCC. d. Development shall be conditioned to prohibit the construction of unauthorized trails in essential bighorn sheep Habitat. e. Development shall not preclude Habitat connectivity or movement. Determination of whether Habitat connectivity or movement is precluded shall be made by the Lead Agency for the Development based on factual data provided by the RMOC, RMUC, Wildlife Agencies, or other source. f. Development shall comply with Land Use Adjacency Guidelines contained in Section 4.5. Further, most of the private land in PBS habitat in the Conservation Areas is subject to the HANS process, which stipulates that in "evaluating whether a portion of a property subject to the HANS process may be Developed, the Local Permittee and the Wildlife Agencies will consider whether the Development would significantly adversely impact the Conservation of the Peninsular bighorn sheep." In addition, incidental observations have documented either specific routes or general areas that have been used by PBS in the recent past. One such area occurs in the 31000 foot elevational zone along Highway 74, where in response to several reports, Caltrans has erected sheep crossing signs to alert vehicle operators to the possible presence of sheep along the highway. Most of this area is managed by the State and Federal governments, and relatively little private land occurs along this stretch of highway. However, where private lands do straddle the highway, Required Measure 2(d) in Section 4.3.21 is designed to encourage development in less damaging areas, thereby 4-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan helping to maintain movement opportunities in this area. Sheep also are known to cross Palm Canyon, but this area largely occurs on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. Though the distribution of private lands in the Plan Area is quite limited here, Section 4 of the Plan has been revised to acknowledge the need to cooperate with the Tribe in protecting a habitat linkage across Palm Canyon. Chino Canyon is the third area where sheep movement between ewe groups has been documented, and Required Measure 5 in Section 4.3.21 establishes a mechanism to protect a functional corridor across the canyon in coordination with the Tribe. The Final MSHCP contains current data on PBS population trends in recent years in Section 9.8.4.5. It should be noted that the population trend has been distinctly upward. With respect to providing expansion habitat needed for PBS recovery, the MSHCP includes 91% of all Essential Habitat for PBS as delineated by the Recovery Plan. This level of protection provides adequate expansion habitat for PBS recovery when combined with site -specific considerations described above. It should be noted that this includes approximately 19,768 acres of currently unoccupied habitat west of Chino Canyon that currently is not being used by ewes but does support use by rams. One commentor implies that the MSHCP does not provide a mechanism for acquiring the critical components of PBS habitat and a funding source for doing so. The commentor provides no information or examples to substantiate the opinion that the MSHCP is deficient in this regard. The comment expresses an unsubstantiated opinion. The commentor is referred to Sections 4.2, and 5 of the MSHCP, which discuss Complementary Conservation, the state and federal governments' contributions to land acquisition, and the Permittees' obligation to acquire land in the Conservation Areas. As described in the MSHCP, the Permittees will acquire land from willing sellers at market value. Section 5.1 identifies the projected costs, and Section 5.2 identifies the funding sources, including Local Development Mitigation Fees. One commentor offers the opinion that "Preserve boundaries appear to be negotiated based on political issues, rather than based on biology", but provides no examples, citations, or other information to substantiate this opinion. The comment also asserts that the HANS process does not adequately protect the critical components of PBS habitat, citing that the process is controlled by local jurisdictions. These issues are addressed previously in this Response. One commentor _asserts, based on the commentor's reading of Tables 4-111 "a" through "g", that the MSHCP permits the development of nearly 20% of the private lands within the proposed Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, "which results in a take of almost 4% of PBS habitat in the entire Conservation Area. In fact, the habitat loss and Conservation on private land delineated in Tables 4-111 "a" through "g" identifies the maximum habitat loss that may occur, and the required minimum conservation of private land by Recovery Zone and jurisdiction. The total of Acres Authorized for Disturbance in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area is 3,802 acres out of the approximately 169,000 acres of Essential Habitat in the 4-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Conservation Area. The Acres Authorized for Disturbance, then, is 2.25% of the Essential Habitat for PBS in the Conservation Area. One commentor further asserts that this habitat loss is significant and inadequately analyzed, "particularly in view of the fact that the majority of the take will be in the very alluvial fan and valley floor areas in and around the CV that are already in short supply for PBS, and that the crucial habitat components for PBS outlined above have not been addressed." This statement is inaccurate as the majority of the habitat loss cannot be in alluvial fan and valley floor areas under MSHCP provisions. Most of the alluvial fan and valley floor habitat for PBS that is available for disturbance under the MSHCP (i.e., which is not already conserved) is designated as a 10 percent habitat loss area, which carefully limits the amount of disturbance authorized. It should also be pointed out that the detailed and very specific provisions for where habitat loss can occur were worked out through discussions with the Wildlife Agencies. For example, the Special Provisions area described in Required Measure 2a in Section 4.3.21 is an area that includes parcels a portion of which is above toe of slope and a portion of which is below toe of slope. The portion below toe of slope abuts Highway 111 and was considered to be an area of marginal habitat value because of the proximity of Highway 111. The Special Provisions, therefore, allow habitat loss to occur on the portion of the parcels below toe of slope if and only if the portion above tote of slope is permanently conserved. This results in 92 acres of habitat loss on the valley floor in an area where Highway 111 could actually pose danger to PBS in exchange for 156 acres above toe of slope and away from the highway being permanently conserved. Other Required Measures are summarized earlier in this response that minimize impacts from the very limited development that could occur in PBS habitat under the MSHCP. One commentor asserts that the level of Take Authorization for PBS under the MSHCP is inconsistent with the BLM's CDCA Plan Amendment which calls for less than 1% loss of PBS habitat. There is no requirement for the MSHCP to provide the same level of habitat loss on private lands that the CDCA Plan Amendment provides for on public land. CVAG believes that the MSHCP adequately conserves PBS as described elsewhere in this response. The Wildlife Agencies will make independent judgments in this regard in determining whether to issue Take Authorization for PBS. One commentor asserts that there needs to be area -specific information and analysis of take of PBS resulting from habitat modification allowed in the MSHCP, citing as an example the Palm Hills development area. The potential water source in Eagle Canyon is part of the area which must be permanently conserved as part of the Special Provisions for Palm Hills Specific Plan shown in Figure 4-26(e)(2)A. The developable area as depicted in the figure is such that there is no visibility into the water source area in Eagle Canyon from the project. Other protection measures related to the Palm Hills Specific Plan are set forth in Required Measure 2c in Section 4.3.21. These include a requirement for the project proponent to conserve an additional 1,233 acres in the same ewe group habitat area to assist with conservation of PBS. These Special Provisions were developed through discussions among the project proponent, the City of Palm Springs, and the Wildlife Agencies. 4-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan One commentor states that the "minor amendment process has been proposed in the case of Palm Hills and other areas subject to take in PBS habitat. This process is devoid of assurances that the individual and cumulative impacts to PBS do not preclude PBS survival and recovery." The MSHCP has no Minor Amendment provisions regarding Palm Hills. There are only two Minor Amendment provisions that relate to PBS in the MSHCP. One is a Minor Amendment whereby specified CVWD water recharge facilities and associated transmission mains in or adjacent to essential habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would be Covered Activities if they comply with specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures delineated in Section 7.3 of the MSHCP. This Minor Amendment requires Wildlife Agency concurrence. The other Minor Amendment provides for modification of the alignment of the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail. This would require Wildlife Agency concurrence and is subject to other provisions of the MSHCP, which include that before this trail can be built, the research and monitoring program will address the issue of whether this trail would have a significant adverse effect on wild and captive PBS. One commentor asserts that the MSHCP and EIR/EIS fail to analyze the "effect of the Travertine project on the ability to acquire and protect the adjacent Section 5, which has been identified as essential for recovery." Section 5 has been identified as Essential Habitat in the Recovery Plan and in the MSHCP; however, neither the Recovery Plan nor the MSHCP requires that 100% of Section 5 must be conserved. The MSHCP identifies Section 5 as a HANS area; thus any proposed development in Section 5 is subject to an initial determination as to whether the land on which the development is proposed is necessary for the conservation of PBS. If it is, HANS provides for the acquisition of that property. One of the Special provisions for the Travertine project, as delineated in Required Measure 2e in Section 4.3.21 requires Travertine to provide a $2 million loan to the CVCC to acquire Essential Habitat for PBS in the project area, which logically includes Section 5. Further, approximately 50 acres in Section 5 owned by Travertine is dedicated to permanent conservation pursuant to the Special Provisions. 4-5 _ F, Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 5 Use of Best Available Science Comments received on the Draft MSHCP and DEHUDEIS from individuals and organizations asserted the Plan is not based on Best Available Science. This assertion addresses several proposed elements of the MSHCP. To facilitate review, this major issue response to comments is divided into issue subheadings based on the focus of comments: biological data used for Plan preparation, species distribution models and data issues related to individual Covered Species, reliability of data and biologists (including Acceptable Biologists) who provide the data, and the ISA report. The MSHCP was developed using the best scientific data available, in accordance with federal and state standards for information used pursuant to FESA and the NCCP Act. The Wildlife Agencies are required to use the best scientific information available at the time when evaluating an HCP/NCCP. For CDFG, the NCCP Act requires, "The use of the best available science to make assessments about the impacts of take, the reliability of mitigation strategies, and the appropriateness of monitoring techniques. " For the USFWS, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires the agency to use the "best scientific and commercial data available " in fulling the requirements of consultation to determine whether an agency action, such as permit issuance, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. Biological Data used for Plan Preparation To meet the HCP and NCCP requirements for best available science, the development of the Plan involved consultation with species experts, reference to current ecological and conservation biology theory, and use of the best ecological and biological information available. As described in Section 3 the Plan used existing biological data and new data gathered during Plan development. Data were gathered from a wide variety of sources, including scientific experts, federal, state and local agencies, peer -reviewed journals, professional organizations, and the general public. To the extent it was available the information used in the development of the MSHCP was peer -reviewed, providing a consistent, reliable and sound basis for decision -making. The Plan also used the best land management practices, information, and appropriate tools (e.g., modeling, population viability analyses) available. The overall approach to best available data used in the Plan is based on inclusion of all known existing information, incorporation of new data as it became available, and consultation with independent experts and science advisors throughout the Plan development process. The assembly and review of available data was an iterative process. Throughout Plan development, data used to describe species occurrence, map natural communities, develop species distribution models, design the reserve system, develop the Management and Monitoring Programs, and prepare the Conservation and Take analyses were updated as new information became available. Section 3.3 of the Plan and Section 3.10 of Appendix I describe the sources of biological data. The baseline month and year 5-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the data used in the Plan is June 2003, when all data were updated in the GIS database maintained by CVAG for the Plan. Biological data, however, were continuously updated incorporating new data as they became available. In addition, independent biologists with expertise on one or more species were consulted throughout the process, even in the final stages of preparation of the Draft Plan, to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data used. In cases where published literature, unpublished reports, or other written information was not available, personal communications from selected individuals were used. These personal communications were only used after the individual reviewed the statement(s) that referenced their information and signed a statement verifying the accuracy of the personal communication. The MSHCP is consistent with the recommendations in the HCP Handbook Addendum (USFWS 2000) to strengthen the scientific basis of an HCP which ". encourages applicants to use scientific advisory committees during the development and implementation of an HCP, ... [a]n applicant ... may seek independent scientific review of specific sections of an HCP and its operating conservation strategy to ensure the use of the best scientific information for HCP development." The MSHCP had significant input during the planning process from a scientific advisory committee, described in Section 3.1.1 of the Plan, composed primarily of local scientists. In addition, during the planning process, experts were brought in to provide review and recommendations for various elements of the conservation plan at a series of workshops. These workshops included reserve design criteria at the beginning of the process, gap analysis, ecological monitoring and adaptive management, reserve design and conservation planning, various species distribution models, and essential habitat for bighorn sheep. The workshop details and dates are given in Section 3.1 of Appendix I of the MSHCP. Consistent with both NCCP and HCP standards, an Independent Science Advisor's Review was completed in 2001; this review is addressed in more detail below. Data Issues for Individual Covered Species: Baseline Data and Species Distribution Models As described in 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.3, the Plan incorporated best available science in the use of data on species distribution, species model development, and the reserve design process. Initially all available biological data were gathered to provide input to the conservation planning process. As part of this effort, individuals with expertise on a given species were consulted to obtain their observations of a given species, to review draft versions of the species models, and to provide input on the species accounts. All of the biologists consulted in this process and the species about which they provided input have been identified in Table A3-3 in Appendix 1 of the Final MSHCP. Specific information provided in this process about a given species is described below in the discussion of individual species. The characterization of biological data for the Plan as inaccurate and outdated is incorrect. Species distribution information was initially gathered from available literature, including gray literature (unpublished reports and documents). To obtain more accurate and up to date information on the distribution and relative abundance of species in various locations throughout the Plan Area, surveys were conducted beginning in 1995, 5-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan These surveys were completed by agency biologists and other members of the Planning Team including SAC members, assisted in some cases by volunteers. When necessary, biologists with specific expertise were hired by CVAG to complete focused surveys for a given species. Table A3-5 in Appendix I lists all the surveys, the subject and date of the surveys, and the biologists involved in those surveys. Frequently the surveys were accomplished by teams of biologists from the SAC, including Wildlife Agency biologists. In a number of cases, these surveys focused on species about which little was known. The results of the surveys were incorporated into the GIS database and used in development of the species distribution models. In 2002, CVAG contracted with the University of California, Riverside (UCR), Center for Conservation Biology to develop and test preliminary protocols for the biological monitoring element of the MSHCP. The work done by UCR included surveys for many of the Covered Species. These surveys were initiated in the spring of 2002 and continued through 2005. The CV Biological Monitoring Project will continue in 2005/2006 season with funding from CDFG. The results of these surveys provided additional information on the distribution, relative abundance, habitat affinities, and identified stressors for these species. The surveys are listed in Table 8-8; updates to incorporate surveys completed in 2005 have been added to Table 8-8 in the Final Plan. The preliminary monitoring work by UCR has provided additional data which have been used to refine the species distribution models, assess potential threats, and to evaluate the impacts of Take and conservation levels. These data were used in the development of the Management and Monitoring Programs as well. The results of the surveys by UCR were incorporated where applicable in the conservation strategies in Section 9 of the Plan for Covered Species; updates to incorporate results from 2005 have been added to Section 9 for relevant species. Future monitoring efforts will be consistent with the Scientific Principles described in Section 8.3.2 of the Final Plan. There are limitations on the available data for a large regional plan (more than 1 million acres), including the MSHCP. While every effort was made to address specific information needs for Covered Species, funding limitations and available resources did not allow for comprehensive surveys throughout the Plan area. As previously noted, surveys were focused on specific information needs that would enhance knowledge about a given species, its occurrence in a given area, habitat parameters, and potential threats or impacts. However, access to private lands was limited. Prior to initiation of any survey, contact was made with the landowners to obtain permission to access their property. Landowner permission was not granted in all cases so that surveys could not be completed in some key areas. In these cases, best available data often included consultation with species experts for their evaluation of habitat areas that were off limits due to access constraints. The issue of the adequacy of biological data is addressed in the HCP Handbook and more specifically in the HCP Addendum (USFWS 2000). Issue 4 in the Final Addendum to the HCP Handbook addressed questions about biological uncertainty in decisions to issue ITPs. It addressed concerns that "there is not enough known about the species to lock in long-term conservation actions provided by HCPs and the assurances given with these permits." In response to a comment that "efforts should be spent on 5-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan filling those data gaps before issuing permits, the addendum notes, "The Service(s) believe that covered species, both listed and unlisted, will be afforded more protection because of the conservation measures gained through an HCP process." The Addendum also provides for an adaptive management strategy as a means to address uncertainty, "[i]f we lack critical information regarding the biological needs of a species proposed to be covered under an HCP, we will not issue a permit until such information is obtained or an acceptable adaptive management strategy is incorporated into the HCP to address the uncertainty. The latter is the case with the MSHCP. Specific Conservation Goals and Objectives require a management and biological monitoring program for the 75 years of the Permit. This approach is characterized in Section 9.1.2 of the Plan where it calls for: 1) implementation of a Monitoring Program that identifies trends in species ... protected under the Plan, and 2) implementation of a Management Program that includes species - specific actions to secure and enhance Habitat quality and provide for long-term population viability, incorporating adaptive management. For each Covered Species, and natural community, Section 9 includes goals and objectives for implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management actions to ensure conservation of habitat quality and the Covered Species (e.g. Section 9.2.1.1 on Mecca aster, Goal 3). To better address uncertainty, the MSHCP further recognizes the need to gather additional information on species distribution, habitat affiliations, and population size early in the implementation process. The Monitoring Program begins with a baseline phase during the first five years of Plan implementation. As described in Section 8.3.3 of the Plan, one of the primary objectives of the baseline phase will be to conduct baseline surveys on Covered Species and conserved natural communities. Key monitoring objectives described in Section 8.4 focus on gathering baseline information on the species. These objectives include estimates of distribution, population size, survivorship, age structure, and other variables as well as further evaluation of the conceptual ecological models to identify and assess threats for Covered Species. For example, see Section 8.4.2.3.3 on species level monitoring objectives for alluvial fan and wash affiliated species. This approach has been endorsed by the American Institute of Biological Sciences (Kareiva et al. 1999) and Harding et al. (2001) who state, "the lack of quantitative data in many HCPs points to the need for a strong monitoring program that links ongoing data collections with specific biological goals of the conservation plan (Shilling 1997)." The monitoring and Adaptive Management programs are addressed in Major Issue Response 12. Development of Species Distribution Models Several comments address the adequacy of the species distribution models and question whether the Covered Species actually occur in conservation areas. Some of these commentors expressed the opinion that the species distribution models are purely habitat -based and do not reflect current location data. Some commentors question the reliability of the reserve design, the Take estimates, and the analysis of impacts. Concern about the potential for missing an entire population of a Covered Species without any knowledge of its destruction was also expressed. 5-4 �4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Lead Agencies also believe that for the purposes of regional planning, the species distribution models represent the best available data, even with the limitations of these models described in Section 3.6 of Appendix I. Some confusion was apparent from commentors who interpreted that the models were habitat -based only. All of the models started with an analysis of the known locations for a given species. Determinations about suitable habitat were based on these known locations and the habitat parameters associated with them. Section 3.6.2 describes the habitat parameters used in the development of the species distribution models. The development of the species distribution models was an iterative process that involved updates and changes to the models as new information became available. Wildlife Agency biologists were involved in the development of the models and validated the final version of all the models in 2003. To the extent they were available, independent experts were consulted to review and improve the models. Specific information on the experts consulted and their input with regard to the models has been added where appropriate in Section 9.0 and/or Section 3.6 of Appendix I. Data from the UCR Biological Monitoring Project were also incorporated in the models and where available were -used to refine the Preferred Alternative. The overview of the species habitat distribution modeling process in Section 3.6 of Appendix I acknowledges the limitations of the models which are based primarily on qualitative rather than quantitative data. It also reinforces that these models were developed to ensure a comprehensive reserve design process. This reserve design process was developed to include habitat representing the full range of environmental conditions that could be occupied by each Covered Species within the Plan Area. The species models were developed to include occupied as well as potential habitat to provide flexibility in the face of changing environmental conditions, including those associated with climate change and global warming. From the perspective of a comprehensive reserve design process that incorporates the conservation biology principles established for the Plan, the Lead Agencies are confident that the species distribution models are appropriate. Data Issues for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Numerous comments addressed the data used for Peninsular bighorn sheep in the Plan. These comments expressed concern about bighorn sheep data issues ranging from questions about the importance of washes and land below the toe of slope to mapping of lambing areas and water sources to the absence of time series population data for this species. The process of gathering and evaluating data on Peninsular bighorn sheep was similar to that described for other species. The Plan based the habitat for bighorn sheep on the Essential Habitat model prepared by the PBS Recovery Team (USFWS 2000). Preparation of this model was similar in terms of process to the preparation of other species distribution models in the Plan. Like the other models, the PBS model will be refined and updated in an iterative process through the Monitoring Program. A great deal of work was completed, primarily by biologists from BLM, CDFG, and USFWS working with representatives of CVAG and other plan participants, to review and evaluate the available bighorn sheep data. As described in Appendix C of the Draft EIR/EIS, the Interagency Wildlife Biologist Working Group gathered and reviewed available data on 5-5 w) Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan PBS, particularly with respect to the Trails Plan. In this pronumerous independent bighorn sheep biologists. Additional descristi n of this they consulted with been added to Section 3.6 of Appendix I. To address the comments received on has subject, additional information including population data, habitat char don this Plan Area, and other information identified by the commentscharacteristics to in the 9. 8.4.5 of the Final Plan, "Background, Distribution and Trends" fobeen added e Section bighorn sheep. ISA Review Some of the public comments express concern that the recommendation the ISA were not incorporated as Plan elements. The ISA Reviews made by entirety in Appendix I, Section 3.3. Apparently some commentors were s provided in its references in the ISA Review to conservation alternatives. It is important confused a the document that was reviewed by the ISA was the January2001 to note that the Draft of the Plan and that the ISA report was completed n April 2001. Administrative Review apply to the 2001 document, not the October 2004 Public Draft of the 1 Their comments in the introduction to Section 3.3 of Appendix I, conservation alternativesMSHCP. As noted referred to in the review were the initial alternatives prepared in 2000, not the l 2, and 3 contained in the October 2004 Draft Plan. As described in Section 3.7 4 the alternatives additional areas were considered for potential inclusion in the Con of Appendix I, response to the ISA report. This analysis included review of the recom endon Areas in ISA, field visits, meetings with other outside biologists and consideration ations of the information. The findings of a study titled Lon -term Sand Su sideration of additional Lizard Uma inornata Habitat in the Northern Coachella Valley to CV Fringe toed SGS 2002) were also considered in this analysis. Based on this analysis, California ( were added to Conservation Alternative 2 and a new conservation alternative some areas were for further discussion. This alternative was discussed in a serf alive was developed CDFG, USFWS, CVAG staff, and local jurisdictions to obtain additional meetings among including biological and land use information. Throughthis roc tional information, conservation alternative was further revised. In no case process the SAC's revised Area boundaries less than those recommended by the SAC.were the resulting Conservation result was the preferred conservation alternative presented in Section 4 of the Draft Plan. One comment noted the Plan did not incorporate standards of sci review. New federal standards for peer review have been providedentific peer in ane Management and Budget bulletin on peer review. This bulletin w Office of permitting proceedings from peer review requirements (70 FR 2677), hence for example, exempts federal ) the formation of and use of ISA was above and beyond what's r eqbulletin. Nevertheless, the input of the ISA was a critical element in th aired r the OMB Plan and as described below ISA recommendations were inc e Preparation of the orporat Final Plans. The MSHCP has incorporated peer review throughouted in the Draft and Lead Agencies believe that the standards for peer review have been exceeded. the process and thexceeded. The Final Plan identifies the continued use of independent scientists. As an example,e will involve independent scientists in the development and reviewthe Trails Plan program. review of the research 5-6� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The ISA clearly stated that they found no fatal flaws in the Plan during their review. They also wrote in the introduction to their April 2001 report, "we want to commend the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and others who contributed to the Draft Plan for producing what is sure to be one of the most scientifically defensible and thorough HCPs or NCCPs ever developed." The following paragraphs review the key recommendations and concerns in the ISA report and address how these recommendations were incorporated in the Preferred Alternative. The ISA recommendations addressed below commence on page A-38 of Appendix I. The Precautionary Principle page A-38i: The ISA supported the use of the precautionary principle in cases of high uncertainty and high risk, as is the case in the Coachella Valley. The ISA recommended that rigorous science and more data can balance the problems of uncertainty about the subject ecological systems and Covered Species. 1. In response to the recommendations of the ISA, additional lands were added to the Conservation Areas in the Preferred Alternative. These additional lands were added to provide a more complete array of habitats across a range of environmental conditions for each species, enhanced connectivity through biological corridors and linkages, and more conservation of essential ecological process areas. Additional data, including data provided by individual species experts consulted after the ISA report and data collected by UC Riverside Center for Conservation Biology, were used in the reserve design process resulting in the Preferred Alternative. As recommended by the ISA, a more comprehensive Adaptive Management program was developed as part of the Plan as a means of addressing uncertainty through a hypothesis - driven process (See Major Issue Response 12). Climate Change and Other Long-term Environmental Change (page A-38 to A- 39 . The ISA review suggested that "maintaining well-connected, heterogeneous landscapes with multiple microhabitats and potential refugia is a sensible strategy in the face of climate change in any direction." 1. To address the concerns of the ISA as well as consideration by the SAC and Wildlife Agencies, the reserve design was reviewed to evaluate the extent to which "multiple microhabitats" and "potential refugia" were included in the Conservation Areas. Some areas were added, or expanded, in part to address this concern (e.g. Highway 111/1-10 Conservation Area, Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Park Linkage Conservation Area). Discussion of long-terill impacts from climate change is provided in Section 3.2.2.3 of Appendix I, with the conclusion, "As the climate changes in the future, there is a possibility that the habitat at one or more sites will become unsuitable for a target species. But preserving multiple sites in this manner will increase the likelihood that some refugia for each of the species will be maintained if climatic conditions change over time. I. Habitat/Landscape Level Questions (page A-39): 5-7 �, i Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 1. The Preferred Alternative accepted the premise of the ISA that "the Plan would be improved by the inclusion of additional habitat." The Preferred Alternative was the result of additions to the version of Alternative 2 described in the ISA review. Additional habitat was added to the Conservation Areas in the Snow Creek area, Mission Creek area, Whitewater Preserve area, Willow Hole sand source area, Flat -top Mountain area., and the East End of the Indio Hills. As described in Section 3.4 of the Plan, the evaluation and analysis that resulted in the Preferred Alternative addressed some of the specific criteria discussed by the ISA beginning on page A-47 as follows: ➢ Habitat patch size was evaluated for each Covered Species and was designed to incorporate available habitat, based on best available science, in patches large enough to sustain these species. This analysis incorporated connectivity issues. Description of the Core Habitat patches is provided in Section 9 of the Plan for each species. ➢ Connectivity was evaluated and biological corridors and linkages were mapped. In 2002, the dimensions of culverts and bridges that function as biological corridors were measured and incorporated into the reserve design. Section 4.5 of Appendix I includes the data on these biological corridors. ➢ Large predators were considered in the delineation of Conservation Areas in the Preferred Alternative, particularly with respect to connectivity concerns. The potential for large predators to move across the landscape of the Conservation Areas was addressed by inclusion of areas such as the San Gorgonio Pass connections in Stubbe Canyon and Whitewater Canyon and a major linkage area between the Indio Hills and Joshua Tree National Park. ➢ Protection of the range of environmental conditions within which each species is known to occur was added as a Conservation Objective for each Covered Species (See Section 9). ➢ Essential Ecological Processes were carefully considered and areas were added to the Conservation Areas to ensure protection of sand transport systems, hydrological processes, connectivity, and other key processes. ➢ Edge effects were addressed by incorporating additional habitat in perimeter areas for each Conservation Area. Land use adjacency guidelines were added to address edge effects outside the Conservation Areas. ➢ Impacts from deleterious activities such as illegal dumping and off highway vehicle activity will be evaluated and controlled through the Monitoring and Management Program, as described in Sections 8, 9, and 10. ➢ The impacts of exotic invasive species will be addressed through the Monitoring and Management Programs. Control programs for some invasive species (e.g. tamarisk) are already well underway. The comment of the ISA review that the earlier version of the Plan seemed "to have taken a largely static view of the ecosystems of the CV has been addressed in the Draft and Final Plans by incorporation of Adaptive Management which could include active management. The MSHCP includes required restoration of habitat in some cases (e.g. riparian and marsh habitats) and evaluation of the potential for restoration in others (e.g. mesquite hummocks) (See Major Issue Response 12). 5-8 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 2. The ISA provided important recommendations regarding the site identification process for the MSHCP as it was described in the January 2001 Administrative Review Draft they evaluated. Based on their recommendations, the SITES model (SITES V 1.0: an analytical toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios, The Nature Conservancy) was used to complete an analysis of the reserve design for the MSHCP. Using the SITES program, a reserve design very similar to the Preferred Alternative was selected (Allen et al. 2002). This evaluation is described in Section 3.7.3.4 which has been added to the Final Plan in Appendix I. The discussion of the site identification process in this section of the ISA review (page A-49) includes a statement that "the site identification process involved both scientific and non -scientific analyses ... which involve issues such as monetary value of property as an inhibition to purchase, and prior land use history ...." This issue is discussed here and elsewhere in the ISA review although it appears to be the result of an apparent miscommunication and misunderstanding. Socioeconomic and political factors, including monetary value of property and prior land use, were not part of the site identification process except that currently developed areas were removed. As described in Section 3.7 of Appendix I, the process considered factors with a biological or conservation basis. 3. The ISA made recommendations regarding the need for better documentation of the methodology for elements of the Plan including Core Habitat. Section 3.2.2.3 of Appendix I includes a definition and, together with Section 3.1.4 of the Plan, describe the delineation and incorporation of Core Habitat in the reserve design process. 4. As previously noted, some of the assumptions of the ISA in terms of the influence of socioeconomic factors in the reserve design process by the SAC were not correct. The final Preferred Alternative did, however, incorporate the recommendations of the ISA with regard to, for example, underpasses for wildlife. The Preferred Alternative incorporated provisions for underpasses when roads are widened (See Section 4.0 of the Plan). 5. The buffer zone issue raised by the ISA was addressed in the Preferred Alternative by incorporating additional habitat where possible in the "outer zone" of each reserve area. 6. As noted in Item 2 above, the SITES model was applied the Plan Area. 7. With respect to the effects of roads and the potential for mitigation measures, the recommendations of the ISA were incorporated in the Preferred Alternative. As recommended by the ISA, specific consideration is given to the effects of roads in the Monitoring Program, for example, in Section 8.4.2.3.3 regarding species monitoring in alluvial fan and wash communities, "Data will be used to address the need for measures to ensure that wildlife can cross Dillon Road, which could include lowering of speed limits, directed fencing along the roadside, underpass construction, or signage." This is one example of numerous measures to address the effects of roads. 8. The recommendations from the ISA with regard to grouping Covered Species have been incorporated into the Monitoring and Management Programs where species have been grouped according to natural community assemblages. This approach is also consistent with the recommendations of Atkinson et al. (2004). 5-9 �r Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 9. The comments of the ISA with respect to the CVVWD groundwater management plan and, in particular, mesquite hummocks and the influence of groundwater changes have been addressed in the Plan through monitoring and Adaptive Management. As described in Section 8.4.1.3.1 and 8.4.1.3.2, the relationship between mesquite hummocks and groundwater will be evaluated through the Monitoring Program and Adaptive Management. CVWD will cooperate in this effort as described in Section 8.4.1.3.1. This monitoring and Adaptive Management will include the mesquite hummocks along the fault in the Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, and Indio areas. H. Species Level Questions (page A-58): 1. The recommendations of the ISA with regard to the dune systems south of Interstate 10 were incorporated in the reserve design process, in terms of giving consideration to all potential dune system Habitat within the Plan boundary. Section 3.2.2.3 of Appendix I provides a discussion under the heading of "Sand Source and Sand Transport Processes" about the Big Dune, the sand dune system south of I-10 and the reasons it was not included in the Preferred Alternative. However, connectivity issues relative to the dunes north of I-10 were addressed in the Preferred Alternative. The Big Dune area has been subject to extensive development and is now either developed or planned for development. 2. The impacts to Covered Species at full build out and the effects of development of 10% of each parcel inside Conservation Areas are difficult to address as noted by the ISA. However, the Draft Plan does not allow 10% development on each parcel within Conservation Areas but rather up to 10% development within each Conservation Area. This development must be consistent with the Conservation Goals and Objectives for Covered Species and natural communities. Through the Joint Project Review process, clustering and other recommendations of the ISA would be considered as means to reduce impacts to Covered Species. Land use adjacency guidelines for areas within and adjacent to conservation areas prohibit the use of certain invasive species (Section 4.5.5); these guidelines also encourage the use of native plants. 3. The ISA commented that the area requirements, habitat and connectivity needs and life histories of each species were "apparently not" adequately addressed and documented in the development of Conservation Areas. They were correct that these data were not available for all species covered by the Plan. However, since the ISA review, considerable additional data have been gathered on these species, as described above under "Data Issues for Individual Covered Species." The connectivity issues were also addressed to ensure that adequate connectivity was provided in the Preferred Alternative. 4. The ISA recommendations with regard to biological parameters and landscape features relative to minimum patch size were incorporated in the reserve design process that resulted in the Preferred Alternative. They were also incorporated in the design and development of the Monitoring Program and the Management Program, including Adaptive Management. Some of the data needs they identified, including relevant ecological variables and potential edge effects for covered species are being addressed by UCR in the preliminary monitoring program (UCR, Center for Conservation Biology 2005). The conclusion of the ISA was to indicate that the best available information was used to determine habitat needs and that an effective Adaptive 5-10 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Management plan is important. The Lead Agencies agree and have provided such a plan in the MSHCP. 5. The ISA addressed the conservation needs for endemic species, including narrowly distributed endemics with respect to the conservation area alternatives they were evaluating in 2001. Issues relative to endemic species were specifically addressed following the ISA review and incorporated in the Preferred Alternative reserve design. For example, species experts were consulted about the habitat and distribution of the Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus, the habitat was carefully mapped and the conservation area in the Preferred Alternative was expanded to incorporate the hydrological processes important to this species. Species -Specific Questions: I. The issue regarding habitat at the east end of the Indio Hills for Palm Springs pocket mouse and CV round -tailed ground squirrel was addressed by incorporation of the East Indio Hills Conservation Area in the Preferred Alternative. 2. The potential for a corridor between the east end of the Indio Hills and Dos Palmas was addressed through surveys done by UCR, CVMC, and USFWS biologists in 1997. As noted by the ISA, "there is no evidence of such connection." A corridor between these areas was not included in the Preferred Alternative. 3. A linkage between Willow Hole and upper Mission Creek was incorporated in the Preferred Alternative. The functionality of this corridor for Palm Springs pocket mouse will be addressed through the Monitoring and Management Programs. 4. The issues relative to connectivity within the Plan Area were carefully considered in the reserve design process following completion of the ISA review. The recommendations of the ISA were incorporated in the Preferred Alternative. The Plan will ensure the conservation of significant biological corridors identified in various local and regional efforts addressing connectivity, including the San Gorgonio Pass/Whitewater River Corridor and the Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Park corridor. Efforts to address connectivity around the north end of the Salton Sea involve several other efforts outside the MSHCP, including the Salton Sea restoration effort and the activities of the CVVID. The CV Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area would benefit these other regional efforts. III. Habitat/Landscape Level Questions (Page A-69) 1. The recommendations of the ISA regarding monitoring and Adaptive Management are addressed by Major Issue Response 12. IV. Geomorphology (Page A-72) 1. The recommendations of the ISA with regard to sand transport from the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the Thousand Palms dune system were incorporated in the Preferred Alternative. The Conservation Areas were carefully designed to maximize sand transport for the Thousand Palms dune system. Section 3.2.2.3 of Appendix I discusses sand sources and sand transport in this area; Section 4.3.11 includes Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan conservation objectives and required measures to ensure sand transport to the Thousand Palms dune system. 2. As identified by the ISA, sand transport in the east end of the Indio Hills is probably severely compromised. The Preferred Alternative provides for sand transport to the extent it is still possible in the Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Monument Linkage, Indio Hills Palms, and East Indio Hills Conservation Areas. 3. The Willis Palms drainage is included in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area of the Preferred Alternative. 4. The ISA confirmed the characterization of the Big Dune as shielded sand dunes by agreeing that the sand supply has been cut off. The ISA recommended monitoring the dune system, but since it is not within the Reserve System it will not be subject to monitoring. The Big Dune is extensively developed now. V. Species Modeling (Page A-75) 1. Additional description and detail of the species modeling process, including literature citations where available or appropriate was added to Section 3.6 of Appendix I of the Final Plan. The Monitoring Program will address iterative update and refinement of models (See Section 8.2.5.1). Description of the preliminary work done by UC Riverside, through the Biological Monitoring Project, has been added to the species descriptions in Section 9.0 of the Final Plan. 2. See number 1. Literature citations and greater detail in the description of the species model process was added to Section 3.6 of Appendix 1 following the recommendations of the ISA. 3. The development of the species distribution models and the use of spatially explicit conceptual models was based on the limited data available for many of the species. Following the ISA review, additional input from species experts was included where such expertise was available. As described in Section 8.2.5.1, the Monitoring Program will include the development of models that are based on a priori hypotheses about causal relationships between the organism and variables in the landscape; methodologies are being tested (2003-2006) for these niche models by UC Riverside Center for Conservation Biology as part of the Biological Monitoring Project. These methodologies are provided in Section 8.0 of Appendix I. This iterative process is providing the more rigorous models with better predictive power recommended by the ISA. 4. Biologists from UCR working on the Biological Monitoring Project have provided additional data on Covered Species from field surveys since 2002 (UCR, Center for Conservation Biology 2005). These data are being used in the model refinement process, adding to the known locations in the Plan database. These data were also used in the development of the reserve design and conservation plan after the ISA review. 5. The Plan includes a hypothesis driven sampling scheme based on scientific principles (See Section 8.3.2) to gather data about Covered Species. 6. See number 4. Appendix A (Page A-78) The recommendations of entomologist Dr. Greg Ballmer from the ISA were incorporated for the Covered Species of insects. Some of the insect species described in 5-12 �� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A of the ISA Review ultimately were not proposed for coverage as described in Section 3.8 of Appendix I. The recommendations of the ISA with regard to insects which are Covered Species under the Plan are discussed briefly below. CV Giant Sand -treader Cricket (CVGSC) (Macrobaenetes valgum). The recommendations for CVGSC were incorporated in the Preferred Alternative to provide the range of conditions within this species habitat, from cooler/moister on the western edge of its range, to warmer/drier on the eastern edge of its range. The potential effects of global warming could result in wetter or drier conditions in the CV. The Reserve System is designed to address these effects. CV Jerusalem Cricket (CVJC) (Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis). After the ISA review, during the process of developing and refining the Preferred Alternative, Dr. Ballmer provided extensive input to the Lead Agencies regarding this species. He reviewed the Highway 111/I-10 Conservation Area and assisted with the reserve design to incorporate this area. As described in Sections 4.3.5 and 9.3.2.3, this Conservation Area provides occupied habitat for CVJC as well additional habitat to mitigate the effects of future climate change. Appendix B (Page A-80) Appendix B of the ISA review addresses biological monitoring and Adaptive Management. These issues are addressed in Major Issue Response 12. Reliability of Data and Acceptable Biologist Standards Several commentors expressed concern about "Acceptable Biologist" standard, suggesting that it would not allow an objective process. One commentor suggested the development of specific criteria, outside participation in surveys, and avoiding an appearance of censorship. It is important to note that the list of Acceptable Biologists is for the purposes of conducting surveys of Covered species only for the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures described in Section 4.4 of the Plan. The discussion of the list of Acceptable Biologists in Section 4.4 does provide for the CVCC to develop a process which likely will include criteria consistent with this suggestion. The MSHCP has been designed to make use of scientists with expertise relevant to the Covered Species and natural communities since its inception. The Plan includes the use of outside scientists as part of the implementation program. The Monitoring and Management Program includes specific objectives to establish an evaluation committee (See Section 8.1.2). The research program for the Trails Plan will include independent scientists in the design and implementation (See Section 8.5.1). 5-13 �, ,. Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 5-14 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 6: Regulatory Takings Several comments have alleged that, once implemented, the Plan will effect a Fifth Amendment physical and/or regulatory "taking." The procedures established under the Plan will not result in either form of a taking. As several comments have noted, the final Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." From this language, courts have drawn a distinction between "physical" and "regulatory" takings. (Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council, Inc v Tahoe Reg'l Planning_Agency. (2002) 535 U.S. 302, 321). Physical takings occur when a government acquires private property as a result of a condemnation proceeding or a physical appropriation. Regulatory takings refer to instances in which a government regulation prohibits a property owner from making certain uses of her private property. Physical Takings In general, physical takings are readily identifiable. These occur when an agency acquires private property through a condemnation proceeding or physical appropriation. The Plan requires no such action. As discussed at Section 6.6.1.2 of the Plan, the HANS process provides for the acquisition of land needed for conservation from willing sellers either (1) at market value as determined by an appraisal, or (2) through other compensatory incentives. When such property is conserved, it will become part of the MSHCP Reserve System. However, the Plan does not require any Permittee to condemn or physically appropriate any land necessary for implementation of the Plan. CVCC will only acquire land from willing sellers. Regulatory Takings Regulatory takings occur where an agency regulation serves to deprive an owner of her land in a way that is functionally equivalent to a physical taking. (Lingle v._ Chevron 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4342, *20-21). As the Supreme Court has noted, treating all land -use regulations as per se takings "would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." (Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. 535 U.S. at 330). Thus, the Supreme Court has identified four narrow instances in which a government regulation could effect a regulatory taking, none of which are triggered by the Plan. The first instance involves the situation in which an agency requires an exaction on land in exchange for a permit. If the exaction substantially advances the same government interest that would furnish a valid ground for denial of the permit, and is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development, then no taking has occurred. [Id (discussing the Nollan and Dolan tests)]. Here, the exaction substantially advances the government's interest in habitat conservation, and is roughly proportional to the impact arising from development. Thus, no taking has occurred. Major Issue Response 9 discusses Plan compliance with Rough Step and Proportionality requirements. 6-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Second, where a regulation advances a public interest, and allows the land to retain some value and the owner to retain some rights, it is unlikely that a court will find a taking. (See Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1988) p. 597 (discussing the Penn Central test).) Under this test, the regulation must effect a situation functionally equivalent to a physical taking with a direct appropriation and ouster. (Lingle, 2005 U.S. LEMS 4342, * 19-20.) Here, the Plan clearly advances a public interest (indeed many of the same commentors who are alleging a taking also state that they agree that the overall purpose of the Plan is welcome), and all land will retain value. Property owners whose land is not purchased will retain the right to develop some or all of their land, subject to compliance with the Plan. Therefore, the Plan will not effect a regulatory taking under the Penn Central test. The third narrow instance where a court has found a taking involves a situation in which the government requires a property owner to allow a permanent physical invasion of her property. (See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., (1982) 458 U.S. 419(state law requiring landlords to permit cable companies to install cable facilities in apartment buildings effected a taking.) Under the Plan, no physical invasion of property will take place, nor will an agency require any property owner to allow a physical invasion of her property. Thus, this regulatory taking is not applicable. Finally, where a regulation is so onerous as to deprive an owner of "all economically beneficial use" of his land, the Supreme Court has held that a taking has occurred and compensation is required. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, (1992) 535 U.S. 1003, 1019.) Thus, for Fifth Amendment compensation to be awarded, such a complete regulatory taking requires 100% diminution in value. (Tahoe -Sierra, at 330.) The Plan will not cause this result. The Supreme Court has held that even a complete temporary building moratoria is not a per se taking. (Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe &g 7 Planning; A eenna, (2002) 535 U.S. 302.) In Tahoe -Sierra, a governmental planning agency imposed a complete 32-month moratorium on all development while the agency analyzed the effects of development on Lake Tahoe and devised a land -use scheme to best preserve the environment. The issue before the Court was whether such a moratorium, imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land -use plan, constitutes a per se taking of property requiring compensation. (Tahoe -Sierra, at 306.) In determining that no taking occurred, the Court reasoned that such a moratorium is an effective mechanism that allows the government to temporarily preserve the status quo while undertaking a comprehensive planning effort. The Court hypothesized that if such action did amount to a taking, agency officials may "rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether," which would defeat the interest governments have in facilitating informed land -use decision -making. (Id at 339, e also Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 ("Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paving for every such change in the general law.")) In fact, Tahoe -Sierra notes that the interest in protecting the governmental decision -making process "is even stronger" in cases similar to this — where "an agency is developing a regional plan." (Tahoe -Sierra, at 340.) 6-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Plan places far fewer restrictions on landowners than did the agency in Tahoe -Sierra. In contrast to the complete moratoria imposed on the entire planning area in Tahoe -Sierra, here, the Plan would impose no moratoria. In fact, the JPR process, discussed in Section 6.6.1.1 of the MSHCP, states that it in no way limits the Local Permittee's land use authority; the Permittee has complete authority to approve a Project. Likewise, the HANS process focuses on acquiring property from willing sellers through just compensation in full compliance with the Fifth Amendment. Thus, although the land owners may have to go through the HANS and/or JPR processes, as Tahoe -Sierra demonstrates, this does not result in a regulatory taking. For more on the HANS and JPR processes, see Major Issue Response 10. Additionally, California courts have long held that planning functions are within a local agency's police powers, and are not takings. In Landgate v. California Coastal Commission, (1998)17 Cal.4' 1006, the California Supreme Court indicated that land use regulations that are part of a reasonable regulatory process designed to advance legitimate government interests are not a taking. Finally, the Plan does not apply to projects with legally vested rights. However, a developer may elect to comply with the Plan if take authorization is required for the project. Alternatively, a development would have to obtain take authorization separately from the Service and CDFG. The state and federal ESAs are laws that must be complied with regardless of whether the MSHCP is in effect. These laws, therefore, require take authorization of some sort be obtained for projects that could result in take of listed species. Land Value Diminution Concerns The MSHCP has instituted an appraisal process to help ensure that property values will not be diminished by implementation of the Plan. The appraisal will determine value based on overall market conditions in the applicable portion of the CV. Further, the appraisal determines value of the subject property as compared to the value of a similar property, excluding consideration of the fact that the subject property is within a Conservation Area. Comments suggesting that implementation of the Plan will cause a diminution in the value of private land are not supported. As the Supreme Court posited in Tahoe - Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning envy (2002) 535 U.S. 302, 341, land values may increase in the future because certain areas within the plan will remain in a pristine state. Moreover, as explained in Danforth v. United States (193 9) 308 U.S. 271, 285, "[a] reduction or increase in the value of property may occur by reason of legislation for or the beginning or completion of a project" but "such changes in value are incidents of ownership [and] cannot be considered as a. `taking' in the constitutional sense." W. Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 6-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 7 Adequacy of Plan Funding The Permittees' obligation under the MSHCP is to conserve the 110,440 acres (as of 1996) as described in Section 4.2.2.2, and to manage and monitor in perpetuity those lands as described in the MSHCP. This acreage includes 9,300 acres of Existing Conservation Lands owned by the Permittees; 7,500 acres already owned, but not currently conserved, by the Permittees, and 540 acres to be acquired and conserved by State Parks, leaving a balance of 93,100 acres to be acquired or otherwise conserved as of 1996, the baseline year for the MSHCP. Between 1996 and June, 2003, the most recent time for which these statistics are available, the Local Permittees acquired 2,500 acres, leaving a balance of 90,600 acres to be acquired. The acquisition of 90,600 acres, as of June, 2003, plus the management and monitoring in perpetuity of Permittee lands, is the actual commitment, not providing a specific amount of money for land acquisition, administration, and land management and monitoring. The dollar amounts identified in the MSHCP are estimates of the costs of those activities. The dollar figures reflect a snapshot in time, and the MSHCP clearly recognizes and anticipates that the actual costs may be more or less depending on such factors as how land values change over the 30 year acquisition period, and how the actual costs of monitoring and management change over time. Acquisition costs will be affected by market fluctuations as well as how much land is conserved through means other than purchase. Market fluctuations can be dramatic. From 1994/1995 through 1998/99, assessed values for unimproved land in Riverside County declined according to Riverside County Assessor's historical assessed value data. In 2004 and 2005 on the other hand, land values in many areas of the CV have risen dramatically, perhaps in an unprecedented fashion. Because real estate markets are cyclical, the dramatic rate of increase of the last two years cannot be expected to continue. Real estate values are likely to stabilize and remain at the same level, or increase only very slowly, or even decline, for a period of years. Unfortunately, projecting what will happen with the real estate market is much like attempting to project what will happen with the stock market. Just as there is historical evidence that the stock market rises over the long term, but fluctuates significantly in the short term, there is historical evidence for a long-term increase in land values with short term fluctuations. The MSHCP includes two mechanisms to address the unknown rate at which land values are expected to change over time. First, the MSHCP increases the land acquisition cost projections by 3% annually to anticipate an increase in value. Secondly, and more importantly, the CVCC will have a new Nexus Study prepared every 5 years or more often if conditions warrant. This ensures that changes in land value — whether dramatic or modest — will be taken into account in regular updates, so that the Local Development Mitigation Fee can be adjusted as needed. In conjunction with the other funding sources for land acquisition described in Section 5.2 of the MSHCP, this ensures that there will be adequate funding over the 30 year acquisition time frame to acquire all the land required of the Permittees. It should particularly be noted that because the Market Study was based on land values prior to the anomalous, dramatic increase in land value of the 7-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan last two years, CVAG has had the .Market Study and the Nexus Study updated between the Draft MSHCP and the Final MSHCP to ensure that the acquisition cost projections and Local Development Mitigation Fee are current when the MSHCP is adopted. The new Market Study identifies a significant increase in acquisition costs for the Permittees' obligation, and the revised Nexus Study supports a modified Local Development Mitigation fee as described in Section 5.2.1.1 of the MSHCP. In addition, the revised Nexus Study analyzed what the Local Development Mitigation Fee would be under the Preferred Alternative Without Palm Springs. The results are discussed in Section 5.2.1.1 of the Final MSHCP. As mentioned above, acquisition costs will also be affected by how much land is conserved through means other than purchase. For example, if a development is approved in a Conservation Area, conditions of approval imposed by the local jurisdiction may result in a portion of the property being set aside as permanent open space. This is not unusual when cities or the County approve projects involving property with steep slopes, floodplain, earthquake faults, or other constraints, or when clustering is used to transfer density from one part of a property to another. Any land conserved in this manner reduces the amount of land that needs to be purchased. To be conservative, the MSHCP does not rely on any land being conserved in this manner; thus, the estimated acquisition costs in the MSHCP are a worst case scenario in which all 90,600 acres need to be purchased. If some land is conserved without. actual purchase, the total acquisition costs will be reduced. Some comments suggested that because state and federal funds cannot be guaranteed, the state and federal contributions may not be made and, therefore, the MSHCP may start "with essentially a 44 percent acquisition -funding shortfall". Such comments ignore the fact that the MSHCP clearly states that the Local Permittees' obligation is to conserve 110,440 acres (as of 1996) as described in Section 4.2.2.2, and that the lands to be acquired as the state and federal contribution, as well as the Complementary Conservation, are not a Permittee obligation for the purposes of the authorization of Take (See Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.1, and 5.2.4 of the MSHCP and Section 12.1.1 of the IA). While the Permittees' Take Authorization is not dependent on the state and federal contributions being made, it should be noted that the state and federal governments have a history of extensive acquisitions in the Plan Area. For example, since 2000, more than $40 million in state bond funds has been expended or appropriated to acquire land within the Conservation Areas. Congress has appropriated more than $12 million to BLM in the last thirteen years for acquisitions in the Conservation Areas. Comments variously assert that acquisition cost projections in the Plan appear to be 5%, 10%1 21 %, or 32% of actual fair market value. The only support offered for any such comments is the assertion in the letter from Bruce Colbert for the Property Owners Association of Riverside County that in April 2004, a group of brokers reviewed the land values in the Market Study and, based on their firsthand experience, provided values that better reflect the current marketplace. No information is provided in the comment letter regarding the brokers or the methodology they used. There is one reference to the 7-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan geographic areas to which they assigned land values, and these were generalized areas such as "North of 1-10", "Desert Hot Springs", "North of Indio", and "West of Highway 86". Such vague geographic references would make meaningful comparison with land values in actual Conservation Areas impossible. The same commentor suggests that .land values in June 2004 were increasing at 30% per year, and that applying that same rate of increase for the first 5 years of the 30 year acquisition period, with a 3% annual increase thereafter, would result in acquisition costs of $2.8 billion, thus "demonstrating" that the Plan's projected acquisition costs are only 5% of the "actual". The suggestion that the increase in land value will be 30% annually for a five year period is not supported by any data or reference to any historical precedent. One comment indicated that in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, the MSHCP's projected costs are substantially lower than those estimated by the City of Palm Springs in a recent study. As noted in the comment letter, the city's study projected acquisition costs in the 55 square mile area included in the Hillside Initiative Measure B in the City of Palm Springs, which, according to the comment, projected acquisition costs of up to $160 million, including up to $84 million for just the Palm Hills and Shadowrock projects. It should be noted that the Measure B area is not the same as the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, and that the Measure B area includes land below toe of slope with significant development potential that is not included in the Conservation Area. It should also be noted that under the MSHCP, the Palm Hills project receives Take Authorization and no acquisition would occur. Rather, a portion of the project site would be set aside for permanent conservation, and additional off -site land would also be set aside as mitigation. The City has indicated that it considers Shadowrock as a project with legally vested rights. If Shadowrock has legally vested rights, it would not be subject to MSHCP requirements; nor would it receive Take Authorization through the MSHCP. Shadowrock could, however, voluntarily elect to comply with MSHCP requirements in order to receive Take Authorization through the MSHCP. In the Final MSHCP,. Shadowrock is a Special Provisions area and would receive Take Authorization if it complies with the Special Provisions. Alternatively, Shadowrock may pursue an Incidental Take Permit through Section 7. One specific comment asserts that the "Weighted Average Total" in Table A5-1 in Appendix I is not calculated as a weighted average and thus fails to follow the method used by the Market Study, instead being a straight mathematical average value, thus resulting in a skewed value. The comment is apparently based on the observation that the table in the Market Study has a higher weighted average total than the table in the Appendix. The commentor failed to notice that the table in the Market Study is for all private lands in the Conservation Areas, including the lands to be acquired through Complementary Conservation and as the state and federal contribution. The table in the Appendix follows the same "Weighted Average" methodology, but includes only the Permittees' share of the land to be acquired. In other words, because the MSHCP requires the Permittees to acquire only a portion of the land in the Conservation Areas to meet their mitigation obligation, the Local Development Mitigation Fee must be based on only the acres they must acquire. Thus Table A5-1 differs from the table in the Market Study. 7-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan It differs not in methodology, however, but in the number of acres for which the acquisition costs are projected. One commentor also asserts that land values are significantly understated, and, therefore, the mitigation fee is likely to be much too low; this would cause Plan to be invalidated by the courts as in National Wildlife Federation v. Babbitt. As stated previously, CVAG is confident that the MSHCP provides for adequate funding for land acquisition, particularly in view of the MSHCP's mechanisms for adjusting the fee as needed over the 30 year acquisition period. Further, the commentor asserts that if accurate costs were used, the mitigation fee would be as much as 10 times higher, and CVAG members would not approve such a Plan. This statement is speculative, and no data care provided by the commentor to support the assertion. It should be noted again, however, that CVAG has had the Market Study and the Nexus Study updated between the Draft MSHCP and the Final MSHCP to ensure that the acquisition cost projections and Local Development Mitigation Fee are current when the MSHCP is adopted. The results are discussed in Section 5.2 of the Final MSHCP. Since release of the Draft MSHCP, a lower court decision overturned the BLM land exchange on which the Eagle Mountain Landfill project depends, raising concern over whether the Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund can be relied upon as a revenue source for MSHCP implementation. As provided in Section 5.2.2 of the MSHCP, the CVCC will annually review funding adequacy and make necessary adjustments. The MSHCP projects Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund revenues becoming available in Year 2010, and recognizes that litigation is still pending. It is likely that an appeal will be filed of the lower court's ruling; thus the final outcome of the litigation is not likely to be known for some time, but most likely before 2010. For the present, it is reasonable to project the Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund as a revenue source, recognizing that other funding sources could be necessary to offset revenues that might turn out not to be available from the Trust Fund. Potential alternative funding sources have been identified in Section 5.2.1.7 of the final MSHCP. 7-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response S: Land Use Adjacency Guidelines The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in Section 4.5 of the MSHCP are intended to avoid or minimize indirect or edge effects to Reserve Lands from Development that might be approved by the Permittees on parcels that share a common boundary with land in the Conservation Area. The term adjacent thus means having an actual common boundary with a parcel in a Conservation Area. In response to the concern that the language in the guidelines may not be appropriate in all instances where a common boundary may exist, the language in the Final MSHCP has been revised to stipulate the guidelines shall be "implemented where applicable" by the Permittees as part of their project approval process to avoid or minimize the indirect effects of the Development on land in the Conservation Area. ;.) 8-1 IJ Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 8-2 r Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 9 Rough Step/Proportionality Requirements The NCCP Act of 2002 requires that "mitigation and conservation measures are being implemented roughly proportional in time and extent to the impact on habitat or covered species authorized under the plan" and, fizrther, "Evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan in meeting the conservation objectives of the plan." [Fish and Game Code Sections 2805(f)(1)(C) and (D).] The NCCP Act of 2002 also provides for suspension and revocation of the permit "If the plan participant fails to maintain the rough proportionality between impacts on habitat or covered species and conservation measures", or "If the plan participant adopts, amends, or approves any plan or project without the concurrence of the wildlife agencies that is inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the approved plan." [Fish and Game Code Sections 2820(b)(3)(B) and (Q.] Thus, receiving Take Authorization requires that the Permittees maintain a rough proportionality between the amount of Take (or habitat disturbance) that occurs under the MSHCP and the amount of conservation of habitat accomplished. This is a legal obligation of the Permittees. Rough Step and Rough Proportionality, as described below, are mechanisms in the MSHCP to ensure compliance with these statutory requirements. Rough Step refers to an accounting process to monitor the conservation and loss of Habitat areas, natural communities, Biological Corridors, and Essential Ecological Process areas in the Conservation Areas. The purpose of Rough Step is to ensure that as the MSHCP Reserve System is being assembled over time, Development on lands within the Conservation Areas does not substantially reduce the opportunity to conserve the Additional Conservation Lands necessary to meeting Covered Species and natural community Conservation Objectives. A further purpose is to ensure that acquisition priorities at any point in time are appropriately focused on conserving parcels within the Conservation Areas needed to meet Covered Species and conserved natural communities Conservation Objectives. Rough Step, therefore, focuses on what happens within the Conservation Areas, as opposed to Rough Proportionality, which focuses on overall loss of Covered Species Habitat and natural communities in the Plan Area as a whole. The MSHCP requires an annual Rough Step analysis conducted by CVCC for each Conservation Area. The annual Rough Step analysis will be conducted for each Conservation Objective to ensure that Development in the Conservation Areas is not precluding the attainment of each objective. In addition, a real-time Rough Step analysis will be prepared for a Conservation Area whenever a Development is proposed in that Conservation Area. This is necessary to ensure that Permittee land use decisions and CVCC acquisition priorities are both ensuring on an ongoing basis that Development does not preclude attainment of the Conservation Objectives. If the Permittees do not comply with rough step requirements set forth in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies have the right to suspend or revoke all or portions of the permits, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force at the time of such revocation or suspension. Such suspension or revocation may apply to the entire applicable Permit, or only to a portion such as specified Conservation Area, specified Covered Species, or specified Covered 9-1 r . Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Activities. Except as otherwise required by law, prior to taking action to revoke or suspend the Permits, the Wildlife Agencies, as applicable, shall: 1) provide thirty (30) day prior written notification to the relevant Permittee(s) and the CVCC of the proposed revocation- or suspension, and 2) meet and confer with the relevant Permittee(s) and the CVCC to attempt to avoid the need to revoke or suspend all or a portion of the Permits. The Parties may rely upon the informal meet and confer process set forth in section 23.6 of this Agreement for disputes concerning potential Permit revocation or suspension. Rough proportionality refers to an accounting mechanism to ensure that the rate of MSHCP Reserve Assembly is roughly proportional with the amount of Development occurring in the Plan Area that results in loss of Habitat for the. Covered Species and loss of the natural communities. It is described fully in Section 5.2.2.3 of the MSHCP. Accounting for rough proportionality occurs every five years. If at the end of any five year period the rough proportionality test has not been met, the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies will meet within 90 days to begin to develop a strategy to address the need for a balance between Conservation and Development. Regarding the comment that failure to maintain Rough Step and Rough Proportionality could lead to the loss of the Permits, which could result in the loss of highway improvements, CVAG considers revocation of the MSHCP Permits and consequent loss of Take Authorization for highway improvements as unlikely. If Permit suspension or revocation were ever proposed, as noted above Permit suspension or revocation requires a process that includes thirty day prior written notification to the relevant Permittee(s) and the CVCC of the proposed revocation or suspension, and a meet and confer with the relevant Permittee(s) and the CVCC to attempt to avoid the need to revoke or suspend all or a portion of the Permits. Further, as described in Section 6.6.2 of the MSHCP, CVCC, the Wildlife Agencies, and Caltrans will enter into a Conservation Bank Agreement once a portion or all of the . 5,791 acres are acquired. If the Permits issued in conjunction with the Plan are ever suspended or revoked, the conservation bank will provide unused credit for lands acquired to provide mitigation for future transportation projects. Caltrans may utilize available credits from the bank towards meeting the mitigation requirement for a project. Any Take Authorization required for such projects would then be obtained through either a Section 7 consultation where there was a federal nexus, for example through the Federal Highways Administration, or through a separate Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. Similarly, if the Permits issued in conjunction with the Plan are ever suspended or revoked, the regional transportation projects listed as Covered Activities in Section 7.2.3 will be mitigated through the establishment of a conservation bank that incorporates and recognizes the contributions made by CVAG to Plan implementation as adequate mitigation for the projects. 9-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 10 HANS Process Most comments responding to the HANS process alleged either that HANS would effect a Fifth Amendment "taking" or that HANS violated the PSA. The HANS process does neither. The HANS process applies only in portions of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area as depicted in Section 4.3.21 of the MSHCP. The HANS process does not deprive landowners of all economic value, of their property. Instead, as indicated in Section 6.6.1.2 of the Draft MSHCP, the HANS process is designed to only acquire a property interest from those willing to convey the interest in exchange for fair market value or, at the option of the owner, for other incentives. Project applicants will either be allowed to proceed with development as indicated on page 6-22 of the Draft MSHCP, or the property needed for inclusion within the MSHCP Conservation Area will be subject to purchase pursuant to the terms of a negotiated purchase agreement. See Major Issue Response 6 for more information regarding the issue of HANS and Fifth Amendment takings. Several comments also allege that HANS and/or the JPR processes violate the Permit Streamlining Act. Government Code Section 65943(a) of the PSA states: "Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project." If the agency does not make such determination within the specified time period, the application will be deemed complete. Id. If the application is determined not to be complete, the agency's determination shall specify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate how they can be made complete. Id. Therefore, the processing time periods in the PSA begin to run when the development application is accepted as complete by the applicable County or City. Under the Plan, a Local Permittee may not deem a development application complete until the JPR and, if necessary, the HANS processes are complete. See MSHCP at Sections 6.6.1.1 ("The application will not be deemed complete by the Permittee prior to the completion of the [JPRP]) and 6.6.1.2 ("The County and impacted cities will employ HANS in conjunction with the [JPR in the specified Conservation Area.]"). (emphasis added) Therefore, if the JPR and HANS processes have not been completed within the 30-day time period established by Section 65943(a), the Local Permittee shall specify to the applicant that the JPR and HANS processes must be completed before the application is deemed complete. Once an application is complete, subsequent deadlines under the PSA will commence. Cal. Gov. Code § 65944. 10-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 10-2 "' Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Issue Response 11: No Surprises Assurances Several commentors have requested a discussion of the current state of the "No Surprises" rule, and/or whether the MSHCP will be consistent with the federal ruling. The HCP Assurances Rule ("No Surprises") (63 Federal Register 8859, as codified in 50 C.F.R. Sections 17 3, 17.22(b] and 17.32fb1) provides regulatory assurances to holders of Incidental Take Permits ("ITPs") issued under Section 10 of FESA. Essentially, this Rule states that Permittees will not be required to commit funds or resources beyond the level agreed upon in the HCP or IA at the time the permit was issued to mitigate the effects of "unforeseen circumstances" on species covered by the permit and their habitats. The government will honor these assurances as long as a Permittee is implementing the terms and conditions of the HCP, permit, IA and associated documents in good faith. In effect, this regulation states that the government will honor its commitment as long as the HCP Permittees honor theirs. In 2003, a district court vacated the Permit Revocation Rule ("PRR") for ITPs and remanded it to the Service for reconsideration. The court also ordered that ITPs not include No Surprises assurances from June 10, 2004 forward until the PRR was subject to new rulemaking. That rulemaking was completed on December 10, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 71723) and the new PRR became effective January 10, 2005. From that day forward, as confirmed in a USFWS memorandum dated January 19, 2005, there are no constraints on the inclusion of No Surprises assurances in new incidental take permits. The Draft MSHCP's position on No Surprises, discussed in Section 6.8 of the Draft MSHCP, is consistent with the Service's ruling. Therefore, there is no need to modify this language in the final MSHCP. Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 12: The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs The Management and Monitoring Programs for the MSHCP provide the overall approach for the implementation of monitoring and management. The Management and Monitoring Programs are designed to function in an Adaptive Management framework. This approach is consistent with USFWS in their description of adaptive management, "The primary reason for using adaptive management in HCPs is to allow for changes in the operating conservation program, which may be necessary to reach the biological objectives of the HCP" (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/NOSURPR.HTM). These interrelated programs are described in their entirety in Section 8 of the Plan, MSHCP Reserve System Management and Monitoring Program. In addition to responding to comments made about these programs, this response describes areas in the Final Plan where additional clarification and detail has been added. This Plan, like other large regional HCP/NCCPs, is designed to ensure long-term conservation of Covered Species and natural communities, despite uncertainties about the behavior of the extremely complex and ever -changing ecological systems that are its focus. Uncertainties exist about how large-scale ecosystem processes, such as floods, drought, fire, and other perturbations, affect the species and ecosystems. Despite the extensive data gathering that has been part of the plan development process, uncertainties exist due to lack of information about the species life histories, habitat relationships, and multiple species interactions. As a result of this uncertainty, the framework for the MSHCP Management and Monitoring Programs begins with a baseline phase. As described in Section 8.3.3, the baseline phase will have as its primary objective "... to conduct baseline surveys and to develop and test methods and protocols. A priori hypotheses about the factors affecting the distribution of species can be tested during the surveys." This data gathering phase will provide the baseline for the testing necessary for long-term monitoring and resolving critical management uncertainties (Atkinson et al. 2004). This "framework" approach is consistent with recommendations and requirements for HCPs and NCCPs. The federal Five -Point Policy addendum (USFWS 2000) describes, "The key components that make an adaptive process in HCPs meaningful. These components include careful planning through identification of uncertainty, incorporating a range of alternatives, implementing a sufficient monitoring program to determine success of the alternatives, and a feedback loop from the results of the monitoring program that allows for change in the management strategies." The California NCCP Act (2003) requires an Adaptive Management approach. The comment that the MSHCP contains inadequate detail may have been made because the Management and Monitoring Programs use a framework approach. In a document developed by scientists from USGS and CDFG, in partnership with USFWS, the approach used in the MSHCP is described, "In the face of limited knowledge and ability to make predictions, NCCP/HCPs should be designed to improve our 12-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan understanding of the ecological systems the plans are designed to protect, by adjusting management and even the conservation strategy as necessary in an "adaptive management" framework." (Atkinson et al. 2004). The Monitoring and Management Programs are intended to be fully integrated, with Adaptive Management as a key element of the process. Figure 8-4, Integration of the Monitoring Program and Management Program, illustrates the feedback loop. This figure has been modified slightly in the Final Plan to more accurately portray the manner in which data from the Monitoring Program is used in the Management Program and as part of an Adaptive Management process. Some confusion in the comments may have arisen by the reader not understanding that where Adaptive Management is referenced, it is a part of the Management Program. Monitoring data are designed to inform the Management Program and facilitate Adaptive Management as a means of learning more about the ecological systems that are an important element of this Plan. In "Designing Monitoring . Programs in an Adaptive Management Context for Regional Multiple Species Conservation Plans" (Atkinson et al. 2004), the authors provide excellent guidance for this process. Several of the authors of this document were involved in the development of the Management and Monitoring Programs for the MSHCP (Andrea Atkinson, Brenda Johnson, and Yvonne Moore), providing important suggestions and input to the Draft Plan. Because this document was prepared by CDFG staff in the Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and is endorsed by USFWS, it provides a useful tool for evaluating a monitoring and Adaptive Management program for consistency with HCP and NCCP guidelines. The following lists the steps described in this document for monitoring in an Adaptive Management context and the extent to which these steps are incorporated in the Coachella Valley MSHCP: 1. Identify goals and objectives of the conservation plan. These goals and objectives should be biologically meaningful, measurable, feasible, consistent with current knowledge, compatible in a multiple species context. The goals and objectives for the Monitoring Program are listed in Section 8.1.1 and for the Management Program in Section 8.1.2. These programs are designed to focus on determining if the Plan is achieving its Conservation Goals for Covered Species and conserved natural communities (monitoring) and if not, that actions will be taken to ensure that Conservation Goals are met (management). Conservation Goals and Objective for each Covered Species are provided in Section 9, including individual species population -level goals. Conservation Goals and Objectives for natural communities are provided in Section 10. 2. Identify scope of monitoring program The Monitoring and Management Programs address all the elements of scope, including geographic range, users of the information, spatial scale of focus, the time scale, and opportunities for partnership. The implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs involves state and federal agencies in addition to the Permittees. These programs are designed to establish a cooperative partnership among the Permittees and the other land management agencies within the Reserve System to meet the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the Plan. 3. Compile information relevant to monitoring program design 12-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Section 8.3.1 of the Plan describes the current monitoring programs on Existing Conservation Lands within the Reserve System. Some of these programs have been ongoing for many years, providing an excellent baseline of data on some species. In addition, CVAG, with funding provided by CDFG, initiated a preliminary monitoring effort to collect baseline data and evaluate potential monitoring protocols for the MSHCP. This program has been carried out by UC Riverside, Center for Conservation Biology scientists from 2002 through 2005 (UC Riverside, Center for Conservation Biology 2005). It has provided an excellent beginning for the Monitoring Program and Adaptive Management. 4. Strategically divide the system and set priorities a. Group covered Species b. Group natural communities into natural community assemblages c. Identify landscape -level issues The MSHCP Monitoring Program will involve monitoring at multiple scales as described in Section 8.3.4. The program includes species -level, landscape -level, and natural community -level monitoring. The use of natural community assemblages is an important element of the Monitoring Program and was used as an example in the Atkinson et al. document. 5. Develop simple management -oriented conceptual models Section 8.4 of the Draft Plan presents conceptual models focusing on identified threats or stressors and potential management actions within each natural community assemblage in the Plan Area. Several of these models were used as examples in the Atkinson et al. document. The focus of these models is to link the Conservation Objectives to causes of change within ecosystems and management actions to respond to them. The models will continue to be updated, incorporating new data available from the Monitoring Program. 6. Determine what to monitor; Identify critical uncertainties Section 8.4 provides a detailed discussion of the attributes that have been identified as important for monitoring, along with key monitoring objectives which identify critical uncertainties. Additional discussion and clarification have been added to Sections 8.2 and 8.4 in the Final Plan. For example, the discussion of groundwater monitoring related to mesquite hummocks has been revised to more clearly describe the proposed monitoring. 7. Determine strategy for implementing monitoring Implementation of the Monitoring Program is described in terms of a preliminary work plan, personnel, and program costs in Section 8.8. The implementation involves a phased approach, beginning with a baseline phase during which baseline data will be gathered and sampling protocols for long-term monitoring will be developed and tested. Table 8-9 outlines the work plan for the Monitoring Program in years one through five. Table 8-14 has been added to the Final MSHCP to summarize the monitoring program elements for each Covered Species and natural community assemblage. Monitoring Program implementation also includes statistically rigorous sampling design, addressed by the Scientific Principles in Section 8.3.2. These principles have been modified to be consistent with the recommendations of Atkinson et al. in the Final Plan. 12-3 r_� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 8. Develop data quality, assurance, data management, analysis, and reporting strategies. Data management issues are addressed in Section 8.6. The Management and Monitoring Programs are designed to provide an integrated information sharing and communication process. The Land Manager and Monitoring Program Administrator will work closely together to ensure that monitoring results and management actions are part of a continuous feedback loop. Already a positive communication process has been underway with the preliminary monitoring effort by UC Riverside, Center for Conservation Biology. CVAG has held annual monitoring seminar since 2002, where results of the monitoring efforts are presented to agency personnel and interested members of the public. 9. Complete the adaptive management loop by ensuring effective feedback to decision - making Figures 8-4 and 8-5 describe the integration of the Management and Monitoring Programs and the Adaptive Management feedback loop. These figures have been revised slightly in the Final MSHCP for clarity. Some comments addressed the Independent Science Advisors (ISA) Review, which was completed in April 2001, and the extent to which the Draft Plan was responsive to comments by the reviewers. It is important to realize that the document that was reviewed by the ISA was the January 2001 Administrative Review Draft of the Plan. This 2001 draft included aversion of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program that focused on individual species -specific monitoring. Several comments assert that the Plan did not address substantive issues raised by this review. Among the changes in the Plan since the January 2001 Administrative Review Draft were those that addressed the issues raised in the ISA review. In particular Appendix B of the ISA review, prepared by Dr. Richard Tracy, specifically focused on the Adaptive Management/Monitoring Program. The approach in the October 2004 Draft Plan is consistent with the recommendations of the ISA (Noss et al. 2001), including the development of conceptual models. The ISA emphasized that the Monitoring Program should include an evaluation of the relative influence of factors that affect/drive population fluctuations. This information feeds into the Adaptive Management process where a determination of whether a management response is appropriate can be made. A review of the ISA report indicates that the "Elements of a "Science -based Adaptive Management Program" recommended by Dr. Tracy have all been incorporated in the MSHCP Management and Monitoring Programs as described in the review: a. Identification of Explicit (Quantifiable) Scientific Goals and Objectives: ➢ See Section 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 for overall Monitoring and Management Goals and Objectives, and Section 8.4 under individual natural community assemblages for key monitoring objectives. b. Identification of Likely Environmental Stressors: ➢ Conceptual models of "habitat threats" or environmental stressors are provided for each natural community assemblage and the associated Covered Species in Section 8.4 (e.g. Figure 8.9, Alluvial fan and wash Habitat threats model). c. Construction of Conceptual Models Describing Crucial Ecosystem Interactions: 12-4 0- Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ➢ Section 8.2.S describes the use of conceptual ecosystem models. Conceptual models of habitat threats described above, as well as community models (e.g. Figure 8-7, aeolian community sand process model) are included in Section 8.4. These models will be revised and updated as new information is obtained. d. Identification of Indicators: ➢ As noted in Section 8.3.3 of the Draft Plan, during the baseline phase of the Monitoring Program, the potential for the use of indicators will be evaluated, "An additional objective during this first phase will be to determine if certain Covered Species, Habitat level variables, or landscape metrics can serve as effective surrogates, umbrella species, or other indicators, for species groups or associations within natural community assemblages. This would be determined by analyzing data that test the assumption that there is a predictable mathematical relationship between the indicator and the variables of interest (i.e., Covered Species)." e. Development of Sampling Design to Estimate Status and Trends of Indicators: ➢ The sampling design to evaluate status and trends of indicators will be developed during the baseline phase of the Monitoring Program, as described in Section 8.3.3. In all cases, sampling design will be developed consistent with the Scientific Principles (Section 8.3.2). f. Determination of Threshold Values That Will Trigger Need for Management Changes: The determination of thresholds is addressed in the Introduction and Purpose for the Management and Monitoring Program in Section 8.1, "the data gathered will help identify the thresholds that would trigger when Adaptive Management actions are appropriate and test their efficacy." Identifying thresholds for initiating Adaptive Management is an important goal and the establishment of these thresholds is a specific objective of the Monitoring Program in Section 8.1.1, "Establish thresholds for changing or modifying management and identify appropriate responses or management practices for statistically and biologically significant changes in populations, communities, and ecological processes." It should also be noted that some caution regarding the development and use of thresholds and triggers has been advised (Atkinson et al. 2004). Thresholds are often conceptualized as a static number, which is a challenge in ecosystems where carrying capacity is not static. The Plan approach is to identify the primary drivers of population dynamics for each species, and determine normal variances in response to those drivers. At the same time the influence of potential threats or stressors is measured. A significant departure from the expected response to natural drivers then becomes the trigger or threshold for management. The data collected simultaneously on the influence of the stressors provides explicit direction as to what course management actions should take. The following paragraphs address specific comments that were made in more than one comment letter. A. The Adaptive Management Plan is Pseudoscientific or is not based on best available science 12-5 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Skies Habitat Conservation Plan Some commentors suggested that the Adaptive Management plan is pseudoscientific because it gives :the appearance of science -based management decisions but lacks specifics as to which management actions will be tested, what the critical tests will be, who will make them, and how these will be used to make management decisions. There are no clear lines of authority or an appeal process, so no accountability for decisions made. The Management Program, which includes Adaptive Management, is clearly a science -based program which involves an integration of monitoring and management to provide a feedback loop from data gathered on Covered Species and natural communities. As clearly stated in the Goals and Objectives (Section 8.1.2) for the Management Program, "the Management Program will incorporate Adaptive Management, which includes an integrated multidisciplinary approach to addressing management practices, evaluating management actions, and assessing threats using appropriate experimental approaches at species, community, and landscape levels." The science -based Adaptive Management approach (Section 8.2.4.3) is specifically described as," . . . the application of the scientific method to management strategies." The Management Program is integrated with monitoring which is guided by scientific principles (Section 8.3.2) to ensure a program that is scientifically rigorous, question - based, and with the strongest inference possible. The Plan is designed as a framework that describes a process for scientific evaluation of the both the stressors that affect Covered Species and natural communities and the management actions to address them. Over the course of a 75-year permit it would be impossible to describe specifics as to which management actions will be tested. As noted above, considerable uncertainty exists about the complex ecological systems conserved by the Plan. To the extent stressors and Adaptive Management concerns are known, these are included in the conceptual models in Section 8.4. For each Covered Species and natural community, known threats and limiting factors as well as potential Adaptive Management actions are described in Sections 9 and 10 (e.g. Section 9.2.1.2 for Mecca aster). The Plan delineates a process for identifying and scientifically evaluating Adaptive Management actions (See Figure 8-4) through integration of the Monitoring and Management Programs. The Adaptive Management process is based on quantitative evidence and hypothesis testing. The description of Adaptive Management in Section 8.2.4.3 has been modified and clarified in the Final MSHCP, as follows: "A key element of Adaptive Management is the establishment of testable hypotheses linked to the conservation strategies and their biological objectives (USFWS, HCP Handbook 1996). The hypotheses are tested with the commencement of the management options, results are quantified and analyzed, and uncertainty reduced. Hypotheses are restated, and the process repeated until goals are met or uncertainty reduced sufficiently." The entire process is designed to allow objective scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of its actions. With respect to the decision process and line of authority, Section 8.2.2 describes the organizational structure for implementation of the Management Program. Clarification has been added to the Final MSHCP to more clearly identify the responsibilities for Adaptive Management. Figure 8-1 illustrates the decision process for 12-6 �.� Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan determining the response to feedback from the Monitoring Program. The Land Manager "has the responsibility to facilitate the exchange of information regarding all completed and proposed management and Adaptive Management actions." The Land Manager would work in close coordination with the Monitoring Program Administrator and the R1V4UCs to facilitate the exchange of Monitoring Program data. Within three years of Permit issuance, Reserve Management Unit Plans will be developed, to include ".. . ongoing management measures and Adaptive Management actions, schedules, and responsibilities for implementation." The description of the elements of these plans and the responsibilities of the personnel for the Management and Monitoring Programs is provided in Section 6. The use of "approved biologists" does not apply to the Management and Monitoring Programs. The "Acceptable Biologist" standard is for surveys required as part of the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures described in Section 4.4 of the Plan. Personnel involved in implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs will be selected for their experience and skill level; individuals for each position must possess previous experience in the relevant field and a demonstrated ability to complete the functions described in the Plan. The Monitoring Program will be supervised by a community ecologist and overseen by a Monitoring Program Administrator who is responsible for the scientific integrity of the process. B. As presented in the Draft Plan, the Monitoring and Management Programs, which include Adaptive Management, do not provide sufficient information to be evaluated. One comment suggested these programs needed to be evaluated as "deferred mitigation." In the context of both an HCP and an NCCP, monitoring and management are required elements that must be fully integrated into the HCP/NCCP document. They are not considered as mitigation. This goes beyond the requirements of CEQA. The Section 10 (Endangered Species Act) regulations "require that an HCP specify the measures the applicant will take to "monitor" the impacts of the taking resulting from project actions (50 CFR 17.22(b)(1)(iii)(B) and 50 CFR 222.22(b)(5)(iii))" (USFWS 1996). The Draft Plan clearly identifies the Adaptive Management element of the Monitoring and Management Programs. Where appropriate, the text has been changed to clarify and enhance the reader's understanding of how Adaptive Management is integrated with monitoring and management (e.g. Figure 8-4). The Monitoring Program is consistent with the recommended elements for monitoring in a large-scale, regional HCP (HCP Handbook, USFWS 1996, page 3-26 to 3-27). Figure 8-5, which has been modified in the Final MSHCP, clearly identifies the application of the Adaptive Management process. It was asserted that the environmental variables (stressors) that are hypothesized to affect each Covered Species and natural community are not identified. The environmental variables or stressors that are known are identified primarily through the conceptual models that are presented for each natural community assemblage. Covered Species are all affiliated with one of these natural community assemblages, beginning with Section 8.4.1 on Aeolian Sand Communities. Figure 8-8, the Aeolian Sand Habitat Threats Model, clearly identifies those threats or stressors that affect Covered Species 12-7 �' � Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan affiliated with the aeolian sand habitats. This figure also appears as Figure 6 in "Designing Monitoring Programs in an Adaptive Management Context for Regional Multiple Species Conservation Plans" (Atkinson et al. 2004). It is important to recognize that not all environmental stressors that are or may be significant to the Covered Species have been identified. That is exactly why an Adaptive Management approach is part of the Plan. The intent -for an Adaptive Management process is to address uncertainty in the ecological systems that are the subject of the MSHCP. As previously noted, Table - 8-14 has been added to the Final MSHCP to summarize the Monitoring Program elements for each Covered Species and natural community assemblage. The Monitoring Program is designed to identify environmental stressors that may be significant to the Covered Species or natural communities. In the baseline monitoring program initiated by UC Riverside for the MSHCP monitoring plots are placed across a gradient of environmental conditions from west to east. This allows an assessment, for example, of the differential influence of these stressors as the moisture regime changes. Data from these plots can be analyzed to partition variance between potential stressors. Where necessary, an experimental approach within an Adaptive Management framework, will be used to identify significant stressors, as described in Section 8.2.4.3; this section has been revised to clarify the hypothesis -based approach of the Management Program. As previously noted above, Figure 8-5 provides a conceptual model of the Adaptive. Management :process that will be .used in the Plan to identify management actions in response to monitoring data or current best available science. This process is based on a hypothesis testing. Section 9 includes a discussion of known or likely threats and management actions for each Covered Species under the heading of Threats, Limiting Factors, and Adaptive Management. The management actions are based on the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the Plan. As described in Section 8.2.4.3 and illustrated in Figure 8-5, the testable hypotheses that are developed through Adaptive Management are in response to an evaluation of whether Conservation Goals and Objectives are being met. The development of criteria for selecting and testing the effectiveness of conservation measures that are intended to reduce hypothesized stressors is an important part of the Monitoring and Management Programs. The process of selecting and testing management actions to achieved Conservation Objectives has been outlined above. The challenge in regard to establishing thresholds, also referred to as trigger points, is that these thresholds can be extremely difficult to determine. For example, in desert ecosystems, many species have naturally dynamic and highly variable populations. Environmental variation, particularly in annual rainfall, results in population fluctuations that may be dramatic. As suggested by Atkinson et al. (2004), the trigger point concept should be used with extreme caution for a number of reasons, including: 1) the uncertainty associated with establishing thresholds; 2) the tendency for thresholds to become more important than a continuous evaluation of management effectiveness; 3 ) during times of drought or other natural variation, managers may over -react if a threshold is exceeded; 4) managing to a threshold may overshadow more biologically relevant concerns. Nevertheless, as management actions are developed through the Adaptive 12-8 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Management Process, they will incorporate performance criteria so their effectiveness can be evaluated. Some commentors suggested that the decision —making process for resolution of dissenting opinions from within the management committees (RMOC and RMUCs) regarding implementation of the Monitoring and Management Programs was not identified. The membership and responsibilities are identified for the RMOC in Section 6.1.3 and for the RMUCs in Section 6.1.4. Section 6.1.3 identifies the process for handling dissenting opinions, as follows: "If at the determination of the chairperson of the RMOC a consensus cannot be reached within a reasonable time, the action shall be by majority vote of the members. Under all circumstances, the Wildlife Agencies reserve their rights under the MSHCP, IA, and state and federal law to take actions as they believe appropriate, even if those actions are in contradiction to the majority decision." It should be noted that the RMOC and RMUC are advisory to the CVCC which is responsible for making decisions. To clarify the management implementation process and the roles of the land management staff and reserve committees, Figure 8-1 has been added to the Final MSHCP. C. Maior Adaptive Management Issues, such as the impacts of Saharan mustard or the impacts of groundwater pumping on mesquite hummocks needs to be anticipated and budgeted for in the Adaptive Management budget The Management and Monitoring Budgets are not adequate or are not explained clearly. The Management and Monitoring Program budgets, which include Adaptive Management, were developed by CVAG in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies to address the anticipated needs for these programs on the Permittee owned lands within the Reserve System. The budgets provides for personnel and equipment necessary to implement the Management and Monitoring Programs on these Permittee lands. State and federal agencies are responsible for addressing monitoring and management on their lands within the Reserve System. The cooperative Management Program designed for the Reserve System will ensure that adequate funding is available to meet the long-term management needs for the Plan. In the same manner, the Monitoring Program will involve cooperative funding with state and. federal land agencies within the Reserve System. As stated in Section 5.1.4 of the Plan, "During the 75-year term of the Permits, an endowment will be established to fund the Monitoring Program, the Management Program, and Adaptive Management in perpetuity." Table 8-13 has been added to the Final Plan to provide more detail for the Monitoring Program budget. The MSHCP also provides an Adaptive Management Fund. This fund provides $100,000 annually to cover the uncertainties of Adaptive Management. The potential uses for the Adaptive Management Fund are described in Section 8.8.3. If the funds are not used in any given year they will remain in the fund. Over the course of the 75-year permit, this fund will generate $27,127,000. In the Final Plan, Section 8.2.4.2 has been added to describe the Management Contingency Fund. The CVCC will establish a $5 million dollar management 12-9 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan contingency fund as a subset of the Monitoring and Management Program budgets. The purpose of this fund is to provide the ability to address immediate Monitoring and Management Program contingencies on Permittee lands, such as control of invasive species that are impacting Covered Species or natural communities. Details of this fund are included in Section 8.2.4.2. With respect to the impacts of Saharan mustard, the Monitoring Program budget includes personnel to evaluate the status and impacts of this invasive species on Permittee lands. As part of the preliminary monitoring program, UC Riverside Center for Conservation Biology scientists have initiated research on the impacts of Saharan mustard. This project includes removal experiments to evaluate the impacts of this invasive weed. As described in Section 8.4.1.2 of the Plan, habitat enhancement and restoration, including mesquite hummock restoration, is part of the Management Program for the Reserve System. Evaluation of groundwater levels as they relate to mesquite hummocks is described in Section 8.4.1.3. Funds to control Saharan mustard, monitor groundwater, or restore mesquite hummocks could be drawn from the Management and Monitoring Program budget, the Adaptive Management Fund, and/or the Management Contingency Fund. D. There is no legally binding requirement` that data will °be publiely available and free of charge. A statement about the intent of the Plan to make data as available to the public as possible has been added to Section 8.6.1.3. This statement clarifies that data used for management decisions will be considered public information and will be made available to the public. E. The Trails Plan needs a clear articulation of the reasons for given �manamement prescriptions and clear and binding commitments of the different parties under the Plan The Management Program, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring Program as they apply to the Trails Plan are described in Major Issue Response 3. Appendix II has been added to the Final Plan to describe the roles and responsibilities of participating entities for the Trails Plan. 12-10 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan _Maior Issue Response 13: Effect of the Plan on Agriculture This Major Issue Response addresses the questions and comments raised by reviewers of the MSHCP and the associated Draft EIR/EIS. This Major Issue Response elaborates on the data and information provided in the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. Summary of Comments Numerous comments on the Draft MSHCP and EIR/EIS related to potential impacts of the Plan on agricultural lands and activities. These commentors included Riverside County Farm Bureau, Riverside County Property Owners Association and Kent SeaTech Corp. Issues raised include the following and are addressed in the order presented below: A. Insufficient and confusing information on the location, type and acreage of agricultural activities within or adjacent to Conservation Areas, or elsewhere where obligations and restrictions associated with the Plan may affect agricultural activities. B. Plan mapping does not make clear baseline conditions or the relationship of agricultural lands to the proposed Conservation Areas, or the effects of each project alternative on agricultural lands. C. It is unclear whether and to what extent Plan cautions regarding the use of agricultural chemical and compliance with the Plan Land Use Adjacency Guidelines impose more restrictions on agricultural activities. Do the Plans Land Use Adjacency Guidelines apply to existing or future agricultural lands? What would be the logical impacts to agriculture from implementation of these adjacency guidelines? Will the Plan subject the agricultural industry to new regulatory restrictions or make agriculture subject to incidental take of a protected species within an "adjacent" Conservation Area? D. Unclear how the proposed federal action (permit) is reconciled with state laws to protect prime and unique agricultural lands, or how conflicts with agricultural lands under a Williamson Act contract will be affected. E. The Draft EIR/EIS fails to mitigation impacts to agricultural lands, including precluding expansion area for future agricultural activities. F. MSHCP impacts to agricultural lands are not consistent with the Plan's stated purpose of balancing economic development with conservation, and not consistent with County General Plan goals and policies regarding agricultural activities. G. Agricultural lands that meet the definition of "Operating Farm" as set forth in County Ordinance 625.1 have a vested right to farm. 13-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan H. The MSHCP would potentially cause the loss of an important County industry and employment generator. I. The MSHCP will compel owners to sell their agricultural lands, and cease agricultural operations and activities. J. It is unclear what the relationship is between "Development" as defined in the MSHCP and agricultural activities, including the construction of agricultural building and structures. K. Management for burrowing owl and desert pupfish includes managing and enhancing habitat within areas of active agriculture. What are the consequences for agriculture and can agriculture -related impacts to these species place farmers at risk? Are these "habitats" within Conservation Areas? Does the installation of owl nest burrows involve agricultural lands? L. An excessive and inappropriate burden is placed on the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses as a result of the Plan. M. Inappropriate EIR analysis applied to significance thresholds. Background The proposed MSHCP, the private lands proposed for conservation, and the various land management strategies have been developed to address the long-term habitat needs of the Covered Species and natural communities. The Plan involves the integration of lands with many ownerships within ten local jurisdictions (cities and county). As noted in the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS, agricultural activity in the CV has migrated over the years from the west -central valley and its reliance on groundwater, to the eastern valley with most agricultural activity supported -by Colorado River water delivered by CVWD. As noted in Section 3.6 of the EIR/EIS, irrigated acres increased from about 23,000 in 1948 to 72,800 acres in 1999'. It is also noted that the number of farms in Riverside County decreased by about 21.3% between 1987 (3,874) and 1997 (3,048). As shown on Table 3-23 of the Draft EIR/EIS, the hired farm labor payroll fell from $133, 587,000 in 1992 to $128,522,000 in 1997. As shown on Table 3-24, the gross value of agricultural production in the County has fluctuated substantially, for instance falling by 12% in 2000 compared to 1998 values. A. Clarification of Agricultural Land Data & Management Obligations Lands proposed for conservation and having agricultural land use designations are located in the CVSC and Delta and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2 of the EIR/EIS describe the General Plan land use designations for all lands within the Plan area, including agricultural lands. Other data sources are also cited. 13-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Data Facts: • There are a total of 60,393 acres of lands within the MSHCP Plan Area boundary that are designated on General Plans for agricultural uses (see Draft EIR/EIS Table 3-2). • There were a total of 84,900± acres in agricultural use in the Plan area in 1998 (Table 3-3 of EIR/EIS and CVAG GIS Database). This means that lands in agricultural uses were 40.5% greater than the acreage actually designated for this use on General Plans. • There are approximately 2,890 acres of lands with General Plan agricultural designations occurring within proposed Conservation Areas, which constitutes about 2.5% of all lands in the Plan area (see Plan Table 4-7 and EIR/EIS Table 3- 3). • In 1999, there were approximately 72,800 acres of agricultural lands irrigated by Colorado River water (CVWD WMP, 2002). • There are approximately 1,120 acres of farmlands (lands in agricultural uses) within proposed Conservation Areas; or 1.4% of all lands in agricultural use. • Approximately 160,090 acres with some development potential are located within Conservation Area boundaries, of which: • 137,917 acres (86.15%) are designated for residential densities of 1 dwelling per 20 acres or lower densities, • 1461795 acres (91.7%) are designated for residential densities of 1 dwelling per 10 acres or lower densities. Developable lands located outside Plan Conservation Areas total 155,431 acres (see DEIR/EIS Tables 4-1 thru 4-24), of which: • 111,086t acres are designated or allow residential development, • 8,297± acres are designated for or allow commercial development, • 14,010± acres are designated for industrial and business park development. Agricultural Management Obligations The Plan does not require or impose any new or unusual management obligation on cultivation or other agricultural activity. The Plan does include species/community- specific avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures that further the goals of the Plan. Concerns have been raised that these measures may constitute new regulatory obligations and that they will have an adverse impact on agriculture in the Plan area. The Lead Agencies do not believe the evidence supports these contention. The MSHCP does not provide Take Authorization for nor control agriculture. The MSHCP is only applicable to land on which a project is proposed that requires a permit from a Permittee, typically as part of a development. 13-3 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan One species, burrowing owl, frequently occurs in agricultural areas, and is especially found in and around agricultural drains and canals. The species is also found in and around drainage berms and flood control levees. Recognizing these opportunities to facilitate burrowing owl conservation in the Plan area, the CVCC, on behalf of three public agency Permittees (Riverside County Flood Control, CVWD' and IID), will inventory owl locations along levees, berms, dikes and similar structures under the management responsibility of these Permittees. Based upon these surveys and in consideration of O&M requirements associated with these facilities, each agency shall prepare an O&M management manual, which provides for the protection of the owl to the greatest extent Feasible (see Plan Section 4.4). However, this will not impact or stop agricultural operations. B. Plan Mapping and Baseline Conditions The data sources for Plan Table 24: Existing Land Use are from the Natural Communities Map prepared for the Plan, which includes eight non -vegetation types. Delineations of the eight non -vegetation types for the Natural Communities Map, including agricultural uses, were prepared using September 1998 aerial photographs at a scale of 1:1000, provided by CVWD. These eight types include all lands considered as "developed" for purposes of the plan; the remainder of the lands were assigned to either lands used for conservation purposes or lands used for non -conservation purposes. Acreage was rounded to the nearest 100 acres. The total acreage in the Plan Area in this table differs with the acreage in Table 2-5 by approximately 0.6%. Such statistically insignificant differences result from the use of different data sources for deriving the statistics in each table. General Plan land use designations were mapped utilizing GIS data from the County and GIS and other mapping data from each of the Plan area cities. Mapping for the MSHCP was carried out at several levels of resolution, including those sufficient to verify land uses, overlay General Plan land use designations and establish Conservation Area boundaries. Conservation Areas adjoining or in proximity to agricultural lands include the CVSC & Delta, East Indio Hills, Mecca. Hills/Orocopia Mountains, and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas. The map series for each Conservation Area is provided in Section 4 of the Plan and includes detailed aerial and other mapping of the Conservation Area, Indian Lands, existing uses, biological resources, natural communities, and conservation and General Plan land use designations. The relationships of the Conservation Area to surrounding lands are clearly visible. C. Land Use Adjacency Guidelines & Possible Agricultural Restrictions Over the course of describing and discussing the environmental conditions adverse to various Plan species, the Plan cites the full range of existing conditions, including those associated with agricultural activity. The Plan does identify the use of agricultural pesticides but does not prescribe any particular use regime. Neither does the 13-4 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Plan change the legal or regulatory environment in which agricultural activities, including the application of agri-chemicals, are to be conducted in the Plan Area. The Plan Land Use Adjacency Guidelines address drainage, toxic materials, lighting, noise, invasive plants, barriers and land disturbance (grading/development) on land to be developed. These Guidelines do not apply to agricultural activities as these are not subject to the MSHCP; nor do agricultural activities receive Take Authorization through the MSHCP. It should also be noted that most of the edge boundaries between agricultural lands and proposed Conservation Areas on the eastern and western boundaries of the valley floor include substantial buffers, including major flood protection dikes and levees on the west valley and topography and flood protection levees on the east. These circumstances further limit the potential for conflicts between agriculture and the MSHCP. D. Plan Impacts on Prime/Unique Farmlands & Williamson Act Contracts As noted above and as set forth in Section 4.6.3 of the Draft EIR/EIS, the Plan includes 11120 acres of lands currently in agriculture in the CVSC & Delta Conservation Area. These lands are designated "Farmland of Local Importance" as mapped and defined by the California Department of Conservation No other active farmlands are included in Plan Conservation Areas. Approximately 160 acres of "Prime Farmland" (without access to irrigation water) is mapped within the existing bounds of the CV. Fringe -toed Lizard Preserve, and adoption of the Plan does not change the circumstances of these lands. An additional 480± acres of state -designated "Unique Farmland" is located within the East Indio Hills Conservation Area and is currently entitled for sand and gravel surface mining, with subsequent dedication to conservation upon conclusion of mining and reclamation activities. It should be noted that over the past decade, extensive areas of farmlands designated "Prime" and "Statewide Importance", including lands previously in active agriculture and with access to irrigation water, have been converted to a variety of urban uses. Based upon the limited impact to active agricultural lands and state -identified farmlands with the potential for conversion to agricultural use, the Plan will have a less than significant impact on these lands. The Plan will have no effect on agricultural lands currently under a valid Williamson Act contract. Although it is not known whether the 1,120 acres of active agricultural lands within the CVSC & Delta Conservation Area are under Williamson Act contracts, the MSHCP does not affect agricultural activities, and therefore does not impact Williamson Act contracts. 13-5 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan E. Unmitigated Impacts -to Existing and Precluded Future Agricultural Activities As discussed above and :as set forth in the MSHCP and Draft EIR/EIS, the Plan will not have a significant adverse impact on existing agricultural activities, encompassing 1,120 acres of currently farmed land. Furthermore, the Plan includes only approximately 710 acres of currentlyundisturbed, state -designated farmlands in conservation. Of these designated Prune' and Statewide Importance lands, only about 70 acres have the potential for cultivation. Therefore, the Plan does not significantly impact existing agricultural lands or the expansion of such activities on lands identified by the state as having the potential for agricultural uses. Moreover, the MSHCP does not preclude the expansion of agricultural operations in the future; as such operations are . not covered under the, Plan. F. Plan Not Balanced With Economic Development and Inconsistent With General Plan Policies Regarding Agricultural Operations As noted in the Draft EIR/EIS, the CV is a premier resort and tourist destination, which is created and supported by the unique natural assets the valley offers, including mountain and desert environments that attract visitors world-wide. In this regard, an indirect effect of the Plan is to help protect many of the natural assets that have made the tourist industry thrive in the valley. The potential socio-economic effects of the Plan are examined in detail in Section 4.15 of the Draft EIR/EIS. As demonstrated therein and as cited in Section A, above, the Plan will have a less than significant impact on all of the economic entities (cities and county) in the Plan area. Lands planned for conservation have the lowest development potential in the Plan area, both in terms of General Plan land use designations and natural constraints (flooding, blowsand, seismic, utility availability). Existing and potential agricultural activities are not significantly impacted by the Plan, which does not provide Take, Authorization for nor control agricultural operations. The potential for continued economic development in the Plan area is also not significantly constrained by the .Plan. Concern has also been raised that the MSHCP is not consistent with the County General Plan goals and policies regarding agricultural activities. County General Plan (including Eastern CV Area Plan or ECVAP) land use policies cited include LU 16.1, LU 16.2, LU 16.4, LU 16.7 and ECVAP 5.1. These policies direct the County to encourage retention of agriculturally designated lands and conservation of productive lands, protect agricultural uses from other inappropriate uses, and preserve prime agricultural lands. County General Plan policies recognize the importance of retaining agricultural lands and activities, but also stats that protection should be focused on lands "where agricultural activity can be sustained at an operational level" (LU 16.1). As noted above, essentially all of the Plan area agricultural lands (GP or state -designated, and lands in active cultivation) are lower value, are entitled for other uses (conservation, mining) or lack access to irrigation water. 13-6 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan G. Plan Inconsistent With the County Right -to -Farm Ordinance Concern has also raised that the proposed Plan may be inconsistent with County`s right -to -farm ordinance (Ordinance 625.1), which is, in part, intended to preclude agricultural lands from being declared a nuisance if it has been in operation for more than three years and has not been declared a nuisance during that time. As discussed above and in the Draft MSHCP and EIR/EIS, the proposed Plan does not identify agriculture as a nuisance, but does recognize that agriculture (and other land uses) does have a potential for impacting vegetation and wildlife beyond the bounds of agricultural activity. As demonstrated, the Plan does not restrict existing agricultural uses, nor does it prohibit or unreasonably restrict activities essential to irrigation, pest control, equipment operation, cultivation, or the raising of farm animals. The Plan does not affect activities, which, as stated in County Ordinance 625.1, are conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards. The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines do not apply to agricultural activities as these are not subject to the MSHCP; nor do agricultural activities receive Take Authorization through the MSHCP. H. MSHCP Impacts on Agricultural Industry and Employment As noted above and as discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR/EIS, irrigated acres increased from about 23,000 in 1948 to 72,800 acres in 1999. It is also noted that the number of farms in Riverside County decreased by about 21.3% between 1987 (3,874) and 1997 (3,048). As shown on Table 3-23 of the Draft EIR/EIS, the hired farm labor payroll fell from $133,587,000 in 1992 to $128,522,000 in 1997. As shown on Table 3- 249 the gross value of agricultural production in the County has varied substantially, for instance falling by 12% in 2000 compared to 1998 values. As discussed above, the MSHCP has a very limited and less than significant impact on the agricultural industry, and thus on the ability for this industry to generate jobs. The industry is being affected by a wide range of changing circumstances, including relatively high costs of production and falling competitiveness compared to producers elsewhere. The implementation of the MSHCP will not have a significant effect on the agricultural industry or associated employment either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. I. MSHCP Will Force Owners to Cease Farming and to Sell Farm Lands As noted throughout the MSHCP and Draft EIR/EIS, the assembly of the Reserve System will be accomplished through the acquisition of conservation lands from willing sellers. No owners of agricultural or other lands will be compelled to sell their lands. Agricultural activities are not subject to the MSHCP; therefore, the MSHCP will not force farmers to cease farming or to sell their land for conservation. J. Clarification of "Development" and Relationship to Agricultural Activities "Development" is defined in the MSHCP as, "The uses to which land shall be put, including construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure and all associated alterations of the land." Development refers to new land disturbances and conversions. 13-7 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Agricultural activities are not subject to the MSHCP. Agricultural activities including cultivation, processing, storage, equipment maintenance and other activities associated with agriculture would not be subject to MSHCP requirements unless a permit or entitlement were required from a Permittee. K. Agricultural Consequences of Burrowing Owl and Pupfish Management The MSHCP provides a variety of measures . for the conservation of burrowing owl and desert pupfish in the Conservation Areas where these species occur. These measures include acquisition of habitat from willing sellers; required management measures pertaining to CVWD, and for the burrowing owl, a requirement that CVCC inventory owl locations along levees, berms, dikes and similar structures under the management responsibility of the Permittees. Based upon these surveys and in consideration of O&M requirements associated with these facilities, each relevant agency shall prepare an O&M management manual, which provides for the protection of the owl to the greatest extent Feasible (see Plan Section 4.4). The Plan also provides for the installation of artificial owl burrows as an Adaptive Management measure, if monitoring deems that such activities are warranted to bolster owl populations or to address a loss of nests or habitat elsewhere in the Plan area. The construction of artificial owl burrows would occur on Reserve Lands. There is no requirement for such burrows to be established on private agricultural lands, although such measures could certainly be carried out on a voluntary basis. The Plan also includes conservation goals for the desert pupfish, which is in part associated with the lower CV Stormwater Channel and delta areas, as well as agricultural drains in this area where the fish occurs or may occur. Pupfish "refugia" are also located in Dos Palmas and in the Coachella Preserve in Thousand Palms. Plan goals include the protection of ecological processes, including agriculture -related hydrologic processes in drains and the CVSC. The Plan provides that a program of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management actions will be developed by CVWD within one year of Plan approval, to ensure persistence of pupfish populations in the agricultural drains. However, as with the burrowing owl, this program will not impact agricultural operations. L. Plan Shifts Burden of Accommodating Urban Development from Vacant to Agricultural Lands As discussed in the Draft MSHCP and Draft EIR/EIS, and as further clarified above, developable lands located outside Plan Conservation Areas total 155,431 acres (see DEIR/EIS Tables 4-1 thru 4-24), of which 111,086.76± acres are designated or allow residential development, 8,297.95� acres are designated for or allow commercial development, and 14,010.73± acres are designated for industrial and business park development. As noted in the referenced tables, residential lands proposed for placement in Conservation Areas have a theoretical potential to support a maximum of 27,186± dwelling units. Given the relative isolation of much of these lands, the aforementioned 13-8 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan physical constraints to development and desirability, and the lack of infrastructure, actual densities that would be expected to be realized on these lands is significantly less. The Draft EIWEIS also notes that residential development densities have been low in the CV, being affected by low density golf course development. It is envisioned and is already being seen in portions of the Plan area, that increasing land use efficiencies will occur, as exemplified by the University Park planning area of Palm Desert, where higher density residential development is being planned in conjunction with other, complementary uses, providing an enhanced quality of life while realizing a full range of environmental and socio-economic benefits. Also important to note is that lands planned for conservation have the lowest development potential in the Plan area, both in terms of General Plan land use designations and natural constraints (flooding, blowsand, seismic, utility availability). Agricultural lands are already subject to urbanizing pressure and not significantly impacted by the Plan. The potential for continued economic development in the Plan area is also not significantly constrained by the Plan. As explained in the Draft MSHCP, the Draft EIR/EIS, and the above discussion, implementation of the MSHCP will not significantly affect land use development patterns in the Plan area or significantly shift the burden of accommodating future urban development to agricultural lands. M. Inappropriate EIR Analysis Applied to Agricultural Impacts Significance Thresholds The assertion is made in comments that the analysis applied to the significance thresholds for impacts to agricultural lands/activities is inappropriate. However, no specific examples are provided in comments. The Draft MSHCP and Draft EIR/EIS demonstrate, as further clarified above, that agricultural lands that are prime, unique or of statewide importance will not be significantly impacted by the Plan. Furthermore, only 1,120 acres of the 84,900 acres in active agricultural use would be included in a Plan Conservation Area and said activity could continue indefinitely. Nor will the Plan impact any current Williamson Act contracts nor will it preclude entering into such contracts in the future on lands that are currently in active agriculture whether such lands are located within or outside of a Conservation Area. Finally, the Plan will not result in any changes in the physical or regulatory environment that would significantly impact farmland or result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 13-9 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 13-10 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Maior Issue Response 14: Legal Adequacy of the Draft EIR/EIS Alternatives A Draft EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. (See Public res. Code, § 21100(2)(4); State CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(a)) However, a Draft EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, the nature and scope of the alternatives to be discussed is governed by the rule of reason. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)) The rule of reason requires the lead agency to select and discuss only those feasible alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice, and in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)) In addition to reasonable alternatives, a DEIR is required to analyze the No -Project alternative. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)) Similarly, under NEPA, a Draft EIS requires discussion only of reasonable alternatives. (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.) The number of alternatives within the reasonable range is directly related to the statement of purpose and need. (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1975)) Although an infinite number of alternatives and possible variations could be identified, neither EIRs nor EISs are required to evaluate all possible alternatives or "consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is considered to be remote and speculative." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)(5)C; 40 CFR § 1502.14(a)) Regarding content of alternatives, CEQA and NEPA vary in their requirements. In a Draft EIR, each selected alternative and the no project alternative must provide sufficient information to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison to the proposed project. Discussion of environmental effects of alternatives may be in less detail than the discussion of the impacts of the project as proposed. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d).) NEPA requires a slightly higher threshold, requiring rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of each selected alternative. Alternatives in an EIS must be discussed at an equal level of detail as the proposed project. (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14) As required by both CEQA and NEPA, Section 2 of the Draft EIR/EIS extensively discusses a range of potentially feasible, reasonable alternatives in detail. The process of alternatives selection is discussed in Section 3.5 of the Draft MSHCP and Section 4 of the Draft EIR/EIS examines the effects of these alternatives in detail. The Alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS are (1) the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, (2) Preferred Alternative without Palm Springs, (3) Public Lands Alternative, (4) Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative, (5) Enhanced Conservation Alternative, and (6) No Action/No Project Alternative. Alternatives (1) — (5) are potentially feasible alternatives which, if implemented, would have the potential to reduce or avoid certain adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed Plan. Alternative (6) is required by both CEQA and NEPA. All six alternatives identified in 14-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan the Draft EIR/EIS were chosen to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. Each alternative was considered and evaluated in close consultation with parties of interest and regulatory agencies In addition, the Wildlife Agencies recommended inclusion of an alternative that fully protected those areas encompassed by the current composite modeled distribution and known locations of target species in the Plan Area. However, it was determined that such an alternative would result in significant reduction in Take Authorization and significant increase in costs, malting the alternative infeasible as well as fail to meet project objectives. Therefore, no further analysis was conducted nor required. See MSHCP Section 3.5.6. It should also be noted that Section 3.2 of the MSHCP provides a list of all species and natural communities that were identified in the Planning Agreement. To summarize, 27 of the 52 species originally considered for inclusion in the Plan are now Covered Species under the Plan. As pointed out in Section 3.2.1, the reasons for not covering a species include lack of known locations in the Plan Area or insufficient data to facilitate conservation planning. In addition, 27 of the 46 natural communities originally identified are included in the Plan's Conservation Areas. The Draft EIR/EIS's conclusion that the proposed MSHCP is the Environmentally Superior/Environmentally Preferable Alternative is supported by the discussion of considered alternatives in Section 3.5 and Section 4 of the Draft MSHCP, and in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR/EIS. 14-2 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Issue Response 15 Consistency of the Plan with FESA and CESA Several commentors have opined that the Plan violates FESA and provisions in the Fish and Game Code. The MSHCP is consistent with, and does not violate, FESA. Under the FESA's statutory structure, non-federal entities, such as state or municipal governments, businesses, associations, or private individuals (or any combination of these parties, such as a joint power authority), that cause a take are subject to liability under Section 9, unless the entity receives a Section 10(a) exemption. Such an exemption may be granted by the Service under certain conditions when the "taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(13). In order to secure a Section 10 ITP, the applicant must submit an HCP to the Service that specifies the following: (1) how the proposed activity will affect listed species; (2) what steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, what funding will be available to carry out these steps, and how the applicant will deal with unforeseen circumstances; (3) what alternatives that would not result in takes were considered by the applicant and why those alternatives were rejected; and (4) other measures that the Secretary specifies as necessary or appropriate for the purpose of the Plan. (See 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2(A).) CVAG submitted the MSHCP to the Service. After receiving public comment on the final MSHCP, final EIR/EIS, and Final lA, the Service will complete its analysis and determine whether the application and associated documents meet the legal requirements of NEPA and FESA, including the requirement that the take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. (See 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv).) The MSHCP's habitat -based approach is also consistent with, and does not violate, CESA because it focuses on species protection by preserving their habitat. CESA specifically states that it "is the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any endangered species or any threatened species and its habitat and that it is the intent of the Legislature, consistent with conserving the species, to acquire lands for habitat for these species." (Fish & Game Code, § 2052; emphasis added.) "Conserve" is further defined by Fish and Game Code section 2061 to mean "the use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. These methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition, restoration and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking." The methods outlined in the MSHCP/NCCP include measures to preserve and maintain the habitat essential for the conservation of endangered species, as authorized by CESA. After receiving public comment on the final MSHCP/NCCP, the CDFG will complete its analysis and determine whether the Plan fully complies with the NCCP 15-1 Major Issue Responses Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mandates, many of which are included here. The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land use. Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2800 et seq. The CDFG shall approve a NCCP after finding that (1) the conservation plan was developed in accordance with provisions in Section 2810, (2) the plan integrates adaptive management strategies that are periodically evaluated and modified, (3) the plan provides for habitat protection on an ecosystem level, and (4) the development of a reserve system and conservation measures provide such elements as habitat corridors, large habitat blocks which will support sustainable populations, representative environments, and a range of environmental gradients. The NCCP must also include such items as a monitoring program, an adaptive management program, estimated timeframes for the implementation of conservation measures, and an adequate funding program, and an implementation agreement. 15-2 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Cited Literature List for Major Issue Responses and Individual Responses 1. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 2003 (listed as 2004in responses). Draft Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 2. Allen M, W. Hodges, T. Scott, S. Snyder, T. Tennant, and W. Weht e. 2002. Report to CVAG on Supplemental Activities: July 10, 2002 (Task 1: Documentation of Preserve Design Selection Criteria; Task 2: Evaluation of the Sites Model for Preserve Design; Task 3: Natural Community Map Evaluation, Natural , Community and Mapping Unit Accuracy). Unpublished report to Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) prepared by listed associates of the Center for Conservation Biology, University of California Riverside. 3. Andrew, N.G. 1994. Demography and Habitat Use by Desert -dwelling Mountain Sheep in the East Chocolate Mountains, Imperial County, California. M. S. thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. 135 pp. 4. Barrows, C.W. 1996. An Ecological Model for the Protection of a Dune Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 10(3):888-91. 5. Bean, L.J., S. Brakke Vane and J. Young. 1991 The Cahuilla landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Menlo Park: Ballena Press, 1991. iv + 116 pp. 6. Berbach, M.W. 1987. The Behavior, Nutrition, and Ecology of a Population of Reintroduced Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Whipple Mountains, San Bernardino County, California. M. S. thesis. California Polytechnic University, Pomona. 1335 pp. 7. Bighorn Research Institute. 1997. "Bighorn Institute Announces Release of Bighorn Sheep," June 24, 1997. 1 pp. 8. Bighorn Research Institute. 1996-1999 and 2000, 2004. Year end report. Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Bighorn Research Institute, Palm Desert, CA. 9. Blair, R.B. 1996. Land Use and Avian Species Diversity Along an Urban Gradient. Ecological Applications 6(2):506-19. 10. Bleich, V.C., R.T. Bowyer, A.M. Pauli, R.L. Vernoy and R.W. Anthes. 1990. Responses of Mountain Sheep to Helicopter Surveys. California Department of Fish and Game 76(4): 197-204. 11. Bleich, V.C., J.D. Wehausen and S.A. Holl. 1990. Desert -dwelling Mountain Sheep: Conservation Implications of a Naturally Fragmented Distribution. Conservation Biology 4(4):383-390. Wr 16-1 �` Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 12. Bleich, V.C., J.D. Wehausen, R.R. Ramey H, and J.L. Rechel. 1996. Metapopulation Theory and Mountain Sheep: Implications for Conservation. In: D.R. McCulloch, ed. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 353-73 pp. 13. Bleich, V.C., R.T. Bowyer and J.D. Wehausen. 1997. Sexual Segregation in Mountain Sheep: Resources or Predation? Wildlife Monograph 134:1-50. 14. Blong, B. 1967. Desert Bighorn and People in the Santa Rosa Mountains. California Department of Fish and Game Transactions. The Wildlife Society, California - Nevada Section. 66-70 pp. 15. Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 110-116. 16. Bodesson, D.L., W.M. Boyce, I.A. Gardner, J. DeForge and B. Lasley. 1996. Pregnancy Detection in Bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) Using a Fecal -based Enzyme Immunoassay. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 32:67-74 17. Campbell, B.H., and R. Remington 1981. Influence of Construction Activities on Water -use Patterns of Desert Bighorn sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9:63-65. 18. Center for Biological Diversity, Internet News Release, May 21, 2003, 1 pp. 19. City of Palm Desert. 2005. Environmental Checklist Form: Art Smith to Mirage Trail. City of Palm Desert, CA. October 10, 2005. 20. Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2004. Public Review Draft: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan, and Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Palm Desert, CA. October 15, 2004. 21. Cody, M.L. 1999. Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale. Birds of North America. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of North America Inc: Philadelphia, PA 419:1-26. 22. Cornett, James. 1999. Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of Palm Hills Development. James Cornett Ecological Consultants, Palm Springs, CA. Nov. 1999. 23. Cornett, James. Ecological Consultants. 2005. Personal Communication. 24. Cunningham, S.C. 1982. Aspects of Ecology of Peninsular Bighom Sheep (Ovis Canadensis Cremnobates) in Carrizo Canyon, California. M. S. Thesis, Arizona State Univ., Tempe. 76 pp 25. Cunningham, S.C. and B.D. Ohmart. 1986. Aspects of the Ecology of Desert Bighorn Sheep in Carrizo Canyon, California. Desert Bighom Council Transactions. 26. DeForge J.R and J.E. Scott. 1982. Ecological Investigations into High Lamb Mortality. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 26:65-76. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 27. DeForge, J.R., E.M. Barrett, S.D. Ostermann, M.C. Jorgensen and S.G. Torres. 1995. Population Dynamics of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California, 1983-1994. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 39:50-67. 28. DeForge J.R., S.D. Ostermann, C.W. Willmott, K.B. Brennan and S.G. Torres. 1997. The Ecology of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep in the San Jacinto Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 41:8-25. 29. DeForge, .J.R. and S.D. Osterman. 1998. The Effects of Urbanization on a Population of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Abstract for the 5 h annual conference of the Wildlife Society, Buffalo, New York, USA. 30. DeForge, J.R. 2004. Bighorn Institute, Palm Desert, California. Personal Communications. 31. Dodd, S.C. 1999. Report of the 1999 Palm Springs Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi) Surveys. Unpublished report prepared for the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy by S.C. Dodd Biological Consulting. November 19, 1999. 10 pp. + appendices/maps. 32. Dunaway, P.B. and D. J. Nelson. 1971. Biological Concentration and Turnover of Radionuclides in Food Chains. Status of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard (Uma inornata). Inland Fisheries Administrative Report # 77-1, The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. 33. England, A.S. 1983. The Coachella Valley, An Endangered Ecosystem: Progress Report on Conservation and Management Efforts. Cal -Nevada Wildlife Transactions. 148- 156 pp. 34. Etchberger, R.C., P.R. Krausman and R. Mazaika. 1989. Mountain Sheep Habitat Characteristics in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area, Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 902-907. 35. Etchberger, R.C. and P.R. Krausman. 1999. Frequency of Birth and Lambing Sites of a Small Population of Mountain Sheep Southwest. Nat. 44(3): 354-360. 36. Fairbanks, W.S. and R. Tullous. 2002. Distribution of Pronghorn (Antilocapra American Oral on Antelope Island State Park, Utah USA Before and After Establishment of Recreational Trails. Natural Areas Journal 22: 277-282. 3 7. Ferranti, Philip. 2000. 100 Great Hikes in and Near Palm Springs. Westcliffe Publishers, Englewood, Colorado. 38, Festa-Bianchet, M., J.T. Jorgenson, W.J. King, K.G. Smith, and W.D. Wishart. 1996. The Development of Sexual Dimorphism: Seasonal and Lifetime Mass Changes in Bighorn Sheep. Can. J. Zool. 74:330-342. 39. Festa-Bianchet, M. and J.T. Jorgensen. 1996. Selfish Mothers: Reproductive Expenditure and Resource Availability in Bighorn Ewes. Behay. Ecol. 9:144-150. 16-3 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 40. Flather, C.H. and K.H. Cordell. 2001. Outdoor Recreation: Historical and Anticipated Trends. Pages 3-16 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 41. Ford, E.D. 2000. Scientific Method for Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 42. Fox, C.H. and C.M. Papouchis. 2000. ( in press) Coyotes in Our Midst: Coexisting with an Adaptable and Resilient Carnivore. Sacramento, California: Animal Protection Institute. New York, New York: Lantern Books. 43. Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D.R. Berg, D.B. Lindenmayer, M.E. Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible, J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and Structural Development of Natural Forest Ecosystems with Silvicultural Implications, Using Douglas -Fir Forests as an Example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399423. 44. Friesen, L.E., P.F.F. Eagles, and R.J. Mackay. 1995. Effects of Residential Development of Forest -dwelling Neotropical Migrant Songbirds. Conservation Biology 9(6):1408-14. 45. Geist, V. 1971. Mountain Sheep: A Study in Behavior and Evolution. University Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 383 pp. 46. Graham, H. 1980. The Impacts of Modem Man. Pages 288-309 in The Desert Bighorn: Its Life History, Ecology, and Management. G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 370 pp. 47. Hamilton, K.M., S.A. Holl and C.L. Douglas. 1982. An Evaluation of the Effects of Recreational Activity on Bighorn Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 26:50-55. 48. Hamilton, K.M. 1982. Effects of People on Bighorn Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California. M.S. Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 49. Harding E.K., E.E. Crone, B.D. Elderd, J.M. Hoekstra, A.J. McKerrow, J.D. Perrine, J. Regetz, L.J. Rissler, A.G. Stanley, E.L. Walters and others. 2001. The Scientific Foundations of Habitat Conservation Plans: A Quantitative Assessment. Conservation Biology 15(2):488-500. 50. Hayes C.L., E.S. Rubin, M.C. Jorgensen, R.A. Botta, and W.M. Boyce. 2000. Mountain Lion Predation of Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(4):954-9 51. Hicks, L.L. and J.M. Elder. 1979. Human disturbance of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(4): 909-915. 52. Holl, S.A., et al. 2004. Population Dynamics of Bighorn Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California 1967-2002. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 32, 2004. 16-4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 53. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Unpublished report to State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. 146 pp. 54. Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil. 1989. California Vegetation. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. 318 pp. 55. Horesji, B. 1976. Some Thoughts and Observations on Harassment and Bighorn Sheep. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 1976: 1-14. 56. Hutchinson, Darrell. 2005. University.of California, Riverside, Center for Conservation Biology. Personal Communications. 57. Jaeger, J.R., J.D. Wehausen, and V.C. Bleich. 1993. Limits in the Resolution of LORAN-C for Aerial Telemetry Studies. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions. 3 7:20-23 . 58. James, F.C. and C.E. McCulloch. 1985. Data Analysis and the Design of Experiments in Ornithology. in Current Ornithology (R. F., Johnston, Ed.), Vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York. 5.1-63 pp. 59. Jones, F.L., G. Flittner and R. Garda 1957. Report on a Survey of Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County, California Fish and Game 43:179-191 60. Jorgensen, Paul. 1974. Vehicle Use at a Desert Bighorn" Watering Area. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 1974:18-24. 61. Kareiva P, S. Andelman, D. Doak, B. Elderd, M. Groom, J. Hoekstra, L. Hood, F. James, J. Lamoreux, G. LeBuhn and others. 1999. Using Science in Habitat Conservation Plans: National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California, and the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C. 62. King, M.M. and G.W. Workman. 1986. Response of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Human Harassment: Management Implications. Transactions of the 51 'North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 74-85. 63. Knight, R.W. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. Pages 51-69 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC. 64. Krausman, P.R., W.C. Dunn, L.K. Harris, W.W. Shaw, and W.M. Boyce. 2001. Can Mountain Sheep and Humans Coexist? International Wildlife Management Congress 4.19: 224-227. 65. Lancaster, N., J.R. Miller and L. Zonge. 1993. Geomorphic Evolution and Sediment Transport Dynamics of Eolian Terrains in the Coachella Valley Preserve System, South-central California. Final report to the Coachella Valley Preserve System (The Nature Conservancy). December 29, 1993. 38 pp. 16-5 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 66. Leslie, D.M. Jr. and C.L. Douglas. 1979. Desert Bighorn Sheep of the River Mountains, Nevada. Wildlife Monographs No. 66. 56 pp. 67. Leslie, D.M, Jr., and C.L. Douglas. 1980 Human Disturbance at Water Sources of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:284-290. 68. Light, J.T. 1971. An Ecological View of Bighorn Habitat on Mt. San Antonio. Trans. North American Wild Sheep Conference 1:150-157 69. Light, J.T. and R. Weaver. 1973. Report on Bighorn Sheep Habitat Study in the Areas for Which an Application Was Made to Expand the Mt. Baldy Winter Sports Facility. U.S. Forest Service, Cajon Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, CA 39 pp. 70. Lovich, J.E. and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert Ecosystem and Prospects for Natural Recovery and Restoration. Environmental Management 24(3):309-26. 71. Lovich, J.E., P. Medica, H. Avery, K. Meyer, G. Bowser, and A. Brown. 1999. Studies of Reproductive Output of the Desert Tortoise at Joshua Tree National Park, the Mojave National Preserve, and Comparative Sites. Park Science 19(1):22-4. 72. Lovich J.E. 2004. (U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Sacramento, California). Personal Communications. 73. MacArthur, R.A., R.H. Johnston and V. Geist. 1979. Factors Influencing Heart Rate in Free -ranging Bighorn Sheep: A Physiological Approach to the Study of Wildlife Harassment. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57(10): 2010-2021. 74. MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and Behavioral Responses of Mountain Sheep to Human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(2): 351-358. 75. Mader, H.J. 1984. Animal Habitat Isolation by Roads and Agricultural Fields. Biological Conservation 29:81-96. 76. Mader H.J., C. Schell and P. Komacker. 1990. Linear Barriers to Arthropod Movements in the Landscape. Biological Conservation 54:209-22. 77. Manley, B.G.J. 1992. The Design and Analysis of Research Studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 1992 78. McCarty, C.W., J.A. Bailey. 1994. Habitat Requirements of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 69. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Terrestrial Wildlife Research, May 1994. 27 pp. 79. McKinney, T., S.R. Boe and J.C. DeVos, Jr. 2003. GIS-based Evaluation of Escape Terrain and Desert Bighorn Sheep Populations in Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1229-1236. 16-6 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 80. Meek, N. and T. Wasklewicz. 1993. Final Report on the Sand Sources of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat. Report to Coachella Valley Preserve System (Nature Conservancy). Thousand Palms, California. .December 6,1993. 69 pp. 81. Mensch, Jerry. 1970. Survey of Bighorn Sheep in California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions. 82. Merriam, G., M. Kozakiewicz, E. Tsuchiya and K. Hawley. 1989. Barriers as Boundaries for Metapopulations and Demes of Peromyscus leucopur in Farm Landscapes. Landscape Ecology 2:227-36. 83. Miller, G.D.,and E.L. Smith. .1985. Human Activity in Desert Bighorn Habitat: What Disturbs Sheep? Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 29: 4-7. 84. Nature Conservancy, The. 2000. Designing Geography of Hope: A Practitioner's Handbook to Ecoregional Conservation Planning. Volume 1 and % Second Edition, April 2000- 75 & 100 pp. 85. Norris, K.S. 1958. The Evolution and Systematic of the Iguanid Genus Uma and Its Relation to the Evolution of Other North American Desert Reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural.History 114(3):247-326. 86. Noss, R.F., M.A. O'Connell and D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 87. Ostermann, S.D. 2001. Conservation and Spatial Use Analyses for the Recovery of Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. M.S_ Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis_ 73 pp. 88. Ostermann, S.D., J.R. DeForge and W.D. Edge. 2001. Captive Breeding and Re -introduction Evaluation Criteria: A Case Study of PBS. Conservation Biology 15:749-760. 89. Osterman, S.D., E.S. Rubin, J.D. Groom, J.R. DeForge, G. Wagner, P. Sorensen, S.G. Torres, M.C. Jorgensen, A.J. Byard and 0. Ryder. In press. Flawed Model has Serious Conservation Implications: Response to Turner et al. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 90. Ostermann, S.D. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA. Personal Communications. 91. Oxley, D.J., M.B. Fenton, and G.R. Carmody. 1974. The Effects of Roads on Populations of Small Mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:51-9. 92. Papouchis, C.M., F.J. Singer, and W.B. Sloan. 1999. Effects of Increasing Recreational Activity on Desert Bighorn Sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. 364-391 Pp. 16-7 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 93. Papouchis, C.M., F.J. Singer and W.B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human Recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3): 573-582. 94. Price, M.A. and R.G. White. 1985. Growth and Development. Pages 183-213 in Bioenergetics of Wild Herbivores. R. J. Hudson and R.G. White, eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 95. Quinn, G.P. and M.J. Keough. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 537 pp. 96. Robinson, A.S., G. Franz and P.W. Atkinson. 2004. Insect Transgensis and its Potential Role in Agriculture and Human Health. Insect Biochem Mol. Biol. 34: 113-120 97. Robbins, C.T. 1993. Wildlife Feeding and Nutrition. Second ed. Academic Press, New York, New York. 352 pp. 98. Rubin, E.S., W.M. Boyce and V.C. Bleich. 2000. Reproductive Strategies of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Journal of Mammalogy 81(3 ):769-86. 99. Russi, Terry. 2005. Bureau of Land Management, Bishop Field Office. Personal Communication. 100. Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler -Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. 101. Shilling, F. 1997. Do Habitat Conservation Plans Protect Endangered Species? Science 276: 1662-1663 . 102. Seibert, H.C. and J.H. Connover. 1991. Mortality of Vertebrates and Invertebrates on an Athens County, Ohio Highway. Ohio Journal of Science 91:163-6. 103. Sheppard, J.M. 1970. A Study of the LeConte's Thrasher. California Birds 1:85-95. 104. Sheppard, J.M. 1996. LeConte's Thrasher. In. The Birds of North America, Life Histories for the 21 st century. 105. Simmons, N.M., S. Levy, and J. Levy. 1963. Observations of Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Kofa Game Range, Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 44:443. 106. Simons, Li & Associates, Inc. 1996. Sand Migration Impact Evaluation for Thousand Palms Flood Control Project, Volume H, Baseline and Future Without Project Conditions, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, December 1996. 107. Simons, Li & Associates, Inc. 1997. Sand Migration Impact Evaluation for Thousand Palms Flood Control Project, Volume H, Baseline and Future Without Project Conditions, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, December 1996. 16-8a, ; Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 108. Spillman, B. 2004. "Valley Trail Users: Permits not Necessary." The Desert Sun, December 15 20041) A-1. 109. Stebbins, R.C. 1944. Some Aspects of the Iguanid Genus Uma. Ecological Monographs 14:311- 78. 110. Stemp, R.E. 1983. Heart Rate Responses of Bighorn Sheep to Environmental Factors and Harassment. Thesis, The University of Calgary. 111. Swihart, R.K. and N.A. Slade. 1984. Road Crossing in Sigmodon hispidus and Microtis ochrogaster. Journal of Mammalogy 65:357-60. 112. Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife -Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor. Perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963 113. Turner, F.B., D.C. Weaver and J.C. Rorabaugh. 1981. The Abundance of the Fringe -toed Lizard (Uma inornata) at Ten Sites in the Coachella Valley, California. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 114. Turner, F.B. and K.H. Berry. 1984. Methods Used in Analyzing Desert Tortoise Populations. Appendix 3, pages 1-53. The Status of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the United States, a report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Desert Tortoise Council on Order No. 11310-0083-81. 115. Turner, J.C., C.L. Douglas, C.RZ Hallum, P.R. Krausman, and R.R. Ramey. 2004. Determination of Critical Habitat for the Endangered Nelson's Bighorn Sheep in Southern California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:427-448. 116. University of Califomia Riverside, Center for Conservation Biology. 2005. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Plan Monitoring Program, 2002-2005 Progress Report to: Coachella Valley Association of Governments, County of Riverside. September 2005. Unpublished report to Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 164 pp. 117. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Proposed California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Coachella Valley and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District. October 2002. 118. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Environmental Assessment and Decision Record EA-660-03-08: Homme-Adams and Visitor Center Trail Loops. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs -South Coast Field Office, CA. March 7, 2003. 119. U.S. Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2003. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument: Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs -South Coast Field Office, CA, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest, San Jacinto Ranger District, CA. October 2003. 16-9 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 120. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: USFWS Report. 73 pp + Appendices. 121. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Biological Opinion for Small Projects Affecting Desert Tortoise Habitat in Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California (1-8-97-F-17). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 22, 1997. 122. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis Canadensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 203 pp. 123. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. xv + 251 pp. 124. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 250 pp. 125. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Unpublished table: Adult Population Estimates for Bighorn Sheep Ewe Groups and Subgroups in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA. 126. U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Long-term Sand Supply to Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard (Uma inornata) Habitat in the Northern Coachella Valley, California. Water resources investigations report # 02-4013, U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tucson, Arizona. 50 pp. 127. U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Palm Canyon, Red -legged Frog (Rana aurora) and Mountain Yellow -legged Frog (Rana mucosa) Surveys, 2003: Preliminary Report. Unpublished report prepared for Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians by U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior, Sacramento, California. 128. Van Der Zande, A.N. and T.J. Verstrael. 1985. Impact of Outdoor Recreation Upon Nest - site Choice and Breeding Success of the Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) in 1975- 1980 in The Netherlands. Ardea 73:90-99. 129. Wagner, G. D. 2000. Diet Selection, Activity Patterns, and Bioenergetics of Bighorn Ewes in Central Idaho. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 165 pp. 130. Weaver, R.A. and J.L. Mensch. 1970. Bighorn Sheep in Southern Riverside County. California Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Administration Report No. 70-5. 36 pp. 131. Wehausen, J.D. et al. 1977. Recruitment Dynamics in a Southern California Mountain Sheep Population. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 51. 1987. 132. Wehausen, J.D. 1980. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep: History and Population Ecology. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 243 pp. 16-10 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 133. Wehausen, J.D. 1983. White Mountain Bighorn Sheep: An Analysis of Current Knowledge and Management Alternatives. U. S. Forest Service Adm. Rep., Inyo Nat_ Forest Contract No. 53 9JC9-0-32. 93 pp. 134. Wehausen, J.D. 1984. Comment on Desert Bighorn as Relicts: Further Considerations. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12:82-85. 13 5. Wehausen, J.D., V.C. Bleich, B. Blong and T.L. Russi. 1987. Recruitment Dynamics in a Southern California Mountain Sheep Population. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51(1):86-98. 136. Wehausen, J.D. 1992. Demographics Studies of Mountain Sheep in the Mojave Desert: Report IV. Unpublished report. California Department of Fish and Game, Bishop California. 137. Wehausen, J.D. 2005. University of California, White Mountain Research Station, Bishop, CA. Personal Communications. 138. Whittaker, D. and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding Wildlife Reponses to Humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:312-317. 139. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest Predation in Forest Tracts and the Decline of Migratory Songbirds. Ecology 66(4):1211-4. 140. Wilson, L.O., J. Blaisdell, G. Walsh, R. Weaver, R. Brigham, W. Kelly, J. Yoakum, M. Hinks, J. Turner and J. DeForge. 1980. Desert Bighorn Habitat Requirements and Management Recommendations. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 24:3- 7. 141. Wasklewicz, T.A. and N. Meek. 1995. Provenance of Aeolian Sediment: The Upper Coachella Valley, California. Physical Geography 16(6):539-56. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan This page is intentionally blank 16-12 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ZO1-32 uscany Falls project, see 'Response Z01-25. Table 4- as been re ' the Final Plan to include the Tak rization for the developable po f the Palm Hills as depicted in Figure 4- 26e(2)A. This table also es a for desert tortoise. The comment reque the Take Au lion for desert tortoise be increased to 1 of the total habitat acreage. a ulation of Take Authori" ' ` n does not include Existing Conservation Lana these Ian not subject to Take. See Responses YO 1-37 and W01-07. The comment proposes the addition of wording to Required Measure 1(c) in the SRSJM Conservation Area, which is acceptable and has been added to the Final MSHCP, -as follows: "Development shall be- sited a minimum of a 1/4-mile from known water sources as identified on a reference map on file with the CVCC, except where topographic features obscure the view of the water source from proposed development or trails." The comment expresses concern that the water resources map was not in the Plan. As noted in the required measure, the map was available for inspection at CVAG during the public comment period,` was provided to the planning director of Palm Springs and was available for review, by any member of the public, including representatives of the Local Permittees. Response YOI -37 and WO 1-07 address updates and changes to the water resources map. With regard to trail restrictions, trail restrictions on the North Lykken Trail and Skyline Trail are not proposed in the revised Trails Plan. See Major Issue Response 3. ZO 1-33 See Response WO 1-21. ZO 1-34 Th . sues raised in the comment have revision a Trails Plan in the Final Plan ZO1-35 See Major Issue nse 2. ZO1-36 See Major Issue Respo ZO 1-3 7 See Resvonse 01-25 and Y01-3 . ZO 1-3 8 See aj or Issue Response 2. ZO1-39 / See Response Z01-32. =40 See Response WO 1-27. "dressed through the Major Issue Response 3. 01 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Comment Letter D04 — Gayle Cady D04-01 ee 1 G. G 04-02 Jurisdiction for approval of the Travertine project rests with the City of La Quinta, which is coordinating project review with USFWS. Relative to public access issues outside the footprint of the project, management prescriptions of an approved Trails Plan would need to be considered regarding trail removal and new trail construction. Until such time that the Trails Plan is approved in conjunction with the MSHCP, however, such management prescriptions do not apply; public access issues would be addressed on a case -by -case basis. Nevertheless, the Trails Plan has been revised to include a perimeter trail corridor connecting a trail system for the Travertine Project with the Boo Hoff Trail. The corridor is intended to provide for future development of a trail as no specific alignment has been identified at this time. D04-03 rovides for the conservation of the vast majority of PBS habitat to protect aYgafiIossffrom urban development. See Major Issue Response 4 in this regard. See ado se �Iregarding the revised Trails Plan in the Final MSHCP. a 13 WN Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan evidence that the Plan is e acto open space land ac rogram . CVO 1-04 The portions of the Travertine and Green specific plan areas approved for development are outside the Conservation Area, and, therefore, an allocation of Take in the Section 4.3.21 table for Take and Conservation is not necessary. These projects would receive Take Authorization as described in Section 7.1. Those portions of Section 5, US R7E, not conserved as depicted in Figure 4-26e3A, are subject to the HANS process, which may allow disturbance on land that is not determined through the HANS process to be necessary for the conservation of PBS. See also Major Issue Response 10 regarding the HANS process. Table 4- 11 ld has been revised in the Final MSHCP to reflect updated information on lands already conserved in La Quinta through deed restrictions and conditions of approval for various projects, whereby certain mountainous lands have already been conserved. This reduces the amount of remaining conservation that must be accomplished to -1,618 acres. This is not an obligation specifically -of the City of La Quinta. An error in the amount of Acres Authorized for Disturbance in the table has also been corrected. The new total of Acres Authorized for Disturbance is 114 acres. The commentor offers the opinion "the amount of land conserved arguably exceeds the amount of land that would be conserved in the absence of the Plan if private property were subject to FESA and CESA." This is speculative. The MSHCP proposes to provides Take Authorization based on a comprehensive regional plan rather than on a project by project basis. As such, the MSHCP must provide adequate conservation of the species, and confers benefits for projects that do obtain Take Authorization through the MSHCP rather than through individual project HCPs or Section 7 consultations, where available. Obtaining of Take Authorization on a project -by -project basis can be time-consuming and expensive. The commentor asserts that the requirement to conserve 2,584 acres is unreasonable and not supported by any science. It should be noted that the requirement for acres still to be conserved is lower in the Final MSHCP, as described above, because new information has indicated that some of this land has already been conserved. See also Major Issue Responses 4 and 5. i�'—'a-b 11 d is titled "Conservation and Take Authorization for SRSJNI Conservation City of La Quinta Area." This clearly indicat t refers to Take Authonz only inside the C ion Area. In addition, Section 7.1 states clearly t -development permitted or approved by Local Permittees . e the servation Areas receives Take Authorization. No ess, the Final MSHC ains a footnote to the table to c ' that proposed Take for Travertine Green is provide the Plan as described in Section 7.1., and is not include ' e Ta Allocation in the table because the areas approved for development are outside the Conservation Area. A footnote in the Final 1,WSHCP also 03 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan thr CVCC, the CVCC is authorized to receive fees from its member agenci and spend them on MSHCP implementation. Govt. Code § 650 Commen r cites Government Code sections 66001(d), 66001(e), d 66006 of th Mitigation Fee Act to support its contention that expen ture of the fees o tside the City's jurisdiction is illegal. Contrary o the comment, the ci Government Code provisions do not prohibit a Cities and the County m expending fees outside their jurisdicti Section 66001(d) requires e City to make certain findings respect to unexpended funds. S ion 66001(e) requires the local a ncy to identify an approximate date by hich the construction of the p lic improvement project will be commence . Section 66006 simply ad esses commingling of funds. Commentor also concludes tha each City woul eed to establish its own separate interest -bearing acco ntlfund for the Local Development Mitigation Fee to be collected an expended y each City. Section 66006 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires t tall es received in connection with the approval of a development proje b deposited in a capital facilities account so as to avoid commingling wi other funds. The Lead Agencies do not ee tat the decision to appoint representatives to the CVCC is n admini rative decision. Typically, a city council will take an act. n appointin members to Joint Powers Authorities and other regiona entities. See Response Z06-04 r a response to the nal paragraph of this comment. The MSHCP will of violate Government Code se ion 65858, which limits moratoria a maximum two-year period, be se the HANS process is not moratorium. A moratorium is defined y Government Code Sectio 65858 as an interim ordinance prohibitin uses of land which may onflict with a general plan, specific plan, or zo Jng proposal that the 1 al agency is considering implementing, without f lowing the proced es otherwise required for the adoption of a zoning ordi nce. The MS P is not the sort of temporary freeze as is -described by Section 65 8, for the purpose of studying of alternatives to the general p n. As s h, the requirements of this code section do not apply. Z02-82 This comment alleges that the JPR and HANS processes in the MSHCP "circumvent the mandatory time frames established in the [Subdivision] Map Act." Under the JPR process at Section 6.6.1.1 of the MSHCP, the CVCC has a limited amount of time in which to ensure that the project is consistent with the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the MSHCP. Once a Local Permittee submits the application for a development project to CVCC, the 11 , ' LJ 04 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan CVCC must make a consistency determination within a maximum period 40 of either 60 or 74 calendar days. At the outset, if the Local Permittee initiates a meeting between itself, CVCC and the Local Permittee regarding the application, the CVCC will have a maximum of 44 calendar days from receipt of the development application to prepare and send comments to the project applicant, the Local Permittee and the Wildlife Agencies. If no meeting is held, CVCC has only a maximum of 30 calendar days to send these comments. The Wildlife Agencies then have a maximum of 30 calendar days after receipt of CVCC's comments to send their comments on the application to CVCC. Once received, CVCC will make a consistency determination on the project. Thus, the maximum time frame the Plan provides for the CVCC to make its consistency determination from the time it receives the application is 74 days. If the CVCC finds the Project is inconsistent with the Plan, Section 6.6.1.1 affords the CVCC, the Local Permittee, and the applicant an additional 30 days to meet and confer to identify - requirements necessary to achieve compliance. Under the HANS process, the County or Cities have only 45 days from receipt of the project application to determine whether the property is needed for inclusion into the MSHCP reserve system. If it is determined that the property is not needed for conservation, the JPR process (discussed above) timelines become relevant. If it is determined that such property is needed, then negotiations commence, which trigger other timelines. Thus, the maximum timeframe would only occur if a high value parcel must be purchased and insufficient funding exists to purchase the parcel over the subsequent 4-year period. Commentor's assertion that the County and cities will deem development applications incomplete to avoid triggering the processing deadlines of the Map Act is unfounded. When a development application is submitted, the County and cities must verify that the application is consistent with applicable laws and regulations before deeming the application complete. Thus, the Local Permittees will in good faith diligently process the application. The HANS and JPR processes will not prevent the County or Cities from complying with the terms of the Subdivision Map Act. It is anticipated that for a majority of development applications, the applicant will wait no longer than 104 days from the date of submittal to the Local Permittee before a determination is made to either purchase the property or determine whether the application is consistent with the Plan. When the application is deemed complete by the City or county, the timelines established by the Subdivision Map Act will be triggered, including the requirements of Section 21151.5 of the Public Resources Code. 0 05 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Thus, the processes and time frames established by the Subdivision Map Act will not be violated by the MSHCP. Finally' the Lead Agencies believe that the MSHCP is consistent with all federal, state, and local laws and that no evidence has been submitted that alters this conclusion. See Response ZO1-08 and Major Issue Response 11. adopting the Permit Streamlining Act ("PSA"), the Legislature eclared th "there is a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of e specific requ ements which must be met in connection with th approval of. develo ent projects and to expedite decisions on such ojects." Govt. Code § 21. The JPR and HANS processes have be adopted in part in order to ist the Local Permittees in meeting the onservation Goals and Objective of the Plan. In furtherance of a goal announced in Section 65921 g , the Lead Agencies have sp cified the procedure for the JPR and HAN rocesses in Section 6.6 o he MSHCP. No statutory time frames will be ci umvented and the PS will not be violated. Finally, in contrast to the mnentor's sertion that a detailed list is not provided, the JPR process. ovides a tailed list in "Step 1" (MSHCP p. 6-19). The HANS process al prov' es a list at MSHCP p. 6-22 through 6-23. LAFCOs are administrative bod Hertzberg Local Government control the process of m i expansion be undertaken y government services. Go . Co powers and duties of a AFC impose any conditions at wo intensity, property dev lopment, states that Section 11 4 of the this provision beca se "LAFC prohibition agains regulating la annexation prop o s based on words, commen r alleges that L 11.4 of the states that, wh proceeding, a Parties shall see If no agree ent can be reached imposed a condition of anne will sim y not receive Take Au hands, ut rather seeks to work Act. s reated pursuant to the Cortese-Knox- eor nization Act of 2000 ("Act") to cipalit expansion. The Act promotes those a encies that can best provide de § 560 Section S6375 governs the O, and states at a commission shall not uld directly r late land use density or or subdivision quirements. Commentor Implementing Age ent is in conflict with O will be forced t violate the [Act's] id uses by illegally ap roving or denying compatibility with the HCP." In other AFCO's hands are tied. H ever, Section en LAFCO is involved in annexation k to enter into an agreement w LAFCO. , or if the MSHCP requiremen are not cation by LAFCO, then the anne d land thorization. The IA does not tie L CO's with LAFCO within the framework o the S Response ZO1-07 for discussion of equal protection issues. For zoning sues, see Response U05-05. • • 06 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan range from 0.7 5 miles . to _3 miles from water sources dur hot season. 'le buffer was. used to separate the Can Bighorn from the sheep pens the Bighorn, Inst* ed on available information, the parcel -specific a by the commentor appears to be greater than 1/4 out o from adjoining urban development roposed language has been added. onse ZO 1- WO 1-08 The commenter requests written verification that there are no known corridors, connectivity, or movement areas within the City of La Quinta or, if there are such areas, that they are fully documented -and disclosed in the Plan. Initially, it is necessary to correct the reference in the comment, which is incorrect. On page 4-178, Item 1 e (not Item,13) states, "Development (not Habitat) shall not preclude Habitat connectivity or movement." The comment appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the concept of connectivity. The statement referenced in the comment on page 4-172 notes that "no specific areas have been delineated as Biological Corridors" but that PBS move between ewe group areas within the PBS Habitat included in this Plan. This statement is not intended to imply that connectivity is not important for PBS or that movement does not occur, but rather that connectivity- occurs within the matrix ,of PBS habitat in the SRSJM Conservation Area. Because at the present time the PBS Habitat within the Mountain Conservation Area is .relatively unfragmented, corridors are not specifically delineated. The statement describes that there is movement between ewe group areas. In his comments on various aspects of the conservation, plan for, PBS, Dr. John Wehausen (personal communication, 12/4/03) noted that "ewes also cross flats between mountain ranges on a regular basis." Therefore, it would not be appropriate or accurate for CVAG or the Wildlife Agencies to verify that nocorridors, connectivity or movement areas exist. Nonetheless, Development in the City of La Quinta, which is along the perimeter of essential bighorn sheep habitat, is not likely to be affected by corridor or connectivity issues. The criterion that "development shall not preclude Habitat connectivity ..." applies only to PBS habitat in the Conservation Areas, and the amount of development anticipated to occur in the Conservation Area is very limited; thus, the impact is minor. The statement that the measure is "unenforceable or will lead to arbitrary determinations during review of development projects" is incorrect and not consistent with the JPR process which provides a means for the jurisdiction and project applicant to work with CVCC to ensure consistency with the Conservation Goals and Objectives. --W&t incorrectly restates the Special Provisio regarding Travertine. Re ar entor's proposal that an additio rovision be added regarding paymen o , 07 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mana m. Current PBS populatio ew y published studies in the scientific ltera is from the recreation and bighorn sheep re program will provide the basis or lly- b_management. K02-05 This comment erroneously included Anza-Borrego Desert State Park as part of the Plan area The Plan area abuts, but does not include Anza- Borrego Desert State Park. Refer to section 9.8.4.5 of the Final Plan for an analysis of population trends of PBS throughout the Plan Area. The commentor is correct in stating that in general, for desert bighorn sheep, low recruitment is caused by neonatal mortality rather than low conception or lamb production rates (Bodesson et al. 1996; Ostermann et al. 2001). However, the commentor provided no evidence or data to suggest a relationship between trail use and PBS conception or reproduction. Cause -and -effect relationships cannot be established solely from observational data, although observational data can provide support for a hypothesis (James and McCulloch 1985; Ford 2000; Quinn and Keough 2002). Establishing a causal relationship would require concurrent monitoring of human use of trails and bighorn sheep demography, while accounting for confounding factors such as predation, climate, and disease. Confounding factors may either mask or exaggerate the effects of the variable of interest (human use of trails). Therefore, the fact that some PBS populations have increased while the amount of human recreation has also increased does not lead to the conclusion that trail users have no impactP on PBS conception or reproduction. Simple associations and correlation are not sufficient to prove causation (Atkinson et al. 2004). Science is based on testing predictions deduced from hypotheses against data. The formulation of a hypothesis that can be falsified is the key criterion that separates science from non -science. For example, the hypothesis could be reworded to state something to the effect that human use of trails does not have more than a minor influence on sheep demography and will not prevent populations from reaching sizes that are sufficient for population viability; or conversely that human use of trails has a major influence that will prevent viable population sizes. The question needs to be dealt with realistically with falsifiable hypotheses. The commentor is using generalization, inferring a generalized conclusion from particular instances, based on increases in lamb:ewe ratios in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains between 1994-2001 to argue that trail restrictions are not needed. The logical problems with this kind of generalization are well known; no amount of confirmatory observations can ever prove a theory (Quinn and Keough 2002). The evidence provided by the commentor is likely confounded with the effects of installing a fence along the urban interface in Rancho Mirage, naturally low predation rates, and perhaps the nutritional benefits of having a population well below the habitat's carrying capacity. This points to the significance of I w 1R Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan what questions are asked and how they are asked. For example, the commentor's remarks could be framed in the form of a hypothesis: the dynamics of this population have been driven by factors other than humans on trails, including mortality factors from sheep using urban habitats, an episode of high lion predation, and a disease episode, the dynamics of which appear to be related to precipitation patterns. With respect to confounding factors, how the question is posed and analyzed determines what variance is important. Thus, the effects of recreation need to be considered in the context of a hypothesis -based analysis. For example, one could state a hypothesis that: recreation has a negative effect on bighorn sheep when the population is increasing, but the effect is temporarily masked (or confounded) by other variables, such as low predation rates. To illustrate this point further, consider the opposite situation. If bighorn sheep population numbers were declining, it could not be automatically assumed that trail use was to blame for the decline. It is also necessary to consider the direct and indirect effects of recreation, as well as other factors, on bighorn sheep, in both the short and long-term. The Trails Plan includes a research program and problem analysis to address these issues. As described in the PBS Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000), it is possible that excessive disturbance may disrupt nutritional condition by affecting optimum feeding -ruminating cycles (Wagner 2000). Ewes that fail to acquire adequate energy reserves may fail to conceive (Wehausen 1984) or they may produce small offspring with a poor chance of survival (Price and White 1985). Etchberger and Krausman (1999) found that the reproductive success of ruminants was related to the mother's body weight, access to resources, quality of home range, and age. Ewes have been found to reduce care of lambs when resources are scare to favor their own nutritional requirements over the lamb's development (Festa-Bianchet and Jorgensen 1996). The extent to which recreational trail use may impact bighorn sheep conception or reproduction is not known. These studies from the scientific literature will be evaluated in the context of a problem analysis as part of the research program in the revised Trails Plan described in Major Issue Response 3. _ K02 06VftAeb mortality is an important variable influencing PBS popula ' - dynamics, aiaWivorship is thought to be at least of more, important than lamb mor ti eh%sen (199 ggested that long-lived animals such as bighorn sheep c ist despite periods of low recruitment provided there periodic pulse h recruitment. Actions have been tak o reduce both lamb and adult bigho ality. The Final MS and the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000) both outlin many acti hat are being taken to reduce both lamb and adult mortality. The Trails Plan did not assume that trail users adversely affect PBS; I* «:. ^ 0 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Comment Letter R01— City of Cathedral City RO1-01 CVAG will hold workshops with city councils and the Board of Supervisors upon request from the individual city or the County. Final MSHCP includes a Special Provisions Area for the area the no side of Varner east of Date Palm Drive as Required. M 11 in Sec t1 n 4.3.8. Take Authorization is provided for Development in a area depic in Figure 4-13(g). This Take Authorization become effective only, upo the permanent Conservation of the area depicted Figure 4- 13(g) for nservation. The Lead Agencies find that the tr 'ssion line corridor wil provide an effective_ edge to the Re e, with the Development tween there and Varner Road redu g the serious problem of off ro vehicle use in this area. Thus, the e Authorization area reduces edge ffects to the Reserve and th area dedicated to permanent Conserva n helps implement the eserve System. No changes have been ma to the Conservation in the Sphere of Influence area as there is n biological rationale f r doing so. It should be noted that a considerable pork of the Sphere o Influence area is outside the Conservation Area and th benefits fro the. MSHCP by receiving Take Authorization. - Further, so a devel pment may occur in the Conservation Area as long as it is iste t with the Conservation Area Conservation Objectives. -Rt--03-- The Conservation Area boundary inclu es a mountainous portion of the referenced property because it is wi ' esse ial bighorn sheep habitat. -R41-64- Outside of Conservation Areas, rejects are of specifically listed as Covered Activities for purposes f receiving Tak uthorization because all projects approved or dertaken by the Permittees outside Conservation Areas are Cov Activities as descri in Section 7.1 of the MSHCP. Thus, the Ian a which the commentor gested be added to the plan stating that public works project or ac 'vity outside the Conservation Area is vered by the plan is not n ary. Certain Caltrans' transportatio projects and the regional arterial sy em or TPPS projects outside Co rvation Areas are listed in the MSH ',to clarify that specific financJ contributions will be made as mitigatio for those projects. Other p .ects outside the Conservation Areas will pa the per acre fee for mi 'gation. Cathedral Canyon Drive, the future Lan u/I-10 overpass, an the referenced sections of DaV all Road are not in a Conservati Area; therefore, these projects do not need to be list as Covered ctivities. Eagle Canyon Dam is on Indian Reservation 1 d, which ' not subject to the MSHCP. It is unclear what project is referred in comment by "blowsand mitigation facilities near Morongo Wash". Permittees were requested during MSHCP preparation to identify M �¢ 10 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The commentor describes property in the Snow Creek area and ce "Mountains Land" that are located in PBS Recovery Zone . The comment letter is informational with respect to these prope . , but does not make a comment requiring response. Early in the pl g process for the MSHCP, meetings were held with the General ger of the Winter Park Authority regarding being a Permittee. general manager at that time indicated . that the Authority did not t to be a Permittee. Existing uses at the Winter Park Authority w be recognized as such under the MSHCP, and O&M of those e . g uses would be an Allowable Use. Were the Authority to pro se additional projects in the future, the MSHCP provides the portunity for the Authority to receive Take Authorization as a The Authority did not comment on the Draft MSHCP. If the S wrock project has vested rights, then the Plan at Sections 7.1 .and 7 provides that the Plan will not be applicable unless the developer v tarily chooses to comply. See also Response U01-47. ZO1-07 This comment objects to the HANS process on the following grounds: timing, compensation, arbitration, attorney's fees, need for additional conservation area property, priority list, and the lack of habitat evaluation criteria. Each is discussed below. Timing: This comment raises concerns about taking and equal protection issues. With respect to the takings issue see Major Issue Response 6. 1* P� g � J P Commentor points to no authority for its claim that the Plan violates the equal protection clause under the Constitution. To successfully assert an equal protection claim against, a plaintiff must first identify a suspect classification. Suspect classifications include age, alienage, disability, gender, illegitimacy, poverty, racial status, and homosexuality. A court will vary its judicial scrutiny of the government's rationale for not treating two parties equally depending on the classification identified. In a situation such as this, where no suspect classification has been identified or even inferred, a court would give substantial deference to legislative judgment upon an assertion of a violation of the equal protection clause. Because the HANS process is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, there are no violations of the equal protection clause. Compensation: The lead agencies disagree that the HANS process differs in its treatment of compensation with respect to the amount of property being acquired. When the county or cities require inclusion of the entire parcel in the Reserve System, the Plan at Section 6.6.1.2 states that negotiations will focus on both "establishing a purchase price and the application of other non -monetary incentives which may compensate the owner." Similarly, when only a portion of the property is needed for Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan inclusion, Section.6.6.1.2 states that negotiations will focus on "incentives [which] may include monetary compensation." The goal in either situation is to acquire the property in a mutually beneficial manner. B q P PAY Y Y maximising the compensation options available to both parties, the Plan maximizes the possibility that both parties will come to an agreeable resolution. Commentor's allegation that the incentives may not be legally sufficient is speculation and no support is provided. Regarding funding sources with respect to the City's General Plan, see Section 5.0 of the Plan and Response WO1-37. All property acquisition will be negotiated on a project by project basis. For analysis of the takings and equal protection claims,. see above. Arbitration: If the property owner does not give consent to the arbitration, then the arbitration procedure will not apply. Attorneys .Fees: Section 27.8 of the IA states that, if any action is brought to enforce the provisions of the IA, each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees. Section 15.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement, (the agreement made pursuant to Government Code Section 6500 et. seq. between the nine cities, the County of Riverside, the CVWI, and .IID) provides: " . "Provided that a Party has acted in good faith and in accordance with this Agreement, the MSHCP, the IA, and the Permits, CVCC Is shall defend, indemnify and hold such Party free and harmless from any loss, liability or damage incurred or suffered by such Party by reason of litigation arising from or as a result of any of the following: the Party's development mitigation fee ordinance; the Party's participation in CVCC; action taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP; claims of inverse condemnation or unconstitutional takings against a Party as a result of or related to its participation in the MSHCP; or any other act performed or to be performed by the Party pursuant to this Agreement, the MSHCP, the IA or the Permits; provided, however that such indemnification or agreement to hold harmless pursuant to this section shall be recoverable only out of CVCC assets and not from other Parties." Need for Additional Conservation Area Property: If a project in a HANS area is approved, the Take will simply count against the acres of take allowed in that Recovery Zone. When the Take is exhausted, no more development will occur. Rough Step, however, will ensure that Take cannot get ahead of Conservation. In the case of the bighorn sheep, the issue is moot; all Essential Habitat for the sheep — except that which is already impacted — is in the Conservation Area. ON 12 Response to Comments Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Priority List: As commentor notes, such property would be purchased "when funding is available". Since timing of collection of funds depends on the intricacies of the HANS -process and other factors, it is not possible to be more specific as to when such acquisition would occur. The purchase price will be based on a current appraisal. Lack of Habitat Evaluation Criteria: All of the land subject to HAN is Essential Habitat for the bighorn sheep; i.e. it all has value for the vat of the species. Sheep use of the habitat may change over time in re or to population numbers and changes in the habitat itself. The habitat depicted by the Plan has been determined to be current an potential habitat for the sheep over the next 75 years. ._ 201.09— Fpr issues pertaining to the PSA, see Major Issu Response 10. C entor also states that the PSA provides 180 s to act on the projec ollowing acceptance of the application. In f Government Code Section 6 states that the public agency shall pprove or disapprove the proi �ctwhichever of the following PS 'ods of time is longer: (1) Within 180 s from the date on which the ead agency has approved the project, or (2) 'thin 180 days of the d e on which the completed application for the deve ment project has een received and accepted as complete by that responsi agency. Th R and HANS processes will not interfere with these time awes. C entor also -cites Government Code Section 65950 for the prop itio that an agency has 180 days to act on a project from certification of ironmental documents. However, Section 65950 provides that the ag c ay be required to act in less time if certain conditions are met. A ain, the R and HANS processes will not interfere with these time es. See also esponse ZO 1-07. Z04-89- This comment is Zpurports of comments ZO1- through ZO1-18. For responses, see Res-10 through ZO 1-18. For discussion of tIssue, see Major Issue Resp e 7. While the commto summarize four basic poin of the Natomas case, sevonclusions are not supported by the d 'ion. Regarding 7.Babbitt, ent (a), the Natomas court recognized that the Plai", pursued agional approach to conservation. (National Wildlife FederationD. Cal. 2000 128 F.Supp.2d 1274 1281). In addition, e court noted that the Plan treated all Basin lands as equally valuable abitat, requiring all landowners within the Permit area to pay a mitiga ' n fee for developing their land regardless of whether any partic ar parcel has or lacks habitat value. (Id.) nment (b) concludes that the cited pages of the Natomas opinion stand the proposition that "adaptive management can be a legitimate strategy 0 �13 Attachment #2 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMeNT5 DATE: January 12, 2006 TO: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE FROM: Jim Sullivan, Director of Environmental Resources RE: Consider Approval of Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Energy and Environmental Resources Committee recommend the Executive Committee approve the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MS14CP) and the Implementing Agreement, and certify the Final Environmental impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND: The CVAG Executive Committee will consider approving the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and certifying the Final EiR on Monday February 6, 2005, at 6 pm in the Palm Desert City Council Chamber. Printed and CD copies of the MSHCP documents were delivered to CVAG members and the other Permittees during the week: of December 5-9 2005. Every agency, private organization and member of the public who submitted a comment during the public review and comment period of November 5, 2004 — March 7, 2005 has been notified of the availability of the Final EIR which includes the response to comments and of the February 6, 2005 hearing of the Executive Committee_ All MSHCP documents are available on the website www.cvmshcp.or_q. Planning for Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP) has been in progress for over a decade. The public review draft MSHCP and associated documents were released for public review and comment on November 5, 2004 with a 90 day comment period. On January 31, 2005, the Executive Committee extended the comment period to March 7, 2005. I=ive public meetings, including a hearing before the Executive Committee, were held during the comment period to receive verbal comments. Over 300 individual written comments and verbal comments at the public meetings were submitted. The Final EIR includes responses to 1) all written comments received from agencies, private organizations, and the public during the entire extended public comment period; and, (2) to all verbal comments submitted at the five public comment meetings. Schedule CVAG Executive Committee February 6, 2006 Printing of Final MSHCP completed February 20, 2006 Consideration by Cities, County and other Permittees February 21 — April 30, 2006 Issuance of state and federal permits June 30, 2006 Staff will give an overview of the MSHCP and answer questions. Some of the benefits of the MSHCP and the ramifications of not adopting the MSHCP are outlined below. r^ A 01 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Benefits of the MSHCP ➢ Local Control over Endangered Species Act Issues. When a Habitat Conservation Plan is approved, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) transfer their authority to issue an Incidental Take Permit (iTP) for a project under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) to local government. This eliminates the need for projects undertaken or approved by local governments who are Permittees under the MSHCP to deal with CDFG and USFWS. Instead, local government has control and issues an ITP for projects that are consistent with the MSHCP. ➢ Simplification of Compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts and Certainty for Development, The MSHCP provides simplified compliance with the state and federal ESAs and provides certainty to the development process. For projects outside the Conservation Areas, this means that the projects would no longer have to conduct biological surveys, address biological resource issues in an EIR, or negotiate individually with CDFG and USFWS regarding mitigation. Instead, projects outside the Conservation Areas would simply pay the Development Mitigation Fee. ➢ Coverage for Vital infrastructure Projects for 75 Years. In addition to providing ITPs and mitigation for critical freeway interchange projects in the Coachella Valley, the MSHCP provides ITPs for the regional road network (TPPS projects) and 75 years worth of Caltrans projects, including freeway and highway widening projects and bridge improvements, Other projects covered by the MSHCP include projects approved pursuant to county and city general plans, including the circulation element of said general plans, master drainage plans, capital improvement plans, water and waste management plans, the County's adapted Trails Master Plan, and other plans adopted by the Permittees. Also covered under the MSHCP are operations and maintenance of existing and future public facilities including publicly maintained roads and rights -of -way; materials pits; maintenance yards; flood control facilities; landfills, transfer stations, and other solid waste related facilities; water development, production, storage, treatment, and transmission facilities; sewage treatment and transmission facilities; reclaimed water storage and transmission facilities; public parks; substations and electric transmission facilities; and other public utility facilities providing services essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. ➢ Maintaining quality of life and conferring economic benefits. The MSHCP will provide for the conservation of significant natural resource lands throughout the Coachella Valley since the wildlife habitat conserved by the MSHCP contains other resource values as well. Protection of these lands will maintain the Coachella Valley's quality of life by conserving the area's scenic and open space qualities and providing recreation amenities. Open space enhances property values and supports the area's tourism economy. Half of the lands to be acquired are expected to be funded with state and federal dollars, thus effectively leveraging the local Development Mitigation Fee money. Ramifications of the MSHCP not being Approved if the MSHCP is not approved (which requires all the Permittees to approve it), there will be no incidental Take Permit (iTP) for the eleven currently listed species that occur in Coachella Valley and no ITPs for the currently non --listed Covered Species should they become listed. The consequences of that are as follows: ➢ Loss of Coachella `Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Permit. The current state ITP for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (CVFTL) will no longer be valid; further, USFWS is likely to initiate suspension or revocation of the federal ITP because the MSHCP is intended to redress A. 02 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS deficiencies in the existing CVFTL HCP identified by USFWS. Without the MSHCP, it is expected that the existing Take Permit will be suspended or revoked and development that would impact this species would no longer be permitted, This would have an enormous impact on development throughout much of the Coachella Valley. No coverage for Transportation Projects not currently covered. If the MSHCP is not approved, there would be no ITP for the TPPS projects or for Caltrans' improvements. Each such project would need to seek an iTP on a project by project basis from the Wildlife Agencies. While the freeway interchanges and associated arterials are being addressed on a parallel track to the MSHCP with the Wildlife Agencies, there are likely to be delays with these projects occasioned by the lack of an MSHCP. ➢ Risk of New Species being listed as Threatened or Endangered. Should a species not currently listed become listed (such as the flat -tailed homed lizard or Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel), all development in that species' habitat would be prohibited under the Endangered Species Act without an iTP. This would have a chilling effect on development in the Coachella Valley. No Simplification of Compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. Even projects that do not impact a threatened or endangered species must still address the impacts of the project on other wildlife species. This may require preparation of an EIR, surveys of the project site to determine if sensitive species are present, and mitigation measures, which may have to be individually negotiated with USFWS and CDFG. Such individual project mitigation can be quite costly and can cause significant delays in projects. FISCAL ANALYSIS: Implementation of the MSHCP is expected to cost $645,242,000 (2006 dollars) over the 75 year period of the permits. implementation of the MSHCP is designed to be self -funding and no assessments are required of the Permittees. The MSHCP is to be funded from the Development Mitigation Fee, tipping fees and infrastructure mitigation payments from CVAG, Coachella Valley Water District, Caltrans, and Imperial Irrigation District. CVAG's contribution is $30 million in Measure A funds to mitigate all TPPS projects. The Development Mitigation Fee is $5270 per acre, with a per unit fee for residential development. The residential fee per unit for a density of 0-8 units per acre is $1180, Attachment #3 COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING NOTES The CVCC consists of all Valley cities except Cathedral City. Chair Richard Kike (Crites declined) Vice Chair Hank Hohenstein Meeting Schedule: One per month 2nd Thursday at 11 :00 a.m. (could affect E&E meetings) Draft By -Laws: Comments to be discussed at the February meeting. Requested City Attorney review draft with comments directly to Toni Eggebraaten. Per Diem Policy: Same as CVAG policy except change the number of meetings from ten to 12. Ad Hoc Committees: Implementation Program. CVAG wants to draft a manual for use by CVCC entities: Carol Luna, Riverside County TBD, Imperial Irrigation District Craig Ewing, Palm Springs Hank Hohenstein, Desert Hot Springs Phil Drell, Palm Desert Investment Policy: CVAG's policy does not work. Land acquisition funds need to be liquid. Endowment will need to be long term. CVAG suggested JPA members finance director assist in development of the policy. Policy must be in Michael Bush, Indio Scott Morgan, Rancho Mirage Elected Treasurer, Riverside County TBD, Imperial Irrigation District John Quinn, Coachella Gary Leon, CVAG Add Investment Policy to Implementation Manuel CVMSHCP: General update and schedule. Final Draft Plan will be printed by February 20" 0 01 Unanimous approval needed. CVAG hopes by the end of April all entities will consider approval. "We are at a yes or no position on the Plan," Jim Sullivan for the February 6th Executive Committee meeting. All property owners in conservation area are getting a public hearing notice for February 6th meeting. Announcements: Next meeting set for February 9th at 1 1 :00 a.m. 02 REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM:_ COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Community Services Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Study Session Room of the La Quinta Civic Center. Chairperson St. Johns presided over the meeting and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Gassman was officially sworn in by City Clerk June Greek. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Ed Hackney Commissioner Mark Weber Commissioner Andrea Gassman Chairperson Victoria St. Johns STAFF PRESENT: Tom Genovese, City Manager and Interim Community Services Director Anna Sampson, Community Services Secretary June Greek, City Clerk Kristin Riesgo, Recreation Supervisor; Community Services Department Robert Ambriz Jr., Recreation Supervisor; Community Services Department GUESTS PRESENT: Tracy Rutledge, Desert Gold Team Manager Craig Johnson, Desert Gold Coach City Manager Genovese welcomed everyone back. He stated that the new Community Services Director should be in place in the beginning of February, 2006 and also offered his apologies for the meeting mishap of the prior week. City Manager Genovese was asked about Mr. Robert Leidner's return. He indicated that while Mr. Leidner is not officially on the Commission at this Community Services Commission 2 December 19, 2005 Minutes time, he was invited to tonight's Commission meeting and is expected to be reaffirmed at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. II. PUBLIC COMMENT - None III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of June 13, 2005 Minutes B. Monthly Department Report for May 2005, June 2005, July 2005, August 2005, September 2005, and October, 2005 Commissioner Hackney referred to page five in the minutes and asked about the curfews in affect at City facilities and parks. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz replied that the curfew at City facilities is 1 2:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. at the parks. Commissioner Hackney referred to page 17 in the minutes and asked if a meeting between the City and various sports organizations took place to discuss the maintenance and safety of the sports facilities. City Manager Genovese stated there was a meeting just last week. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz explained the meetings are now held quarterly, one in August, 2005 and again last week. Last week's meeting covered the next season, which runs from January through May, 2006. Also, there are not many recreation organizations using the facilities in the summer. Commissioner Hackney stated that the thrust in the June, 2005 meeting was the concept that people engaged in running the leagues seemed willing to be more participatory in maintenance and safety, if they received more guidance and assistance from staff. He asked if this was the direction of the meetings. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz confirmed it is. City Manager Genovese mentioned that a reorganization has occurred and will be technically official when the new Community Services Director arrives. Mr. Steve Howlett, Parks & Golf Manager, currently reporting to the Public Works Community Services Commission 3 December 19, 2005 Minutes Department, will begin reporting to the Community Services Director. With Mr. Howlett in Community Services, we will have the direct expertise relating to field maintenance. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz will continue to handle all reservations and policies. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz stated he and Mr. Howlett have already begun coordinating with the different recreation groups. Commissioner Hackney asked about department reports as they relate to finances, indicating that the June 21, 2005 report relating to the month of May, 2005, shows the Senior Center's revenue is down almost $1 1,000 between years 2004 and 2005. Also, as you read through the following month's revenue reports, the number increases until sometime around August, where the numbers swing back to show a negative value. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo stated that it may be due to the fiscal year end, and Commissioner Hackney agreed. Commissioner Gassman also inquired about the May, 2005 department report, asking specifically about the page entitled "Community Services Program Report for May, 2005". There is a line item for "Concert Under The Stars", where the number of participants appears incorrect. For year 2004, the participant count was closer to 200 and in year 2005, the participant count should be 500, based on her actual count that had exceeded 500. She feels the numbers need to be updated to reflect this. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo commented that the year 2004 participant count might reflect zero because the City did not have a concert in May, 2003. Commissioner Gassman agreed that the prior year's concert was in April, but still felt the 2004 participant count should be reflected. She stated if the concerts are to be kept together, and the report is year-to-date, the numbers should be adjusted accordingly. Commissioner Weber passed. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION — It was moved by Commissioners Hackney/Gassman to approve the June 13, 2005 Community Services Commission Minutes and Monthly Department Community Services Commission 4 December 19, 2005 Minutes Reports for May, June, July, August, September, and October, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. Before leaving the Consent Calendar, Commissioner Hackney asks if there is a lessening in the Senior Center activities in terms of overall participation. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo indicated that the number of volunteers have possibly decreased, but the number of participants remain consistent. Commissioner Hackney felt in his review of the monthly reports, he had detected fluctuations and an approximate slippage of ten percent in the Senior Center participation. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz indicated in the three years he had worked at the Senior Center, the fluctuation he had observed was due to the large snowbird population. The numbers would increase in September, October and November, decrease again in December due to the holidays, and increase again in January. Therefore, he felt the numbers are seasonal in nature. Commissioner Hackney did not think it was seasonal and expressed his concern. If something was not working well at the Senior Center, the City needs to understand why. He feels the Commission needs to be aware of what brings people in, and what services are or should be provided. Commissioner Gassman agreed and expressed her concern about the decrease in the number of participants in Youth Sports, as indicated in the department reports. The May, 2005 report showed an approximate drop of 50% from year 2004 to 2005; 200 participants in 2004 and 100 participants in 2005. The Youth Sports participants shown in the June Report also reflects a decrease; 1500 in 2004 and 1200 in 2005. She directs everyone to the reports dated June 21 and July 19, 2005; to the Attendance Report Summary Sheets for May and June, and showed where she is finding the Youth Sports participant numbers. Commissioner Weber expressed his concern for round numbers, e.g. 1500 participants or exactly 1200 participants. City Manager Genovese indicated the City generally accepts the team/league's registration numbers; because the City doesn't run the program, but only provides the field. b � ` Community Services Commission 5 December 19, 2005 Minutes Commissioner Weber directed the Commissioners to the October, 2005 Department Report on page 313, "Senior Center Attendance." The total participation for year 2005 was 1573 and year 2004 was 1086, which indicated the numbers increasing during the July through October timeframe. Commissioner Hackney expressed he was not as concerned about the numbers and the method in which they are counted as he was with the possibility of a trend, which he felt was shown in the Senior Center participation, being down approximately ten percent. He felt it was good if the activities are going well at the Senior Center because that is the purpose of the center; getting services out to as many people as possible, while drawing as many people as possible into the process. Chairperson St. Johns asked Recreation Supervisor Ambriz when the new fields opened in Indio. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz indicated the new fields opened within the last few months, but did not know an exact date. Chairperson St. Johns wondered if the opening of the fields had any impact on our numbers. Commissioner Weber felt it will have an impact. Being an AYSO coach himself, he anticipates that since Indio is getting to the level they should be, in regards to park space, that Indio youth would begin using Indio parks more. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz indicates that would be the hope, but felt the Indio youth living near the La Quinta border would still have the tendency to use La Quinta parks. Comment was made that AYSO is experiencing tremendous growth and the parks are becoming very crowded. Mr. Rutledge, Desert Gold Team Manager, requested to speak to this point. He indicated that in a discussion between him and Mr. John Van Driel, La Quinta AYSO Regional Commissioner, Mr. Van Driel originally anticipated the number of participants would drop by approximately 300, which would leave approximately 1200, due to the City of Indio opening their fields. Instead, use has increased to 1600. Mr. Rutledge also indicated there were La Quinta children still on the waiting list, not being able to play, which to him was a problem. He felt that if Community Services Commission 6 December 19, 2005 Minutes they had signed up on a given sign-up date, even if on the last of the four sign-ups, those players should be given priority due to the fields being paid for by La Quinta residents and supplemental taxes funding the field lighting. Commissioner Weber indicated the Indio parks were not up and running as quickly as planned. Because of the lateness of the Indio parks opening, combined with people already knowing of the AYSO quality in La Quinta, they may have stayed rather than taking a chance with Indio. He hoped the City would see a leveling out. He asked how the City of La Quinta assesses the number of acres of parkland needed, stating there is much discussion in Indio currently about their need to expand their parks; their park situation being completely different than La Quinta. However, it brings up the question of how we assess, how many acres per resident, and is that the standard used. City Manager Genovese explained that currently we have a standard of three acres per 1 ,000 residents, but that applies to all types of parks. One task that will be started, probably in February, 2006, is the update of the Park Master Plan, a process in which this Commission will become very involved. Commissioner Hackney indicated that through his time with the city and in talking with people, he consistently receives comments that the quality of our parks must be maintained, that we do not have enough park space, and there is too much demand on what we have. He believed it is something to be addressed as a desert community. City Manager Genovese stated this will be a balancing act, not only with the City development of parks, but also with neighboring cities. For a long time, La Quinta was bearing the burden of a lot of the other municipalities. Commissioner Hackney agreed, especially with Indio and the younger population utilizing the parks on the La Quinta side. La Quinta has been contributing to help them. Now Indio will have their own parks and will put some good programs together to equalize the use. City Manager Genovese felt that once the Indio parks are built, the parents will probably not want to transfer their children the greater distance to La Quinta. V. PUBLIC HEARING —None Community Services Commission 7 December 19, 2005 Minutes VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Facility Use Policy Update — Recreation Supervisor Ambriz referred to the staff report and indicated at the last Community Services Commission Meeting, the Commission did review the Facility Use Policies for all the City facilities and made recommendations, which were approved at the following City Council Meeting on June 21, 2005. Supervisor Ambriz introduced Mr. Rutledge and indicated he had attended both City Council Meetings held on November 1, 2005 and November 15, 2005, requesting that his team not be required to pay these new applicable fees for the field usage. He has a travel club baseball team and according to the policies, would be classified as a Class II Group on the facility use fee schedule. He felt that his team, as well as other traveling teams, should not be charged the fee due to their non- profit organization status. He does not dispute field priority as far as the youth recreational groups getting priority before the club teams, his concern is the fees. As a result of this, City Council has referred this request back to the Commission. Supervisor Ambriz explained that the original intent of the City was to provide free field use to youth sports organizations benefiting the entire community. This has and continues to be done, such as for recreational soccer and baseball. All recreation organizations have to provide proof that their organizations consists of 75% La Quinta youth. Since the policy revisions in 2003, there has been an increase in the number of travel teams requesting use of this field space. As mentioned earlier, quarterly meetings are held with any organization, recreation ball, youth organizations, or any traveling team coming to participate and provide their input, as we coordinate field usage, etc.. They all get priority. Supervisor Ambriz receives many calls from new club teams, requesting in. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly competitive among organizations and has made it very difficult to accommodate the requests of each group. It has become very competitive for travel teams. This is why it was recommended to the Commission in June, 2005 that competitive teams be charged Class II fees, as listed on the fee schedule, and all competitive teams providing proof of their non-profit status, would still be charged Class II fees. Prior to the policy revisions, several travel teams and competitive teams did establish themselves in La Quinta, and were using the City's fields without charge. Because of the number of teams and the competition, there was the need to implement these fees. In research of other communities in Southern California, as shown in Attachment B, the majority of outside cities, whether here in the valley, or in other counties, provide free fields Community Services Commission 8 December 19, 2005 Minutes for their recreation ball organizations but do charge their travel and competitive baseball teams. Therefore, it is shown in both the Staff Report and the "Community Use of Athletic Fields Agreement" (Attachment A), the distinction between the youth recreational leagues and the youth independent travel teams. At this time, it is brought to the Commission upon the request of City Council to uphold the approved policies, where no further action would be necessary. If the Commission makes changes, this business item would return to City Council for approval. Commissioner Gassman expressed her dismay of the research. She was present at the last Commission meeting, prior to her appointment to this Commission, when this was discussed, and she heard about the research being conducted. When reading each one of these carefully, she could not say definitely that the majority of the cities canvassed charged the travel teams. In fact, on the first page, there are two that charge, Palm Springs is pro -rated, and three that do not charge. On page two, there was one that charged and three that do not charge. So, Commissioner Gassman's interpretation was contrary to what Recreation Supervisor Ambriz had stated, that the majority of those cities canvassed do not charge, if they have a substantial percentage of participants that are residents of their community. The other thing that dismayed Commissioner Gassman was the cities chosen to canvas, and in the greater Coachella Valley, only Palm Springs and Coachella were included. What about Palm Desert, Indio, and other cities in this area. The research indicated the cities canvassed, e.g. Fontana, Corona, El Monte, Chino, Monrovia, are not in the same situation or valley. City Manager Genovese explained that some cities were managed by the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District, and could not be surveyed because they do not have their own Parks and Recreation Departments, such as Palm Desert and Indio. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz was requested to do this research to obtain a standard, by City Manager Genovese. When doing a standard, it does not include just Coachella Valley but also other applicable acres of parkland. This is something looked at globally and not just what is applicable in Coachella Valley. Commissioner Gassman asked if the number of residents and the number of youth, the percentage of youth in a community, was also taken into consideration. City Manager Genovese indicated we certainly could, but it would be a far greater research project than this. The research results in Attachment B looked at cities that were generally the same size, and a few that were larger, but did not include real large cities. Community Services Commission 9 December 19, 2005 Minutes Commissioner Gassman stated the research report was very well prepared and is aware it took a lot of effort to complete. She also indicated that because of her knowledge in taking statistics, she is concerned some of these geographic areas may not have the same number of youth, the percentage of youth, as in La Quinta, and may have different economic considerations. She questioned if La Quinta had been positioned in Northern California, close to San Jose or a wealthy community, how the social -economic structure might compare. How would the residents of these communities compare to the social -economic abilities of the residents of La Quinta. The city -sponsored participants understandably have first priority and everyone gets to play. If a child excels, there should be an incentive to excel. If asking a travel team to pay, are we preventing those children from excelling by making it cost -prohibitive. Commissioner Weber indicated the true issue is limited space. There is a supply and demand, the supply is fixed and the demand is ever-increasing, therefore the cost increases. This is natural economics and makes a lot of sense. The issue with a traveling team versus a non -traveling team is again one segment of the population being chosen to participate, and therefore has a special situation, versus all the community having open access. Commissioner Gassman understands giving those teams top priority where there is open access, but has an issue charging non-profit organizations, when a field is not being used, and if it means that certain children do not get to participate. Mr. Rutledge raised his hand to speak. He explained that because he coaches children at all ability levels, some not skilled enough to play in any kind of travel program, he has never had an issue with a priority basis. For nine months of the year, it is not a big issue. He stated at this time, he has driven by the parks five out of the last eight nights and on almost every night, the lights are on but there are no teams on the fields. He explained the last two or three times he paid for the field and lights for team practice, three empty fields with lights were not being used. He brought this to the attention of Recreation Supervisor Ambriz, which brought it to the attention of the appropriate people, but it still remains unchanged. Two nights in a row since then the lights are still on. There are plenty of fields out there right now and very few winter league teams. He goes on to explain that Cathedral City only has one or two fields, but are supplemented with Big League Dreams, where he can take his team anytime for free, as long as there is field space, and that includes dragging the field, watering it, chalking it, lining it, and putting a mound down for the $1 .50 cost of admission. He has also talked with Community Services Commission 10 December 19, 2005 Minutes the person in charge of Parks and Recreation in Desert Hot Springs, and indicated that he could also play on their fields for free, including lights. He pointed out that Desert Hot Springs is a poor city compared to La Quinta. He further stated that he has children on his team that have not been able to play because their fathers are out of work, migrant workers. etc. He indicated that he puts out quite a bit of his own money, in an effort to keep these children playing. Mr. Rutledge feels it is I if the fields are there, especially if he is punitive to make the children pay for already paying for them through his supplemental taxes. Mr. Craig Johnson asked to speak. He is a bit embarrassed. He has been involved in youth sports for seven years and would think that the City of La Quinta, which is one of the finest cities in the valley, if not the finest, experiencing so much growth, and seeing so many new families moving into the City, would want to set a different example. He is concerned that the message being sent to the children is if you want to excel at something or get better at something, it's okay, but there will not be a facility for you to play unless you can pay. There are many fundraisers and many different things being done to raise money so these children can get in. He felt the City is setting a double standard, providing open access to children that may not take playing seriously, while children that want to excel and do well not having the opportunity afforded them. He pointed out that field maintenance is severely lacking. If the youth association, Mr. Rutledge or Mr. Johnson did not work on the fields to prepare them for play, they would not be usable. Mr. Johnson questioned what the $40 paid actually covered. He indicated that recently there was a broken sprinkler that caused at least four inches of standing water in the field. They have paid $40 and the lights had not come on. He indicated the Bermuda grass is dormant, no one is mowing, the trash needed to be picked up, and no one ever did the infield. His concern is these are the same children that will be playing High School ball and representing our community. Chairperson St. Johns asked how the priority system worked and how Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Johnson know there are no other teams on the fields. Mr. Rutledge explained he goes to Recreation Supervisor Ambriz and that he, City Manager Genovese, and Recreation Supervisor Ambriz met on these same issues within the last two weeks. Because Mr. Rutledge's team is one of the three honest club teams, providing the proper information and going through the proper channels, they are one of the only teams to pay. There are a lot of loopholes letting the rest of these club teams play free. Community Services Commission 1 1 Mini at -- December 19, 2005 Chairperson St. Johns asked if there is a schedule that Mr. Rutledge presents to Recreation Supervisor Ambriz. Mr. Rutledge indicated he goes to Supervisor Ambriz and asks what days he can use the fields. When there is field space available, Mr. Rutledge will fix the field and practice on it. The field maintenance done by Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Johnson, in preparation for practice, takes a considerable amount of time. It is pointed out by Mr. Rutledge that part of the problem is they don't know who to contact at Desert Sands, for instance, in case of a broken sprinkler. Chairperson St. Johns asked the age group of the children. Mr. Rutledge indicated his children are in the 14 and under age group. Chairperson St. Johns asked if Charlene was the person to contact at the district on field maintenance issues. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz had spoken to Mr. James Lindsey in the City of La Quinta's Public Works Department and was given a contact, which was a Facilities Superintendent named Troy. Supervisor Ambriz has been in contact with Troy since this incident with the fields and standing water. He explained the school district has the responsibility of the irrigation on 50t", so unfortunately with the flooding; it is not on the city's contract to fix, but rather part of the school district's responsibility. Supervisor Ambriz immediately researched the contact person and called him the same day. Commissioner Weber asked if the sprinkler was fixed in a timely manner. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz indicated this incident only happened last week, and he had not heard the status. Mr. Rutledge indicated he thought the sprinkler had only been turned off and had not yet been fixed. City Manager Genovese indicated it is one of those manic conditions that have been occurring for the last 17 years. The City would hear of the District setting up something, e.g., little league, and there would be sprinklers going on. It is not something that is ever going to be 100% perfect, even the City fields have the potential. Commissioner Hackney felt he has gotten mixed messages. He stated in the June, 2005 Commission Meeting, the message the Commission received from the eight to ten participants coming in from the various leagues was maintenance was 0 Community Services Commission 12 December 19, 2005 Minutes lacking, but not to the extent Mr. Johnson has eluded to. In fact, there was a reasonable distinction to be drawn between not -for -profit, everybody participatory leagues, the Class I leagues we have, and the other classifications shown in the current schedule. He felt he had no concept as it related to Class II. Assuming everyone in Class II is abiding by the Class II rules, what are we talking as it relates to the actual money coming in to support these fields versus not having Class II. City Manager Genovese felt it is relatively minor and pointed out there is not this perception all field maintenance and field lighting are taken care of and there is an ample supply of money. Currently, when you take into account the lighting and landscaping district, which is in place to take care of the lighting and landscaping in the medians and parks, the parks had been exempted out approximately six years ago, the price tag is close to $1 ,000,000 and parks maintenance comes out of the general fund. So, it is not being assessed to anyone at this point. When asked if expected to continue this way, it was indicated some day the City may want to consider some type of special parcel tax, because eventually it will have an impact, as it does every year, on the police services, etc. City Manager Genovese also explained the General Fund comes from various taxes. Commissioner Hackney expressed his greatest concern was not about Class I or Class II but about the maintenance of the fields and the safety of the children out there playing. He felt the City should provide fields, ones that are basically well - maintained. Whether Class I or Class II, the leagues should not have to do the field maintenance described at this meeting tonight. He also realized there are limitations on money, staff, and how things get done. There somehow needs to be a cooperative effort to accomplish these things while providing an opportunity for all children, ones that excel and ones that do not, to participate. Commissioner Hackney reiterated what he is hearing now is significantly different than what he had heard at the Commission Meeting in June, 2005. Chairperson St. Johns stated the discussion tonight was the fees and of course, all want the fields to be safe. The field maintenance issue will continue being looked at, as promised at the June, 2005 Commission Meeting. In tonight's issue of the facility use fees, she agreed with Commissioner Gassman that we don't want to punish the children because they are getting better, and if there are times when the fields are empty, she would like to see these children play. Commissioner Weber agreed but does not like the phraseology of punishing anyone; it sounds politically charged and tends to skew the issue. The issue is there are limited resources and who should be paying for those. The City is not Community Services Commission 13 December 19, 2005 Minutes punishing the children for improving. The issue is one league is set up with open access for children at all levels, irregardless of how serious they take it or what their skill level is, whether they are handicapped or have learning disabilities, or whatever. They all have the opportunity to participate. He suggests maybe having a structure to minimize the infiltration of children from other municipalities into the La Quinta facilities is something to consider. The question was asked if the 75% residency was built in. He felt it was, but suggested we might want to explore having La Quinta teams, such as La Quinta Heat, for example. He stated in his review of the research report, he noticed at least one city, Monrovia, had a memo of understanding agreement for usage. Maybe the City could have a memo of understanding with a La Quinta team, which could carry a banner that it is the official team of La Quinta. He felt the City would need to approach this cautiously, maybe this would have minimal impact, maybe it is something we could suggest to City Council to be tried, but whatever is done, we need to proceed with caution. Commissioner Gassman asked about the age. She expressed tonight was the first time she had heard the age requirements of 14 years and under, and felt this is something worthy to consider. She felt a travel team of 16, 17, and 18 year olds would have the ability to earn money, but children 14 years old and under do not have the ability to earn money without burdening their parents. Mr. Rutledge stated it would be acceptable to continue cleaning and maintaining their own fields in return for free field use. He suggested if a visual perspective is needed on field condition, drive out on any given day and look. Right now the grass is dormant and there is not much maintenance being done except for fixing the broken sprinklers as they break. Commissioner Hackney does not dispute the amount of time being given by Mr. Rutledge or other coaches. He expressed his appreciation for the time being given to the children. He does not dislike the Class I, Class II, or Class III approach to funding and thinks with the City's growth, there will be more pressure on the City's resources. He asked for Chairperson St. Johns' assistance in getting deeper into the maintenance issue because he sees it as a safety issue and as a function of what is being done for these children. City Manager Genovese stated that field maintenance is really a separate issue. Staff can certainly bring back a report regarding this but keep in mind; these same fields each day are being played on by hundreds of school children. So, whatever dangers are out there, they are prevalent everywhere. Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of the Sports & Youth groups to drag their own fields, etc. If the Community Services Commission 14 December 19, 2005 Minutes City attempted to do this, it would be expending a fair amount of dollars on staff at strange hours. All these fields at the Sports Complex are played on the entire day. If you prepare a field the night before, it will not help when there are several children playing on it every single day. This is the reality of this particular complex. Some day if La Quinta obtains its own baseball complex, which is just utilized for baseball, it would hopefully stay in better condition. Staff can report back on this, but City Manager Genovese felt this is a separate issue. Commissioner Hackney does not disagree, but felt talking through the issues he finds troublesome will assist him in formulating his direction. Chairperson St. Johns asked if anyone wanted to attempt to come up with a motion on this. Commissioner Weber felt it was good to talk about the maintenance. He stated to maintain the fields to the level desired, it will require some assistance from the coaches. He felt the role of being a coach included a certain amount of maintenance, but stated there should be an effort to minimize it. He indicated he would like to talk about maintenance more in future meetings. Commissioner Hackney asked how staff would respond to the concept of a particular travel team maintaining the fields, having signed a separate agreement with the City to perform the maintenance in return for a waiver on the Class II fees. City Manager Genovese responded it would be awkward at best. He sees this as two separate issues. Once done with a particular field, there may be requests to discount another field or people asking for credit for maintaining the fields. He can foresee AYSO coming back requesting other discounts as well. The snack bar is offered to various groups for use, while the effort is made to keep it to a minimum. We are attempting to distinguish the fact that these teams are different. The age group probably has more merit than anything else, but currently may or may not be an issue. Fields not being used and people using them without paying is not as critical as having to designate a time for field use and paying for lights that currently do not have funding mechanisms, except by the general fund, which was previously mentioned as not having an assessment to take care of it. So, there are really two separate issues, and is really more of a policy issue. Commissioner Gassman is concerned about the age group and felt perhaps differentiating between those travel teams having children 14 years of age and under as opposed to the travel teams with older children could be possible. Community Services Commission 15 December 19, 2005 Minutes Recreation Supervisor Ambriz expressed in all due fairness to the recreation ball organizations, they too have taken on the responsibility of maintaining fields. He further states as Mr. Rutledge knows and has admitted, La Quinta Sports and Youth has a new board member in LQS&Y baseball, Nathan Dunn, who has stepped up extremely for that organization. He knows personally from working over the past year with La Quinta Sports and Youth that prior to Mr. Dunn joining the group, there had not been much done. Mr. Dunn is really making a difference and is with the recreation ball organization. Mr. John Van Driel, Commissioner of AYSO, as well, has always enforced with his board, the need to maintain all those fields to the best of their ability. In signing our "Community Use of Athletic Fields Agreement", a $500 mandatory field deposit is made, and it is the league's responsibility to maintain the fields to the best of their ability. Commissioner Weber requested that we look further into the ramifications of the age restriction. He does not want to burden anyone with too much research, but it might be something we want to consider, if we could get more information. City Manager Genovese expressed that if in fact the Commission has a 2-2, 3-1 , or a 4-0 vote to remain with the current fee structure, and staff is requested to do additional research, staff will try to accomplish this for the Commission's next meeting. Chairperson St. Johns would like to see the additional research next month, before a decision is made. Commissioner Weber asked about the facility use fee schedule. Are the classification of groups and the definition of each class the official definition, because he does not see any reference to the percentage of residency required. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz indicated the Facility Use Policy had a bit more definition and does reference the resident percentage of 75 %. He directs all to the "Community Use of Athletic Fields Agreement" (Attachment A), item number two, and is also broken down and bolded in the Staff Report at the bottom of page two. Commissioners Hackney/Weber agreed to modify the earlier motion and move to postpone judgment on this. Commissioner Hackney explained he feels very uncomfortable about making a decision in either direction at this time. He feels he sees policy reasons in the growth of the community in which we need to be very cognizant. The class system we now have makes a huge amount of sense to deal Community Services Commission 16 December 19, 2005 Minutes with, but there is also a situation where we may have a legitimate complaint about the way we are doing things. City Manager Genovese suggests a motion be made to continue this item to the next meeting and direct staff to prepare additional research. MOTION — Commissioners Hackney/Weber move to continue this item until the next meeting. Motion carried unamimously. Commissioner Hackney would also like to see the participants of the June, 2005 Commission Meeting come back to the table. Recreation Supervisor Ambriz said he would send out the invitations. Commissioner Hackney expressed that he is unsure if this Commission can broker a solution, but it would be most helpful to have everyone involved together at the same time, expressing their viewpoints. Mr. Rutledge stated he thinks the priority list is the fairest method to use, simply that recreation ball teams have the first priority, travel recreation has second priority, non-profit club teams have third priority and for -profit club teams have last priority. This seems fair, delete the fees, but put it on a priority basis. Commissioner Hackney asks if we can look at what the fees have been over the last year to eighteen months in the various places. B. Community Special Events — Recreation Supervisor Riesgo explained that the City Council had authorized a community concert on the Civic Center Campus as a partnership between the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta Arts Foundation. The concert will take place on Sunday, February 26`' from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Organizations have been invited to have a table at this concert, to provide a venue to display their literature and get their information out to the community. This event will also provide a venue for the poster unveiling of the 24' Annual La Quinta Arts Festival. The estimated cost of the community concert is provided in the Staff Report. The City of La Quinta will also be hosting a second concert in late April, 2006, with the Marine Corps Jazz Band and the La Quinta High School Jazz Band. The Commission is requested to distribute flyers. Should the Commission approve the distributing of flyers and acting as host to the events, staff will proceed with the t., r Community Services Commission 17 December 19, 2005 Minutes production of the flyers and distribute them to the Commissioners. Commissioner Weber asked if he has any conflict of interest by being a member of the La Quinta Rotary. Chairperson St. Johns replies that he can do both. Commissioner Weber thought it was a great idea and La Quinta Rotary is selling beer and wine at the event. He and his family have gone to "Concerts under the Stars" in Palm Desert and would love to see more things like this in La Quinta. He makes a motion to move forward with the recommendations of staff. Commissioner Hackney sees no money associated with the second concert but only with the first. He asked if there is any cost associated with the second concert. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo indicated that we will be using the funding left over from the first concert. Commissioner Hackney asked if we are spending $1 5,000 to do these concerts. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo indicated that the Marine Corp Band is not that high of an expense, but wants to keep the money on reserve, and may be used for publicity materials and similar things. Chairperson St. Johns indicated that the concert was so good. Commissioner Gassman commented on last year's concert and requested that the Marine Corp Band and the La Quinta High School Band not play the same music as last year. MOTION — Commissioner Weber/Hackney move to approve the motion for the Commission to distribute flyers and act as hosts for the performers on the day of the concerts. Motion carried unanimously. C. CPRS Conference — Recreation Supervisor Riesgo explained the California Parks and Recreation Society a �_ Community Services Commission 18 December 19, 2005 Minutes holds an annual conference in which professionals discuss current trends and situations involving the parks, recreation, and community services professions. The next conference will be held in Ontario, CA on March 16 — 18, 2006. We are looking to the Commission to appoint a representative to attend this conference. Chairperson St. Johns stated that she has never attended, but every time someone attends and returns, they are always very excited. Mr. Leidner attended last year, different Commissioners have attended at different times, and it is closer in proximity this year, so not so far to travel. Commissioner Hackney asked if anyone was interested in attending. Chairperson St. Johns would like to attend, but she indicated that she has to work. Commissioner Hackney also indicated that he has a scheduling conflict. Commissioner Weber would rather not attend. MOTION — Commissioner Weber/Hackney nominate Commissioner Gassman as the person to attend the CPRS Conference, and if Commissioner Gassman can not attend, then an alternate will be selected. Motion carried unanimously. D. Youth Workshop — Recreation Supervisor Riesgo explained the Commission has hosted a youth workshop for students at La Quinta High School and La Quinta Middle School, in which the students are encouraged to attend and to provide input as to what they would like to see offered in the community. Should the Commission desire to host a Youth Workshop in January or February, 2006, staff will contact La Quinta High School, La Quinta Middle School, and youth -related organizations and arrange a time and date. We are looking to the Commission to provide us feedback. Chairperson St. Johns thinks that working with the youth is vitally important. She asked Recreation Supervisor Riesgo if she is still visiting the schools. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo indicated that she has been in contact with La Quinta Middle School, but has not been as involved this year as she was last year. She has been there three times. Chairperson St. Johns felt that having the workshop the same way as last year is Community Services Commission 19 December 19, 2005 Minutes sort of redundant. You'd like different people from different organizations to come. Commissioner Hackney indicated they had also gone over to the school and participated in classes. Chairperson St. Johns stated last year's workshop was at the Senior Center and the format for this year's workshop seems wrong. She had fun going to the schools and meeting with ASB, but that would depend on the ASB person from each school. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo indicated that the challenge with attending schools is ASB at the High School is at the zero period, so the students can come and go as they please. This year she found it difficult to meet with the middle school because they only meet once a week, for an hour at a time, and everything for the entire week has to be jammed into one period. So, it is challenging to go to the schools, but agreed that you do get more out of a one-on-one action with the student. Commissioner Hackney asked if it was possible to do a thumbnail of where we are from last year's recommendations. He felt if we asked them to come last year and we didn't take action on their recommendations, out of a personal sense of embarrassment, he'd be inclined not to bring them back in. If, however, a credible presentation showing the recommendations made last year versus what was done as a result of them, he would be more inclined to sit down. Quite honestly, he sees it two ways. He sees it as arguably program shaping but also sees us meeting as a participatory group, where people get a chance to look at each other face-to-face and talk about what is going on in the city. We would have the opportunity to present some of what was going on in the city, and achieve better communications. Is it possible to postpone this until the next meeting, and get a quick thumbnail on where we are from last year's project list given to us. He asked if we have had any teenage sock -hops or anything like this. Commissioner Gassman asked if we have ever had a day where we have invited the student body officers and their respective schools to a Council meeting, for example. Commissioner Weber thought this would be a good idea, to have some one-on-one time with them. He likes interaction because we need to show the student body leaders just what the realities are. As future leaders, or as current leaders in the school, this would be helpful to them in a growing perspective as well as help us to Community Services Commission 20 December 19, 2005 Minutes convey to them some concerns we have. One of his main concerns is the maintenance as it relates to skate parks. We are spending thousands of taxpayer dollars to install cameras at our parks, due to the bad acts of a few. He would like to convey this to the student leaders, so they get a real perspective on what is really happening. We do not want the students going out in the world thinking there are unlimited resources, and they should be able to do anything and everything for everybody. He would like the opportunity to convey this to the students on a one-on-one basis. The students see graffiti in the bowl at the skate parks and have personal experiences as well. We could get feedback from them and help modify programs, to make them feel a part of the solution, while having a part in helping us. Chairperson St. Johns liked the idea of thinking outside of the box on this because it is zero period now. It was great when it was at lunch and we could go every other month, have pizza, and sit around and talk at the High School. It was wonderful, with the games and prizes, and lots of fun and interaction. This is not going to happen at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. Since our report card does not look very good at this time, we need to somehow have interaction and maybe just with the student body. Commissioner Weber thought that maybe the Council would love to see a group of students come in, maybe meeting with them prior to Open Session at 3:00 p.m. If this runs into the student's last period of school, we could see if the students can receive credit for civic participation. The students could meet with Council, meet with our Commission, introduce them at City Council, letting them stand up and converse with City Council and Council can thank them for their attendance, which would provide them with some interaction while seeing how city government functions. He felt this could be achieved without too much detailed analysis, but some would be beneficial, to provide a measuring stick of where we are, so that we can provide some feedback. Several Commissioners felt this was good, out -of - the -box thinking. Commissioner Hackney was asked if the last meeting was a tough one. He indicated that it was fun to participate in and he enjoyed it, once the interaction began. He asked if we could get a sense if the City Council would like to have the students present. City Manager Genovese didn't feel the Council would have any objection to inviting the students to a 3:00 p.m. meeting. It would probably depend on the age groups attending, and could probably be worked most logically in with the government Community Services Commission 21 December 19, 2005 Minutes classes. Commissioner Hackney would love to see the City Council spend a moment with the students. It was suggested that if the meeting was at the same time that the Commission was present, the interaction could take place. It was asked of City Manager Genovese if the session room would be available, but he indicated unfortunately it was used, but suggested there might be another place to have the meeting that may be close. It was suggested that outside might work, if a nice day. City Manager Genovese mentioned the library could be a place to begin the meeting, and together the students could come over to the Council chambers for their introductions. He would work with staff to come up with some ideas. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS A. Calendar of Monthly Events No other correspondence or written materials offered. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Reports from Commissioners Regarding Meetings Attended Commissioner Weber mentioned that he and City Manager Genovese had e-mails going back and forth relating to the La Quinta AYSO and field maintenance, etc. and it covered the topics we had talked about. He mentioned that he and John Van Driel, La Quinta AYSO Regional Commissioner, have talked a number of times about the fields. He tried to help Mr. Van Driel understand the challenges that we have with schools, in an effort to alleviate some of the concerns. It was also mentioned that Mr. John Van Driel had finished his term and Mr. Jaime Nunez will be taking over next season. City Manager Genovese was asked to provide an update on the skate park. We are currently trying enforcement and several citations have been issued to a group of individuals, perhaps the same individuals going back and forth. We are looking at modifications to the fencing, both from the Police Department and our own staff. The security cameras, even though not specifically for the skate park because of liability issues, should be up and operating by February, 2006. This will help us with the vandalism. Before the skate park issues arose, we were experiencing quite a bit of vandalism over the past couple of years. Community Services Commission 22 December 19, 2005 Minutes Commissioner Weber personally caught a young man peeling stickers from the sign at the skate park and when asked what he was doing, the youth became rather belligerent. Also noted recently was graffiti inside the bowl. He also mentioned that work has been started on the spray and water park. City Manager Genovese indicated that the water features should be starting now, and thinks it will be at least a 90-day project. This is one of the issues we have to address, the problems of the park, and not just isolate the skate park. As soon as the water feature opens, there will be some of the same issues, unless we gain control of the issue at hand, which is poor behavior. Chairperson St. Johns asked what the graffiti said inside the skate bowl. Commissioner Weber did not go close enough to read, but it was large enough to see from the street. Recreation Supervisor Riesgo had received an e-mail from the police lieutenant today, indicating that the graffiti was gang -related and that the task force had been notified. It was mentioned there has been a lot of chopper activity there in an effort to coordinate enforcement. The police have a special enforcement team that go undercover, bicycle patrol which is almost stealth in its nature, as well as motorcycles to maneuver anywhere needed in the park. It will take hard enforcement for quite a time. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - It was moved by Commissioners Hackney/Chairperson St. Johns to adjourn the Community Services Commission Meeting at 8:39 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. NEXT MEETING INFORMATION Monday, January 9, 2006 @7:00 PM La Quinta Civic Center - Study Session Room Submitted by: Anna Sampson, Comm�nity Services Secretary REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 7, 2005 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Planning Manager Les Johnson. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Frank Christopher, and Tracy Smith. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. There being no changes to the minutes of September 7, 2005, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. There being no changes to the minutes of October 5, 2005, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Smith as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-839; a request of Marchi & Associates for Wells Fargo Bank for consideration of development plans for a bank building for the property located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street within The Pavilion at La Quinta project. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\12-7-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 7, 2005 Community Development Department. Staff introduced Mr. Brett Marchi who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Smith asked if the wire trellis was welded to the building. Staff stated that based on the information submitted, it was to be attached to the building. 3. Committee Member Christopher asked the color of the trellis. Mr. Marchi stated it will be a powder coated color using an accent color. 4. Committee Member Smith asked what plant material would be used on the trellis. Mr. Marchi stated it would be a vine. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the vines noted on the plans will stick to the building without the trellis and will become a maintenance problem. Mr. Marchi stated the trellis will not be directly attached to the building, but will stand out about two feet from the building. Committee Member Bobbitt recommended a bougainvillea or calliandra vine. He also asked that the Chilean/Mesquite trees be replaced with a stronger tree. 6. Committee Member Christopher asked that the banding that runs horizontally through the stucco section be colored to give some accent. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the applicant consider adding concrete edge to the island beds so when the people exit their cars they do not step in the plant material. This would be for the area adjacent to and in front of the parking stalls 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-035 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-839, as recommended and as follows: a. A different vine material shall be used on the trellis b. The mesquite trees shall be misplaced with a different tree C. Contrast color shall be added to the banding that run through the stucco area. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\12-7-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 7, 2005 B. Village Use Permit 2005-032; a request of Nispero Properties for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 19,433 gross square foot two-story office building with coffee house for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenida La Fonda and Main Street in the Village at La Quinta. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Steve Nieto, representing the applicant. 8. Committee Member Smith asked if the coffee bar was public or private. Mr. Nieto stated it would be public. Committee Member Smith stated his concern about the parking. Staff noted this will be addressed in a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Committee Member Smith asked the land use designation to the property to the north. Staff stated it is all Village Commercial uses and staff will probably require a screen wall. Committee Member Smith asked that the trees be changed to an evergreen variety along the west elevation. 9. Committee Member Christopher asked if the applicant intended to use the details noted in the samples submitted. Mr. Nieto stated it is a flavor they are trying to capture. Committee Member Christopher asked about using a hip roof for the front building and discussion followed regarding the effect of changing to the hip roof. It was determined to drop the stone work and add some of the archway features to add some detail. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2005-036 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2005-032, as recommended and as follows: a. Lower the stone work on the coffee house and add some arch elements. b. Change the trees on the west elevation to an evergreen variety. C. A screen wall shall be added to the west property line. d. Wrought iron railing shall be more in keeping with the hand crafted detailing in the pictured examples submitted, e. The sign monument shall be more in keeping with the fountain with the camel backing and scalloping. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\12-7-05 ALRC.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 7, 2005 C. Site Development Permit 2005-846; a request of Toll Brothers, Inc. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for the property located on the north side of Avenue 58, west of Madison Street. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Allen Janisch and Rick Blackshear who stated they were available to answer questions. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if any of the new plans will be adjacent to the existing units. Staff stated yes, but no two- story units will be permitted next to a single -story unit. 3. Committee Member Smith asked about the exterior entrances to the upstairs unit. Staff noted that when they are designed with the exterior doorway, it is considered a guest room. Committee Member Smith noted there was a stairwell directly adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Blackshear noted how you would enter the unit. Half of the staircase would be seen from the street. He noted the Plan 2 and Plan 4 staircases can be seen from the street. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked if decorative detailing could be added to the staircase. Mr. Blackshear stated it could be added. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to define what detailing that exists on the original units would not be carried over to these units. Discussion followed regarding the differences between the two elevations. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they were exceeding any height limitations. Staff noted they are all within the height limitations. 7. Committee Member Christopher noted the Plan 2 second story has too much blank wall and something simple such as wrought iron detailing would help. Plan 1 needs something added to the risers to add detail. The applicant should be sensitive to the existing units to not construct something that is less than what is there. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\l2-7-05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 7, 2005 8. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2005-037 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-846, as recommended and as follows: f. On some of the gable -end second story areas, additional architectural detailing shall be added. g. Decorative treatment shall be provided on Plan 2 for the staircase that faces the street. h. Railing detail shall be decorative and not a standing vertical element. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a meeting to be held on January 4, 2006. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :00 p.m. on December 7, 2005. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary a G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\l2-7-05 ALRC.doc 5 REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: '1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 13, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the November 22, 2005 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Alderson Abstaining. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-812; a request of Chick-Fil-A for consideration of screening provisions for a restaurant with a drive-thru lane located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 , east of Adams Street, in The Pavilion at La Quinta. 1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-13-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson questioned why we were asking the applicant to provide the screening when this portion of the site is actually the responsibility of the master developer. Staff explained how the responsibilities for the area were determined. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked who was responsible for maintenance. Staff stated the master developer was responsible for the maintenance. In addition, there is a condition that the plants be allowed to grow to maturity and that they be maintained at the proper height for screening. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if the Commission had previously requested the retaining wall be used. Staff stated it was not a condition. 5. There being no further questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Greg Lawless, representing the applicant, explained the project. He explained the entire site belongs to Chick-Fil-A, but the master developer is responsible to see that the landscaping theme is carried out through the entire site frontage. The master developer is also responsible for the maintenance. In regard to retaining walls, this is not something they would want due to the lane width required to keep a vehicle from driving into the wall. 6. There being no further public comment the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Quill stated he does not believe the height of the berm and plant material is enough to hide the cars and headlights from the traffic on Highway 1 1 1 . 8. Commissioner Alderson asked if the master developer has a grading plan with these elevations and if so how did the elevations change from 75 to 74 feet. Staff clarified other berming was proposed earlier in the project's grading plans. The engineer could be requested to redesign with a continuous berm to reach the height desired in some of the areas. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any concerns in maintaining the slope and grade. Staff stated they had no objections, but it would be up to the Public Works Department. Community Development Director Doug Evans suggested it be a berm and/or low stem wall. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-13-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 10. Commissioner Quill stated the berm needs to hide the cars up to the top of the car. Mr. Lawless stated he does not know of any other drive-thru in the City that has this requirement. He would recommend the Texas Ranger be planted at the top of the berm to hide the drive-thru. This would essentially be seven feet in height. 11. Commissioner Quill stated he does not want to rely on plant material to hide the drive-thru. He wants the berm to hide the cars. The site line from Highway 1 1 1 should not see the cars. 12. Commissioner Daniels stated he does not want the dike look with a continuous berm. 13. Commissioners Ladner and Alderson stated 75 feet with some undulation would be acceptable. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2005-016, approving the drive-thru plans for Site Development Permit 2004-812, as recommended and with the berm constructed to a height where the site line from Highway 1 1 1 hides the vehicle to the roof of a standard vehicle. A stem wall could be used in conjunction with the berming. Unanimously approved. B. Consideration as to whether to allow vinyl fencing as an alternate material for residential fences; a request of City for direction in regard to fence material within the City. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Kay Wolff, P. O. Box 1016, La Quinta, asked if staff had considered an alumna wood material. Staff stated no; they were specific to the vinyl material as this was the specific request brought to staff. 3. Commissioner Ladner stated it was her experience the vinyl is a better quality material than the wood. Her only concern would be the quality of the product used. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-13-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the vinyl fencing proposed by the resident who brought this up, is an imitation wood material. Staff stated it is a smooth finish, but that most manufacturers offer a simulated and smooth fence. 5. Commissioner Quill stated it has been his experience that it is a good product and superior to wood. He would only want it to be allowed where wood is allowed. 6. Chairman Kirk stated he is more concerned with quality than material. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to interpret the Code to allow the alternative material to wood fencing in the Cove, and directing staff to address the particulars at a later date with a Code Amendment. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Community Development Director Doug Evans informed the Commission that on December 20th at 4:00 p.m. there will be a presentation by Lowe International on the hotel and conceptual design of the SilverRock Resort project. B. Review of City Council meeting of December 6, 2005. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 27, 2005, at 7:38 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7: p.m. on December 13, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Be y J , wyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-13-05.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 27, 2005 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner, and Vice Chairman Paul Quill. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to excuse Chairman Kirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, Assistant Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the December 13, 2005 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. A. Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005- 106, Zone Chanqe 2006-126, Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5, and Tentative Parcel Map 32752; a request of Ray Shaffer for consideration of: 1) a Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from golf Course to Low Density residential; 3) a Specific Plan to allow the conversion of 2.3 + acres of existing golf course/common area to residential use; and 4) review of a Parcel Map to subdivide 2.3 + acres into three single-family lots, for the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 property located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Golf Courses, immediately south of PGA Boulevard, within PGA West. 1 . Commissioner Daniels informed the Commission that he belongs to the Master Homeowners' Association (HOA) for PGA West, but not the HOA for this subdivision. He does not believe it is a conflict of interest. 2. Commissioner Ladner declared she has a potential conflict of interest as she insures the Fairways HOA, and left the dais. 3. Vice Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. Staff clarified why a condition had been added requiring the Fire Marshal approval and that the applicant had not obtained approval from the HOA. 4. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a staff recommendation as to a course of action. Staff stated they have taken a neutral position on the project. There are concerns that this is an established open space area and neighboring properties have grown accustom to the area being open space. Commissioner Daniels asked where the Tee box and green would be relocated. Staff explained based on the conceptual site plan it was proposed outside the proposed lots and stated the applicant would be able to better define the relocation. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked for clarification on the Fire Marshal requirement. Staff explained there needs to be approval from the Fire Department that they have an approved route that provides access to Lot 2. 6. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was an existing six foot wall along PGA Boulevard. Staff stated yes, there was. Vice Chairman Quill asked clarified currently there is no viewshed looking down into the golf course. Staff stated that was correct. 7. There being no further questions of staff Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 the project. In regard to the condition for the Fire Marshal, a sketch plan has been prepared to show the access to the lots which reflects the Fire Department's minimum requirements. As it relates to the putting green, this area as been redesigned to give players something to do while waiting to play on. 8. Commissioner Daniels asked the applicant to define who owns the property. Mr. Haag identified the property that is owned by the original land developer and the homeowners. Mr. Larry Lichliter, representing the land owner stated this land has been owned by KSL Land Corporation. It was not part of the sale to CNL. The green area is not part of the CNL property holdings. Commissioner Daniels asked why they had not met with the HOA. Mr. Lichliter stated he is the president of the Fairways HOA. The position of the Fairways Board is not to approve or disapprove of a development. The owner of the land has the ability to put the land into the HOA. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Fairways HOA was part of the Master Association and have they been notified on this development. Mr. Ray Shaffer, proposed owner of the property, stated no. Commission Daniels asked if they had submitted the plans to the Fire Department. Mr. Shaffer stated he had met with the Fire Department and asked for their solution to the access. They gave him two copies of the hammer head design that is before the Commission. They have not, however, made application to date to the Fire Department. Commissioner Daniels asked if they have read the letters of objection staff received. Mr. Shaffer stated no he had not seen them but, one of those objecting has a wall at the rear of his property and this development will not block their view. Commissioner Daniels asked the applicant if there would be any long lasting harm in continuing this project to allow the neighbors to be here. Mr. Shaffer stated no. 9. Commissioner Alderson stated he has a problem with the access design. He believes it will be too difficult for emergency vehicles to make the 90-degree turn. Mr. Shaffer stated the Fire Marshal had given him the design. Commissioner Alderson asked if the HOA had anything to do with the golf course. Mr. Lichliter explained there were four HOA which cover different areas within PGA and each has different responsibilities. Commissioner Alderson asked if Lot 1 vacates a storm drain easement and what is physically happening to this easement. Staff explained it was G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 their understanding it would remain. Mr. Haag stated it would be slightly rerouted to fall between the two lots. 10. Vice Chairman Quill asked for clarification on the property lines. There are existing private road lots. Is there an existing property that exists along the southerly property line that follows the parcel map. Mr. Lichliter stated that when it was originally designed these lots were not proposed to be built on until PGA West had been developed to see how the lots could be laid out. Vice Chairman Quill asked who owned the land that the access easement will be over. Mr. Lichliter stated KSL Land Corporation and they have stated they will grant the easement. It is not under the jurisdiction of any HOA. Vice Chairman Quill asked how the fire hydrants/water mains would be designed to make it workable. Mr. Haag explained the location of the fire hydrants and how they would gain access to the hydrants. Vice Chairman Quill asked if this property were not adopted by the HOA, what would happen to the land. Mr. Lichliter stated the HOA is required to accept the property. 1 1 . Commissioner Daniels asked how those playing golf would get to the first tee. Staff indicated the route on the plans. 12. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the existing storm drain was going to be relocated and why was it not proposed on the tentative map. Mr. Haag stated it will be relocated to the east. 13. Commissioner Daniels asked if the cart path were rerouted, would this create a nine foot climb up to the first tee. Mr. Haag stated it could be. Commissioner Daniels noted residents will object to this as it has always been perceived that this is part of the golf course. Mr. Lichliter noted other open space areas that are currently not developed, but will be coming forward due the value of the land. Commissioner Daniels noted that whether or not it is true, the property owners in the area have perceived this area has an open space and will object to the development of the area. 14. There being no further public comment the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 15. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained that this entire area has been an open space portion of PGA West. It has not been proposed for development prior to this application. The area has always been referred to as open space. Property owners have relied upon what was shown to them. From a public purpose there is no need to develop the site. From a policy standpoint, staff implements the General Plan and the staff recommendation could have been recommended for denial as it does not comply with the General Plan. If the Commission wishes to consider the General Plan Amendment, then the applicant would submit a Specific Plan and Parcel Map to create the three lots that would be reasonable compatible with the adjoining land uses. Staff would then expect to receive public input objecting to the development of the area as the adjoining property owners would be notified. 16. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any documents on file that calls this property out as an open space. Staff stated they would need to research the issue. The General Plan controls the underlying use. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the General Plan defines the metes and bounds. Staff stated the area has been defined as it currently is designed with open space. In this case the open space area just happens to follow all of the lot lines, and over the time of development, the area has been defined as open space. 17. Commissioner Alderson stated the houses as positioned could be hazardous. The property is not overly landscaped; there is only grass. This development will disturb the serenity of those who live in the area as well as those playing the course. Based on the letters received he would recommend continuing the project. 18. Commissioner Daniels stated he has no objection to the project, but knows it will cause substantial issues with the residents. 19. Vice Chairman Quill stated his issue is the open space. We do not know how this lot was configured and whether or not it was set aside as open space. For this reason he would like to continue the project to better understand how the recorded maps are defined, especially for Lots L and H. 20. Vice Chairman Quill reopened the public hearing. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to continue Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2006-126, Specific Plan 83- 002, Amendment #5, and Tentative Parcel Map 32752 project to January 10, 2006, and directed staff to determine how this land was designated and seek information from the HOA regarding the proposed project. Also, direction from the Fire Department as to the general access to the lots. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Ladner rejoined the Commission. B. Site Development Permit 2005-846; a request of Toll Brothers, Inc. for consideration of a residential tract development for seven single-family prototypes, each with two different elevation treatments, and typical landscape design plan for the property located within Tract 30834, on the north side of Avenue 58, ± 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street. Vice Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the most sensitive lots in regard to the two-story units were Lots 10-19. Staff stated yes. There are no compatibility sections in the Zoning Code that specifically make any requirements on these lots but, in light of the concerns that were raised when the Puerta Azul project was built, staff is trying to be sensitive to the two-story units adjacent to one-story units. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the two-story units were sited on the map. Staff stated there has not been any specific lot siting in regard to the one and two story units. Staff noted these units have been built in other projects and are production units which are not the same as the existing homes. 4. There being no further questions of staff Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Rick Blackshear, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. He stated two-thirds of the units would be single - story. They do intend to build single -story units next to the existing single -story units. On the north boundary, they are G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 proposing two two-story units. He went on to note the materials they propose to use on the units. 5. Commissioner Alderson noted the floor plan is an excellent design. He is concerned with these production units being built between the existing units; is there enough room. Mr. Blackshear stated they were plotted with all the setback requirements. Commissioner Alderson asked what was to be developed to the north of Old Ranch Trail. Staff stated it is a nine acre parcel with a four lot custom home subdivision. There is a potential to have five two-story units adjacent to single -story on the adjoining tract. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked what criteria was used for the placement of two-story units. Staff noted on a tract boundary you cannot have a two story unit built next to a single -story house unless there is a street separating them. Commissioner Daniels asked how committed the applicant was to the two story houses on Lots 14 and 15. Mr. Blackshear stated they could be moved. 7. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the green spaces were already developed. Mr. Blackshear stated yes. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any objection to limiting Lots 10-19 to one-story. Mr. Stone James, representing Toll Brothers, stated that while the lots are 10,000 square feet, the prior developer designed them in such a manner to create very odd -shaped lots making it very difficult to maximize the house sizes, which their home buyers are requesting. They have 70 lots and seven floor plans to accommodate the lot configuration. 8. Commissioner Daniels asked if the two lots could be exchanged for two other lots so that Lots 10-19 were all one-story. Mr. James noted the concerns raised by the PGA residents when Puerta Azul was built, versus what this project will be in regard to the number of units to the acre. 9. Commissioner Ladner asked what the Commissioners concerns were in regard to the two, two-story units on Lots 14 and 15. Vice Chairman Quill stated building mass. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained that if the two-story units looked over the wall on the second story, they will be looking down into the operations of the maintenance facility. Mr. James stated that in regard to relocating the two-story units, they are G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 concerned that they may not be able to make the changes as this plan has been challenging due to the lot layouts. 10. Commissioner Ladner asked if the two-story units could be exchanged with Lots 66 and 67. Staff noted those lots have existing homes on them. 11. There being no further public comment the public participation portion o the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Ladner asked if the original developer had intended to have two-story units. Staff stated yes. 13. Commissioner Daniels stated Lots 10-18, at least should be single - story. 14. Commissioner Alderson stated that if the applicant was agreeable to having Lots 14 and 15 changed to a single -story, he has no other objections. 15. Vice Chairman Quill asked that Lots 2-9 which have two-story units, be required to notify those homebuyers of what is next door. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated his concern is that once a home owner occupies the home and lives with the facility that can cause noise issues, it will cause code enforcement issues for the City. If the Commission is considering this, a noise analysis should be required. 16. Vice Chairman Quill reopened the public hearing. Mr. James stated the two-story units that face the maintenance facility, the bedrooms are occupied to the front of the house and only the guest quarters face the facility. 17. Commissioner Alderson asked if the applicant would have any objection to moving the four two-story units discussed to a different lot. Mr. Blackstrom stated they would be willing to review the site plan. 18. Vice Chairman Quill closed the public hearing and asked if there was any action by the Commission. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes.\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson adopt Minute Motion 2005-017, approving Site Development Permit 2005-846, as recommended and modified: a. Conditions added: none of the two story units shall be allowed on Lots 4-18. b. Condition added: a disclosure shall be required on Lots 4-9 in regard to the on -going maintenance facility operations. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 2005-941 ; a request of Signtech Electrical for Cingular for consideration of a deviation to an approved Sign Program to permit non -conforming corporate signs for a business for the property located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 , within the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, west of Adams Street. 1 . Vice Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioners asked staff to explain the location of the business. Staff stated it was west of Adams Street, north of Highway 1 1 1 . 3. There being no further questions of staff and no public comment, Vice Chairman Quill opened the matter to Commission discussion. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson adopt Minute Motion 2005-017, approving Sign Application 2005- 941, as recommended. Unanimously approved. B. Consideration regarding Hookah Bars; a request of City for direction in regard Hookah Bars within the City. 1 . Vice Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu presented the information in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. t G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 2. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if this had been discussed with the Sheriff's Department. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated their response was that as long as it is lawfully operated, it is not an issue. They do have concerns in regard to age limits and loitering. It could be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and it should be limited to very restricted areas. The Commission is not committed to allowing the use. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked how they get past the indoor smoking requirement. Staff noted there are two exceptions; 1) as long as you are the sole owner and employee of the business; and 2) the primary use is tobacco retail and smoking is an accessory use. Commissioner Daniels asked if a Health Department approval is required. Staff stated it is not required as food is not being serviced. Commissioner Daniels asked if any business could do this. Staff stated they would be regulated by the indoor smoking prohibition. 4. Commissioner Ladner asked if staff had spoken with the City of Rancho Mirage in regard to this use at The River. Staff stated no, and noted the cities they had contacted and how they regulated the use. Currently, staff only knows of one in Palm Springs. Hookah Bars are not in the business to sell, but to provide a service. 5. Commissioner Daniels stated he would have a concern if alcohol were served. 6. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Halum Abdo stated he was proposing a Hookah Bar and he did not intend to serve any alcoholic beverages. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked how the business functions. Mr. Abdo explained how the Hookah works. Discussion followed regarding the operation. 8. Vice Chairman Quill asked if they would be selling any of the pipes. Mr. Abdo stated they do not intend to sell any products. It is a service business only. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 9. Commissioner Daniels asked if a location had been determined. Mr. Abdo stated next to Kohls Department store within the One Eleven La Quinta Center. 10. Vice Chairman Quill asked if staff had any recommendation based on what information they had obtained from other cities in regard to the exact location, whether or not alcoholic beverages would be allowed. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if alcohol were added it would be a completely different use. Staff recommends this use only be allowed in the core of commercial areas. If the Commission were to review operation criteria, staff would have to do a zoning text amendment. 1 1. Commissioner Ladner stated that in regard to the five issues raised by staff, the parking and hours of operation should be the same as a Starbucks. 12. Vice Chairman Quill stated that if the Commission determined the use would be permitted, the specifics would be addressed when applications were submitted. 13. Commissioner Alderson clarified the direction of the Commission was to determine whether or not this would be an allowable use. In his opinion, this use would not get his vote due to the use not being an advantage to the City. 14. Commissioner Daniels asked if a smoke shop would be allowed. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated there is one business and smoke shops have not been regulated. Staff could bring this use back as well. 15. Vice Chairman Quill stated he would be inclined to not allow the use. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson to deny the use. The motion died for a lack of a second. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to continue this item to the next meeting. The motion carried with Commissioner Alderson voting no. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 2005 IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Community Development Director Doug Evans informed the Commission that the City Council had determined that a General Plan Amendment to increase the building height for development in the Village would not receive a favorable vote by the Council and directed staff to not proceed. The applicant has withdrawn their application and will resubmit their application in compliance with the Village Design Guidelines. B. Review of City Council meeting of December 20, 2005 was given by Commissioner Daniels. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on January 10, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:1 5 p.m. on December 27, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty awyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2005\12-27-05PC.doc Department Report: ,- LO: �`� OF T v TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager. DATE: January 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Department Report - Response to Public Comment The following public comments were made at the January 3, 2006, City Council meeting: 1. Scott Arthur, spoke regarding the status of the School District grading project for the school property located adjacent to the Bella Vista tract. He invited Council members to come to his home and view the project's impact from his back yard. 2. Ian Rhodes, 43905 Milan Court, spoke regarding the same issue, and suggested it might be more practical to put up a new wall before they finish the road instead of after. • Staff commented on the advantages of installing the retrofit after the improvements are installed, and assured Mr. Rhodes that there would be an agreement in place with each affected homeowner prior to any work being done on their property. Council thanked Mr. Arthur and Mr. Rhodes for their patience. DEPARTMENT REPORT: {' ar O� T1�tiU TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager j DATE: January 17, 2006 RE: Continuing Action Regarding the Expenditure of Public Funds Pertaining to an Emergency Contract for the Construction of the SilverRock Resort Mountain Drainage Improvements On July 19, 2005, the Agency approved Resolution No. RDA 2005-010 delegating the City Manager authority to respond to the stated emergency without giving notice for bids to let contracts as defined in Part 3, Chapter 1 , Article 4 of the Public Contract Code. In accordance with Chapter 2.5, Section 22050 (b)(3) and (c)(2) Emergency Contracting Procedures, of the Public Contract Code, the City Manager shall report to the Agency at its next meeting the reasons justifying why the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and why the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. Further, the Agency shall initially review the emergency action not later than seven days after the action, or at its next regularly scheduled meeting if that meeting will occur not later than 14 days after the action, and at least every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated, to determine that there is a need to continue the action. On September 20, 2005, the Agency approved a Finance Agreement with the City of La Quinta and the Agency and appropriated an additional $273,000 from General Fund Reserves to the SilverRock Resort Construction Account for the construction of SilverRock Resort Golf Course Grading and Drainage Improvements, Project No. 2002-07L. On September 23, 2005, contracts were delivered to Landscapes Unlimited for execution. Work on the course began on October 24, 2005 and will be completed in early 2006. Department Report: _ OF TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Thomas P. Genovese, City Managerx DATE: January 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Department Report - City Council Workshop This memorandum provides information regarding finalization of the agenda for the Council workshop, scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 18, 2006. Staff provides the following format for your consideration: I. Open the meeting II. Orientation by City staff regarding purpose of the meeting III. Public Comment period regarding Council goals IV. Presentation of the Annual Financial Management Review by staff V. Council discussion of Annual Financial Management Review and Council goals VI. Adjournment of meeting The Council workshop will be advertised in the February issue of the Gem newsletter, in the quarterly City newsletter (expected to go out later this month), and via press release to be issued approximately 2 weeks prior to the event. The format above is merely staff's suggestion. An alternative format could include taking public comment after discussion of the Council goals. Staff is seeking direction as to Council's preference. I DEPARTMENT REPORT: CITY COVNCIL'S .fi UPCOMING EVENTS JAN UARY 17 FEBRUARY 7 FEBRUARY 18 FEBRUARY 21 MARCH 7 MARCH 21 APRI L 4 APRIL 18 MAY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 2006 La Quinta City Council Monthly Calendar '2 New Years Day New Years Holiday Observed (City Hall Closed) 3 14 2:00 PM City Council 10:00 AM ALRC Meeting 5 6 7 12.-00 PM Mayors Lunch 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM SJSR Ntl. Mnmt-Henderson 8 j9 10 12 7:30 AM CVEP-Adolph 7:00 PM Mosquito 9:00 AM RCTC- 12:00 PM Energy/ 10:00 AM Pub. Sfty Abate. Perkins Henderson Environ.-Sniff Perkins 7:00 PM Planning 5:30 PM Investment 12:00 PM Transp-Perkins Commission Advisory Board 3:00 PM Mtns. Con -Sniff 6:00 PM League - Henderson 15 16 ' 17 18 9:00 AM CVA-Henderson 2:00 PM City Council Meeting Martin Luther King's Birthday (CITY HALL CLOSED) 22 23 24 10:30 AM RCTC Budget 7:00 PM Planning Henderson Commission 29 130 31 6:00 PM Exec Cmte.- Adolph 13 14 19 i20 3:00 PM Historic Preser- vation Commission 25 26 12:00 PM Human/Comm- ! 9:00 AM LAFCO Osborne Henderson 12:00 PM Sunline-Adolph 4:00 PM DRRA Airp- Osborne December 05 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 �21 February 06 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 1/10/2006 February 2006 La Quinta City Council Monthly Calendar 1 10:00 AM ALRC 2 13 ------ 2 6 27 ', 28 10:30 AM RCTC Budget 7:00 PM Planning January Henderson Commission S M T W T F S 6:00 PM Exec Cmte.- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Adolph 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IM 18 City Council Workshop (time not yet determined) 25 March S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 1/10/2006 26 March 2006 La Quinta City Council Monthly Calendar 20 121 22 23 24 25 9:00 AM CVA-Henderson 12:00 PM Human/Comm- 9:00 AM LAFCO- 2:00 PM City Council Osborne Henderson Meeting 12:00 PM Sunline-Adolph 4:00 PM DRRA Airp- Osborne 1st Day of Spring 27 28 29 30 3 10:30 AM RCTC Budget 7:00 PM Planning Henderson Commission 6:00 PM Exec Cmte. Adolph Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 1/10/2006 DEPARTMENT REPORT: �LC&tyl Of I4CORFORA w7 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council -, — I FROM: Tom Hartung, Director of Building & Safety Al DATE: January 17, 2006 RE: Monthly Department Report - December 2005 Attached please find the statistical summaries for building permits, Animal Control, Code Compliance, and garage sale permits for the month of December. The reports depict the following highlights: • Year to date building permit valuation is $376,359,452 which represents an issuance of 5,587 building permits through December; • 3,1 1 1 animal control cases have been handled through December; • 2,605 code compliance cases have been initiated through December; • $960.00 - garage sale permit income in December d z oC/� �> 4�> 4 `� c CD CD o � y � Go 00 J 00 w 00 (J) J N w o1 w 0 O � J N �-• N w .�. w w N N -P w N W O ,w `O oo a1 � Oo O C1 �D �-.• vi � 1 N GO �l Q1 �-- J N O G1 � � 00 N �O 00 w V� c� w a> P a1 00 a1 a\ 00 O O N J - `O 00110011N11Vi N O Cli b w d G1 W N O a1 J a1 00 C11 y w w -P P 00 rD C!l w O O .4, `O W �¢„ �G a1 w p w a1 a1 `O w O O w C .IP O 00 W CA W 01 00 4, LD O N -,AW 00 A -1 � (J) 00 00 C1 -A a1 w a1 A O o0 0o w N O 01 N w Oo N `O w a1 J `O J b W O 01 V 00 —] 00 01 00 J N w N d 00 w � y C!1 a1 00 O 00 —1 `O W a1 o w `- `O w O Go -� a� N w N � �0 � � O w oo �• C w J v, J v o � o w � �O w o ►-s � P �- • �l N P N .-, w N 00 P O 1pz *W • ►--.+ $Mw *d • 0 U4 lot CD (A Pot- y w w w w w�d �(j-0 ;" ro ro a 0 N rJ r-) n n W yj 1 �7a 1 1A'dQOHnJxoroNnCWxoCm(nro0pxo ro I HIA p Q U Cx7 tzJyntilLIJ n zn ro I xlnnOol "jo x C I HU)U)w(nCl�Jb�i v 10 10 muCj"Jz I H i MI'd fA0Hz,,MOMMt-IMt'Ili [I10m u I ;r ' M xJ C GJ LA 1 0 X N !a y n x1 M L 1. 0 :�E: C t7 7 I ronC�, zo I of 00 2,Hx�ln0 C CH �+ I O H n x) C O C U W O 0 H C) n\ y O 'o y H O 1 W W H N ;o I O f 0 -�7 H z l �t z~=J CCznF-� H m0 x �o Q x coon I nn C)a: I y 1 KHM M I Cry 00000 1 Z U) rn m C xi t- ti7 I I ro I y U] H xi n x7 tsJ H I .s. I i CsJ I xl ro O U) d M O U) C mM U M y H M m ,S I H \ U) N O N I 1 I+nx z zH oyny (f) t-AIAM 1-iQH r, H N H S t' 1 I t=J xo t-J x x7 r rl t7 ;UO n U) H MMCxJ tI] 1 Z FA t' fA H H H U) Z 1 H y n 1 C I H C y U) I I tj tTJ tj -3 tIl tIJ I- �I �-a ✓i � z 1 1 Q n y U) x (n H 1 tTj tIJ '� I I C H 1 I n I I 1 I y t1j I 1 o I I H I 1 � I 1 C I I � •• I 1 I 1 I 1 1 tyo�ljIv I y 1 W t'J N OD m H kD F-' I C I I !o U] H H CO M W -1 (D in N OD W O m Ul OD H H iD C) W -1 o �, H I U) 1 �-3 (n x H 1 c" tj 1 1 I t�r-yJ M U) U b y 1 tZJ I I y tIJ I � 1 1 ro xy y (] 1,' N I,1 I I tTj H H m O --1 N N H H N lD W I Hy ,o O co N Ul U) -1 (D Ul tD OD m N N Ul CD N tD (Dw N 0 IA kD I 1 1 w:�: tj y U) f C; H H I y I " y iJ n x CU)NU) I f� U) I H Q O tI1 FJ I td 1 z ITJ }-' �• N Ul lD CJ I C rd i n \ H H W Ul H Ul N N I trJ I 'Ty O ,r cD (D " H O Ul B M W F- w w la; m �'D W �l kD 1D m "D N N N O w IA W IA IA m m(D CO cn J O O lD It, m F (D E' CD Co O N m N O W N O O kD O W J O m O O CO �,D Ul O m O N m I C 0 1 I (-- U I co y C :�i 'd x" 0(D w O O H Ul O Ol O H (fl -1 IP 0 0 0 0 0 w N I :rl I R] t-J 'd n y I trJ xi C �i 1 4 I I y N y N H y N 0 Ili H I_n kD H H w J H Ic-. to I I y w 00 O W \D N IA N �l w O H lD H -1 IA A OD w m Oom UINfA�'oHkDw-I nNw wO Ho qj I I 'd\� J 0 0 m U1 m CD IA W H CO W W m lD IA O O (1) I trJ I I tzJ O ro I M I I Ut t� O CD (D Ul O lD kD O O W l✓ O W J OD W O W O O CD -J I U) I I 00 O O m 0 IP O O N O N O m Ul Ul OD O W W O O \D I 1 I I I I I I i I I ro I f w H H rol CD -A H H H C I I I- m H O H m W -1 w w J O kD O O N N H H N W IA I U) I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 O Ul W H 1 w H N H N H H H H H I H trJ I N r. m H (DN w Ul -1 w \D Ul Co (DO N N H W m --1 I (f] flj 1 i tTJ I 1 � I 1 ro o 1 N N I ro t� 1 m W H C N O W It, N -A I ftj I O N m W w F-' w tD Ol H H H O IA N Ul O CD O Ul 00 F, kD FJ -J lD O m lD O N -1 N OD f �j tij I F' �l O O Ul W Ul w m W Ul -1 O O lD O �D CO C C I F- U1 O O OD m W 0 OD N Ul W O 0 0 Its J J Ul O O O O N O --) O H O O l0 0 0 0 CD (D 0 O) N m I y LTJ I I � I N N i I I i I � H (✓ I I i N H W IA I-' LJl H H lD H I hJ I I m N H Ul Ul N W 1� --) N H m 6l 1 w N W tuj I I W O( D m 0 0 H --1 m �D IA Ql N lD l✓ CU Cll N --,I I tj I I O O O It> kD Ul O J -1 H H O OD O N -1 W H w I U) I I m O O O m W --1 O O m CO H -] (D 0 -J O 0) 0) -1 W O CT) O O O lD kD N O J- -) Ul W O) O U U1 O Cl) I!'. W Ul �D I I a t,�tle¢ri) 3 ANIMAL CONTROL REPORT FOR: December 2005 Steve Alexander, Moises Rodarte, Kevin Meredith, Megan Fisher, Elizabeth Escatel Animal Pickups YEAR TO YEAR TO INCIDENTS YEAR TO YEAR TO December 05 DATE 05 DATE 04 HANDLED December 05 DATE 05 DATE 04 Dog s Alive 30 352 335 Bite Reports 1 27 Dead 7 102 85 Animal Trap OTI 4 33 43 Set Ups 9 105 Cats Alive 54 327 236 Cruelty to Dead 12 103 74 Animals 0 9 OTI 0 13 14 Other Animals Alive 1 126 92 Dead 7 77 102 OTI 0 0 2 TOTAL ANIMALS Alive 85 805 663 Dead 26 282 261 OTI 4 46 59 TOTAL ANIMALS REMOVED 115 1133 983 VIOLATIONS: NO OWNER Dogs at Large 37 Noise Disturbance 3 Defecation Removal 2 License Violation 19 Other 0 MONTHLY TOTAL 61 I I �:V Cox fy..v I1 TOTAL MONTHLY INCIDENTS HANDLED: TOTAL YEARLY INCIDENTS HANDLED: Vicious Animal 36 36 Restraining 1 8 5 Special Hour Patrols 0 76 55 Zoning 0 0 2 Lost/Found 0 297 484 Animal Rescue 0 7 22 Outside Agency 0 1 2 City Reclaims 0 69 1 12 Other 78 405 255 TOTALS 89 1004 1010 WARNINGS CITATIONS 11 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 1 1 22 3 297 55 December 05: 290 December 04: 214 December 05: 3111 December 04: 2366 4 CODE COMPLIANCE STAT REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2005 DECEMBER 05 YEAR TO DATE 05 YEAR TO DATE 04 ABATEMENTS: Nuisance Abatements Started 190 1536 1115 Weed Abatement Started 16 196 75 Vehicle abatements Started 95 774 707 Building Code Violations Started 7 99 17 TOTAL STARTED 308 2605 1914 TOTAL COMPLETED 338 2992 1767 Case Follow-ups 406 4869 3708 Home Occupation Inspections 18 149 125 Business License Inspections 0 39 1 Garage Sale Permits Issued 96 1488 1648 Department Report: OFT�ti TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Douglas R. Evans, Commpnity revelopment Director DATE: January 17, 2005 `' w SUBJECT: Department Report for the Month of December 2005 Attached please find a copy of the Community Development Department Report which outlines the current cases processed by staff for the month of December. P:\Monthly Report Folder\DECEMBER 2005.doc z w Q w 00 ~ w w = O w w 0 z O LO O N zw w m �w oC U Q w w 0 0 LLJ z F- O F F— 2 m � � Q U E O w w Y -0-0-0-0-0 � a��-0-0-0-0-a-0-0Q � U w = O a� E a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� }, E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E w Z a '+- - .Q z Q cn -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 cn cn cn cn 0 w N cn w 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 cn LO CL LO O O N N r— O I- r— O O� O �— O c") z N M Q Z O J V) Q U L) F- w N cnL) CL c cn Z c " � -: wco a o Q 0 a Q �_ cn v Q (n + Co //��a� cc a� ��77�� cn YJ Q O un O _O �O\ *' OO� O cm J OO coa.00) �in^ ,\ c O C E O i O w �", J � � _ n E— _ > N N UO L) 0 C7 I— U Q 0 (n 2 2 0 U z z z Q LO O O N C") w co L1J W 0 0 LO 0 O N J N C") CD M M N z 0 U w a� a� a) � � a� ai a� a� a� 0 W + + + + + + + + w > O cn d. cn (nn M w w w m w a M N M M N LOTd- O N O Q U) W (7 z I— D0 J 0 Q W F w z LU w Q D �. � 0 C/) d F— ) � E w tf U E ELU a Q w � Q Q E cn V a Q m � C U) Q � " G G a) cc }' ° N ° 0 O c E (D p `n 0 ca U z U ° +_ Q ° — co �- a > N c> �- > +- N -� U m J J 0 CC 0) c aQ 0Q)a) o-�-oo 00 U 0 C7 (n (n cn f— > N N F— U O LO O O N cc w m w LU 0 LL O Q m Y C O z U Q C O C O L Q Q MO O d NU I fr J () Qa- U) U O p Q U Q •� U O D -0+ U }, O L O Zco Q O Q > Q O 0- Q I Q 00 N N(D N I I a_U O L > Q p o S 0- Q I Q Q LO I I �� -0 0 N 00 CO LO �- CN U I I 2a_U > OO Q 0- I I � LO O �0-- 0 N I� O r- U a- Q=0_U > O > 0 QQ I Ln a� N O N, co I I () U > > 00c6 a Q LO �� N O N N N I I U U a_U _0 O>I O Q - +- a)QI c- Q O 0.� N c O O �- J U Q M Q 2Q _0 N>O> Op Q 0- }, +a)Q UQ 0 LO Q O OQ.� N >c Q-0 O co U CL a- C Q 20Q c U O U N 0 � 1 CN - a, L U N M C U O N 2 N L OU co - C:U Q - N O {-' C O -p — O — O O — cB U (n M C vi C CD C -E O > CO w c6 p O co n� U O = -a cn I O _0� U °ZS U C) cn p p a) Q OpU> O p U C-C_0 �-0 U U Q O E O CO> > 6 U C C CO c6 CD c OO LZ 0c6 •_ V) �y >U� C U `cz 4- � UO aO--+ O c �cX * O a) p�Q O UN U cc O O -0 E M r- 4-1 CY) � ' 1 co�� O O co OC�U O E p CO C Q U +i c6 UM co x CO -0 p 0 4- w O C Ucn 4— O O 0a O N O c a)cO UQ O CO U +- CO O> En O }C O O NOO � UO Z C co ~ cO ' C O U)� O,(D C O C C 0 co O .� coN O I� to U d O C � C .� •O •O � U co E 0 O N � � co co U C 0 O Q E U c U O c_n U� L U i U > O (n U -O CO LC) CO , p -0 - cB U � - -p O w (n °� ' � Q E Q Q orn +-+ cn c c +U-+ co 2 c +0 co • -0 W Q E Q O Z +"' Q a- U 0= a) > U C C T U cc d- L O � Q Q U .+ co U O U p O U U O 0 U U O c0 — M O U N +ter X U O U cco C) Lci~ ~ co J 0 r N N C oo J 0 j,Lr) U 0 rn Q C co U � N p 00 > I� O O r— O N 0 O O J O 0') a_ 0CY) C Q LI J r, 00 00 N D = U M �> M co 0CN 00 O M M M co O C F— U O U i- O 0_ (n N 06 i— C z .1 C (A LO U)- C *- J �C d �- 1 0 �0�� C� x� UO �CY)U C-t d°6 d cnM Qd' Q� c � mod' a� L p ,� En a) � c� � � � �n � ts� U co � �O 00 LO I LO M coO LO �O LO LO LLJp 4-- 4- co iN�M EM � cnQ U0 O 20 �0 000 �O 0 pU `*' a- 2i C N -�0 N N N 0 �0 N� U0 N U0 N O >� }' O >� '_' O U D U� Um Q O Q O Q O Q O M c Q co Q m Q U U U 0 0 > = f- -- W (n 0 U W U W N M CJ W m W 00 W Oz U Q O N Q oC Q I Lc) O O N N I I U U U U Q Q (o >� c6 U C + O LO L) LO O Q w O +U+ O ca p (� U m C — a) O a -� 'U O Q 42 co Q CL cB >� CO U C +� O C LO o LO O Q� w. O aU-+ a) O ca p U m C — O a+ 'U a c6 a) a) C O O Q V Q cc Ln I O (D I NON I I U U a- a- CO O U Q a) CL O I U w a) -0 c6 cu � a)O L E J cn U co> U I LO I U U Q Q Q +� 0 a) Q 4- U) O a) C O co U U Q ca Q) 1 vi o (D = a) .� t\ C CL' vC O O U00 -0 U U J Co CT + Q a) o-) �' C �� J +� �� 0')�' (D — o O a) cn _ E " o +a C }J LL — (_o a) � Q 'O C a) L O L (nco cn O cn L co O +� a) �1 W � O O +� 0) � O U)a) a) M a--+ O O— C m C a) o 0 O — d co Q) �, c� cn a) O a) c p M a) a) J � o �+- � N a) "D c� � : c� > a) 4-1> co O 0> — a) O v)ca Q C L > O - >. O , } 0 cu } O 0 O ,Q C C C m C O OQ) O -vm � �00c6 E p m E UO `� 3 a) a co CoO O C C— C m Oa) ca CL 0) Cs" a) C Q) M U a) — O ,� p TM a) _0 cn ' O ,- p dM_ cu O co O O co ~ O O > O co 0 76 co — co � C � — CO � co Q Q) X +� +� Q) . 1A 00Q +� _p'U p"Ln F- ' > O O > O coU) +J a 0- No O 'O U Q� Q ND p > O Q O 4-J a) C CO cU a n s C -)C - a) C c6 ._ O nz O n *' 0 co C)_ o > cn> o C},o a) co ca o O cn "o cn `� O� _ w-0 O O D- i-+CO L� p O m cn U a) ' a) a) a) -C L, a) a) � � � o 0 a) c� � .c � � 0 a) � � Cn L o 07 C a) 0- (I L CT O C > -0 � 7 � C — O' C : — w a) U a) � .0 a) a) U o a) +-' C O a) C a) +-' O p O U a) a) o m U w 0 CCO C C . U-0 m 0::0 cn U-0 CE'- U cn U C a) C a) O L LS•) Q) C a) 00 M 4k N M N > X co w ~ cn cn (� U LO C �- cm C m co E LO ca M N O O 00 cfl Q Ln I� a--' c� O LO LO �, CU m O F- O O u.! O U Lo U O o �, LO C O U O O O s O Ud' O pO +JO>O w a) FD N O N c6 f N -a CO co O N — N Ole O X • L � � > C N U-ca L Q N 4-1N (1) D a) D 0 (1) 0 co a- Q O a) > zU >U 2 OCn fir~ cnw Cn� U0-w CL> z O c cc (6 O 0 .tf 0 co L C + LO o(D r-O N r- O I U I -0 LL L O coC -� C:cU U W LO T — I L = O +� U a) O L a C co co _0 U) co m +_ C CO c O � ; -0O O O }' LOU I LO C14c O O I N a- O N O : O U I IL U) co U) '> o c a� O -0 cn < 0 c -C I += V CO 00 �06 C -� Q I co U O cn L C� Q Q J 1 O C O O co O N � O > 00 a) co LL p Cfl co p cn J �O Q = Q) + O � M U)� L �— � Q) }, � {J co (n CN p N C L M U cn cn cn a) p U L CO O OU cB O O C C co C O U N L L CO O ON p *'' U > � O 2 CO c� O _� N C a) s CM O> c- +- >_ O E co � 0 U 0 cn 0 CA N !� �- p 3: > X a) U) +-� p C co >- C a) -0 Q O c C O O O�� Cl)C CD co , C CO O "O U _0 O m a) O L O >� N C +� U C> �- Q _O U CO C U U) +-+ c6 L >}U Q p -O .0) U N F 00 n O OOO — OC: Ca) Co� Ea) M OL- > U N _ca %- (.0TI- 4 N O N > + cy) Q C c� 0 0 0 O cO p CO O+ O Q O F~- C z CO 0-L C: C) +-+ O > O O Cn +� co -C -a U) O O a) L U _ 'a.'� C a) Q� L O O L O >' ' O L U1 ) 1� Q L CO 0�1C� E cn cB CO L C cn p U C cn CO CO a) O- E +, U) a..� w +, w N 5p N — }, cn }, U) >, N O U a) O Q) a) a) E cu O cn . � L O C > CO CT CT CT o U U)L C LO � C T� V C � W c O O Q� Q� Q� (� O dT� O 0 a) a) p W Q� KKQY I..L U �Mcy�� 00 {-0 o MQ� L1 � co U V J cc Q MQ) LL Mai LL U U L J U J N N ca L>7 C M N � U 00 CN CM CY) CM 4-J co co J Q 2 00 r U) � M W L It d' U) . co � W cy) V) N O u/ U) L1 J � � C: co 00 Q 00 OL U > r- 0 00 � CM 00 00 Lo }' O 00 U - 1 -0 1 Co Oddcy) � Q L6 co OLnN Lo M O Lc� LLB �+U- Ln LO c�0 �O C:)> a�0 �OC: cn0 �Ln p0 It 0 W > N N a) M U M O N 0 O N cV O O O N O = �- � 0 M -p E a- c N 0 cn 0. c >, N U) �O O 2co U�>� IO2wON >( Irw<�z cn t! O a Iv CE s O Z O U Q N O L (3.) C o E U O C + ca O C:Q O U -p Q-p cU co I O C CO a. C > a) 0> Q Q Q LSD I 0LO O J U Q O C O `- +� co 1 a. +� co C }+ > O Q co LSD 0 j \ N U a. _0 a) Q 0 O LL oC > p co LLB O r- N N = o a) > O Q Q LO O r- N N = cD U U O D C C O +J co U Q a) > O Q CD Om It O I N U U- Q CL > O L Q CD Om clt O I N U U Q _0 o o L I O j I U -j Q > O Q Lo 0 N r— U a_ ca 'a -O i co � C }' +-i m O •- � +� ca L cc+•� Ctf c L O ccT.-00 > () V C)> O Lo Lo o 0 +I o Q r 1) a) C O `)c V I C CO (D O �' +C CO _ CC +— (n O o ) cB C O -C �_ I\ C O +V) O( CO w TOE C - O O O C C -o CJ, CIO c ` O O L L n _ O 0 � a) a)' (n o co a) (B N cn co UU a) L j .- 0O 0 4- L O = 00 O O OO C N C c -� Q� co C: > LL C 00> cn = U > O CD COO E —ca p cu p a) c- O L O L r m O a) cz cn C M Q] OO x > O f pa) Na) OQ 0) C > OO +j CaO) O O O co OQcp U L p +� a)U co O N c6 Co wO + O O co > co CoQ con0U`N� 4- O 0-0 C C 4- O co CO `*- O C CO 0 co 0 0 (1) 0 -OO COO Z co U O CD O 00 (1) o +J U C O L Q CO �(1) C +-+ C O O L O +-j 0 LO OC p >O O O C O L O cc U O '.pa �UM C) co O +ja).— C LL cc -0 N CO V) M C co ;> co 0 CO O O co > a) Q C C co 0-O a) ) 4-1 a) M a)_ (> U L O > O cn Q 'a C cn -0 cn 0 a--+ C cn cn (n fn C + CO On C a) (n C. U C O cn C> Q C >' +-+ C Of C C U) C 'r` C: C: C C O w O U a) > O C O a) U O `_'' p a) N O O O a) O O C O UU) +J C) U 0cr<U om U-o o2 a. UU U OU oC U U m aU (n C N O Dj CC? U) M C?U) C O CO 00 It 00 L Ln <> a) a--+ It +� Ln cr- M N N _O C M C�1 co O 0 Q +-� O M > U O > O- O U) a_ a) L J cn C C� F— C > O F— U) O > F-- 00 O CD � O^� O U Q N (V • V c6 +' a) Q C O E Ly , `v/J� ,}.d O Lo Ll J > a) 1r, Li I �� W L c M O r � E Lo �„� M� w L Q Lo L a) �dy 00 O LO V) a) a) > LC) I Q Lo Q cn C N , C 0 00 +� co C C: co �j o c) Lo _r U OO �OD a)0 0 = � t CON = �o =o o0 w 0 0 O C O N I J M M +, O C N O m N O ENO LO -N U) U�- a. Q� co7E E � >N �� N —_0 � m Q O O U Q� Q F 0 LL w a_ � a. O L M Q ' L 0 O Q O 0 a. UwN (n>w w U(n o` a:F- Uf- UC7 Ow 0w Uw I--0 •'7 O V Q C G d O co > O 0- 0) C CL d cn (') (B U C co C C ca O L a) C O CL U—) C co C (1) a. C a) a. Cco C a) v Q co co i-' (BCo L rD �- a) O C N 't U U O -0 O N C O }' O cn C -� O U — O -O O E cu coU -a w Q Q L cm co - C U co a� c� C (I a) � (o +- LC) � O a) L O L Q) N cn c� U- O O E O O O C co 0 C cn C m C Q O a-> O 0 O C O_ a) ° O a) Q ' T0� }°ram' L ._ V L.. IfCco c C (n C �LI Q C O O U p U O U D U 0 U O U co L L cn L C co C m C E E V Q V) W I..i.. I..L ^ 1..1... U I I I 4'• L L cI) L-- C E W E E z co z o z co -0 CO CO (o m > C a) a).iU a)'+ CC OU C O> L z �, C co O> z °' C cB O> z 0 fA r DEPARTMENT REPORT: • �Sepcu tI G IA� /' �:VC CiiJ�]AAiFi1 7� ti OF TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THOMAS P. GENOVESE, INTIRIM COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 17, 2006 SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2005 UPCOMING EVENTS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2006: Feb 1 *Morning Workout (Exercise Class) Feb 1 *Current Political & Economic Events Feb 1 *List and Labels Feb 1 *Files and Folders Feb 1 *Photo Editing 2 Feb 1 Clay Construction, Senior Center Feb 1 Clay Play, Senior Center Feb 1 Pony Club, Rancho Polo Grounds Feb 3 *Mat Pilates Feb 4 Neighborhood Pet Show, Fritz Burns Dog Park Feb 6 *Introduction to the Computer Feb 6 *Windows XP Feb 7 *Intermediate Tap Dance Feb 7 *Basic Dog Training Feb 8 Kickboxing Boot Camp, Senior Center Feb 8 *Introduction to the Internet Feb 9 *Valentine's Day Luncheon Feb 9 *Ballroom Dance Feb 10 *Sweetheart's Ball Evening Dance Feb 13 Big Bear Skiing & Snowboarding Teen Excursion Feb 13 *Introduction to Word Processing Feb 13 *Digital Photography Feb 14 *Tai Chi Arthritis Feb 14 *Learn to Knit Feb 14 Tai Chi Chuan, Senior Center Feb 14 Adobe Photoshop Elements Advanced Course, Senior Center Feb 15 *Latin Dance Feb 15 *Word Processing — Level 2 Feb 15 *Scanning Feb 16 Adobe Photoshop Elements Introduction Course, Senior Center Feb 16 Dance, Play & Pretend, La Quinta High School Feb 16 Beginning Ballet, La Quinta High School Feb 16 *Beginning Piano Feb 17 *Beginning Rug Hooking Feb 21 Feldenkrais Yoga, Senior Center Feb 21 Belly Dance Intermediate & Advanced, La Quinta High School Feb 21 *CPR & First Aid Feb 21 *Watercolor Lessons Feb 22 *Sketching & Drawing Feb 22 *Simple Spreadsheets Feb 22 *Introduction to E-Mail (Outlook Express) Feb 22 *Photo Editing 1 Feb 22 *Yoga the Feldenkrais Way, Senior Center Feb 23 Beginning Belly Dance, La Quinta High School Feb 23 Feldenkrais Yoga, Senior Center Feb 23 *Mosaic Tile Art Feb 23 *Mature Drive Training Feb 23 *Tai Chi Chuan — Traditional Feb 25 Algodones Excursion Feb 26 Concert Under the Stars, Civic Center Campus Amphitheatre Feb 27 *The Self -Publishing Experience Feb 27 *Intermediate Watercolor Feb 27 *Stained Glass Feb 27 *Files and Folders Feb 27 *Photo Editing 2 Feb 27 *PrintShop Publishing 1 Feb 28 *Beginning Italian Feb 28 Mosaic Tile, Senior Center Feb 28 Decorative Painting for Everyone, Senior Center Feb 28 Italian for Everyone, Senior Center Feb 28 Intermediate Guitar, Senior Center *Daytime Senior Center class or activity Monthly Revenue Report for December 2005 Monthly Revenue - Facility Rentals 2005 2004 Variance Senior Center $ 4,255.00 $ 3,145.00 $ 1,110.00 Parks $ 100.00 $ 150.00 $ (50.00) Sports Field $ 305.00 $ - $ 305.00 ,Monthly Facility Revenue $ 4,660.00 $ 3,295.00 $ 1,365.00 Year to Date Facility Revenue $ 21,790.00 $ 18,684.00 1 $ 3,106.00 Monthly Revenue Senior Center $ 2,607.50 $ 2,319.00 $ 288.50 Community Services $ 1,368.00 $ 600.00 $ 768.00 La Quinta Resident Cards $ 1,920.00 $ 2,220.00 $ (300.00) Total Revenue $ 5,895.50 $ 5,139.00 1 $ 756.50 Revenue Year to Date Senior Center $ 41,001.50 $ 39,423.50 $ 1,578.00 Community Services $ 55,445.00 $ 48,117.00 $ 7,328.00 La Quinta Resident Cards $ 13,620.00 $ 2,220.00 $ 11,400.00 Total Revenue to Date $ 110,066.50 1 $ 89,760.50 1 $ 20,306.00 Community Services Department Attendance Report for the Month of December 2005 Summary Sheet Program 2005 2004 Variance Sessions Per Month 2005 2004 Leisure Classes 119 52 67 46 25 Special Events 800 1035 -235 3 5 Adult Sports 180 506 -326 3 21 Senior Center 1067 922 145 83 92 Total 2,166 2,515 -349 135 143 Senior Services Senior Center 195 133 62 10 9 Total 195 133 62 10 9 Sports User Groups La Quinta Park Use AYSO 1100 1100 0 15 24 AYSO Private Team 25 0 25 2 0 Sports Complex LQ Sports & Youth 72 0 72 8 0 So California Magic 15 0 15 3 0 F.C. La Quinta 15 0 15 3 0 Facility/ Park Rentals Senior Center Private Rental 510 400 110 4 2 Church 450 600 -150 6 8 Park Rentals La Quinta Park 200 80 120 5 2 Library Multi Purpose Room 100 0 100 1 0 Total 21487 2,180 307 47 36 Total Programs 4,848 4,828 i 201 192 188 Volunteer Hours Senior Center 274 292 -18 Total Volunteer Hours 274 292 -18 Community Services Program Report for December 2005 2005 2004 2005 2004 Participants Participants Variance Meetings Meetings Leisure Classes Yoga Electica 13 11 2 3 5 Feldenkrais Yoga 7 4 3 4 3 Classic/ Latin Ballroom Dance 13 0 13 2 0 Beginning Bell dance 5 0 5 4 0 Bellydance Level 2 5 0 5 2 0 Intermediate Bellydance 3 5 -2 2 2 Hip Hop Dance 5 0 5 3 0 Beginning Ballet 8 8 0 4 3 Dance, Play, & Pretend 27 7 20 4 3 Rock & Roll Guitar 2 0 2 1 0 Guitar Level 2 1 0 1 1 0 Italian for Travelers 9 0 9 2 0 Art Extravaganza 3 0 3 4 0 Adobe Photoshop Introduction 3 0 3 3 0 Adobe Photoshop Advance 1 0 1 1 0 Intermediate Computers 6 6 0 3 3 Microsoft Excel 8 9 -1 3 3 Totals 119 50 69 46 22 2005 2004 2005 2004 Participants Participants Variance Meetings Meetings Special Events Newport Harbor Excursion 50 50 0 1 1 Tree Lighting Ceremony 475 400 75 1 1 Breakfast with Santa 275 200 75 1 1 Totals 800 650 150 3 3 2005 2004 2005 2004 Participants Participants Variance Meetings Meetings Adult Sports Open Gym Basketball 0 286 -286 0 18 Adult Soccer League 180 220 -40 3 3 Totals 1801 506 -3261 3 21 Recreation Totals 1,0991 1,206 -107 52 46 r .� Senior Center Programs Report for December 2005 Participation Participation Variance Meetings Meetings 2005 2004 2005 2004 Senior Activities ACBL Bridge 168 239 -71 4 5 Bridge, Duplicate/Social/Party 352 317 35 15 16 Monthly Birthday Party 15 0 15 1 0 Monthly Luncheon 110 55 55 1 1 Holiday Dance 67 0 67 1 0 Putting Contest 7 0 7 1 0 Movie Time 55 49 6. 3 5 Senior Activity Total 774 660 114 26 27 Senior Leisure Classes Ballroom/Swing 15 25 -10 3 3 Bridge Lessons 58 21 37 3 I Computer Classes 19 19 0 6 20 Dog Training 4 0 4 2 0 Exercise 42 47 -5 12 12 Golden Tones 48 82 -34 3 4 Knitting Guild 14 0 14 1 0 Latin Ballroom 3 0 3 1 0 Quilting 27 20 7 3 2 Rug Hooking 4 3 1 4 4 Sketch/Draw 12 8 4 2 2 Tai Chi / Tai Chi Arthritis 21 9 12 8 5 Tap Dance 8 9 -1 4 6 Watercolor 11 13 -2 2 1 Yoga 7 6 1 3 5 Senior Leisure Classes Total 293 262 31 57 65 TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS 1067 922 145 83 92 Senior Services FIND Food Distribution 130 65 65 3 3 I.I.D. Energy Assistance/No fee 17 22 -5 3 3 Legal Consultation 6 6 0 1 Mature Driver Training 9 14 -5 2 Medical Insurance/HICAP 3 5 -2 1 0 Social Security Consultation 7 0 7 2 0 Volunteers 23 21 2 n/a n/a TOTAL SENIOR SERVICES 195 133 62 10 9 SENIOR CENTER TOTAL 12621 10551 227 93 101I DEPARTMENT REPORT: 4 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Timothy R. Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: January 17, 2006 RE: Public Works/Engineering Department Report for December 2005 Attached please find the following: 1 . Citizen Service Request Summary; 2. Encroachment Permit and Plan Check Services Summary; 3. Capital Improvement Plan Status Update; 4. Monthly Summary of Public Works Tasks. Timothy R. Jonasson Public Works Director/City Engineer D Z Cl) W = H z o a N C� W W w J Cl) � 2 U. a w O O w U ww U U w J m > a w U) z w N F- U J r- C) 00 N N r + O M M M N O ' N � W 00 J ICL 00 IX W 04 �W Z cq W 0 4 W J o r- r- o 0 0 0 o r a � C) G W W dti M o0 U') CV �g zp v w W Wr- M a0 U') Z W d 0 Ca o Ca o '� E =O c o m r-U i L c U) U V p) c T Q• Q. L c H c d tt5 W H C7 U) 3 L c % L U) c p p CD c U L U ��- 2 O O N C]_ W co 2 W U w 0 F_ 2i >-w �a Q Lu �w 0 5 U) _ J Q F=- 0 Z 0 Z 2E W 0 w 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 O U o 0 O 00 � W J ch tf)3 Cfl cei 0'),W M. J o Er3 T- Efl CO 6q Y U W 00 W LO LL J F- 0 F— O O o o 0 O o O CD 00 c- O O O 00 I O CO L :T CO M � o M O 6q 6cy Y' Q W 00 W Ln U. 0 W D 00 N M Z 0 Q Cn LULU W Cn LL) � 0 O CL w WCL � UC/) Q LU HWJWf- � -- LU J C) LL W f- D Z LL (LZ)PE00 Q' W m 2 W U W 0 U) W _U Q > W U) c Y W J I � U Z Z Q C G 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 H Qf� O 6q Sri (V LO O lq7 O O 69 O Lc, � LO cl M co ci M O O 64 LO N 0 H 0 EA U-) N N L / o W � ffl 69 6c3 FA 64 b Qi Q LO M w w U. Y U w U z Q J a w 0 of o z W �-- 2 MQ. Y Y Q W g�Uo0N0D = m Z z Z a- U)(f) a U) w> < Q z 0 z 0 z 0 z m J..J J Z Q U -� Z Z (n Q w w F- < � F- F- F- U F- UW> W- Z Op0 cy 0 U J w-J(n(nQQQ��0 W Z Z w W (W Q Q Q Z U U) p�Qp Q U<woo<cnUmM<WNQQQo Q (n (n J= Q Q LJ.! W a0C)2w �UCDwwQ 0 002 LL F- Z O Q < -� - 'n DD C) o J T- � LQ r >Q 0 p Z O w Q z Cl- w U) z O F- w w w i- Fn (n <�QLL L�0� LL cn z wOLL. U) LL LL �z W Z w? d��Uw�C� O Z� OJ U YZ_ ww2_F_-J>WW�—pQ� oW Y o W w IUiJ Vct)C) Z w W < w� � o z_QOd o z w a-_ � Q F- w O =c�nw� o M Z Q r' U) w Q' p U; Q -j CD z LL d J Q J J W � z W a� d Qd p Z Q > M cn m W J 2 o�F_L��0 p U) W O U- Cif W LL 0� Q U) M U) w W Of U) W (n � F- U) w LOLnoLOLOLO�LOLOLOLOLOLO��Lo 0 0 � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 M 0 M m (n Ln r- N ti, O N CD— N r- O N W O— — N M — N LO — N O N.. O — O O N N N N. N N M CV N N N N N CV CV Q 0 -a a� °6 C a a) : U +� E +� N *� _ m _ N O a) ca cn Cn ca µ- 0) U M" E C U o CO a) p O° LL U U -- U co '- O p U C . a) � C co� U)— C O L �_ .L C a) Q) O U C -O �c U C O L O U O U -0 C — C C co :3 (n a 0 oE o U }om , a) a °c O o� • U -o co � a) o a) C N o O }' +� O U a) a) W U - co O C > o O +� O (D C U o �° V C N -� L U C 0) C) C. � Q C L- co• a? U cp U m O 0 �+- U)U c C o N:� O -C a) 'D O U Q N O co _ z O. N a) U dS U cn C co a +� U a) U a) W 1— U a) O W i C _ °6 U t a)p C c . C w. ° cn Q p C a) O c °4; U cv 4,— +j Q cn � C O o c•> a LO O > o a -p 4O a cv -p pv D ca U 4° C14 C O UD ) p U°O o ,U m C mC C N a) U Q c0 C — p O O H ` En 0)— — -0 � m in j "O cn N W a L O C O m cn v°i a) U) C co L �C cn C a) O cn a) O U U) a) "a a) O VO GCS p p� JU+ pQ� �U) pU QUA p Qp N a Z co 0.a �a000 O d N U y pCN O O N OW p p p v Z GC O � m W W In F— co F-- co F-- ta 4L D aQ H� O O O LD V W V C� co o w cD co > a O o 'a O O O a) O CD o � � � a � Lij N +r M N i co LO O LO O C CI- cc f" N p a Q E U O M n tt O Fft V 00 cD N O O O O O o O O cD � +a ? I� O W O� O O -p Ll1 d� I� O U (D 7 'r,, 't CM LO L O d� LO LO O oN p O Lo W per ' °� M C m o co a) O +-+ LO cu U O U _0 Q a) p C N dS M ° EO N C)N a)cB ' U)O a W O° L- COm O (O> U) N -ba) U U 4- u) 0-C °� �! — c Q C C a) a U o c w o 0 � 0 °) E a) o � Z r- m E w �" 0 a) a) o) co Q) O U CL E a U � z z � o >, ca c U > C� o +, > C c� O. O a) N C a) 0 A f c o d cUn L ° L cn Q U O Q >� co U o OC n. �� E �_z wa. 2 Q LL J Q O co 00 Q 5� ca 0 Co N 0 N a� U O 0 a� a� E U 0 0 0 N U c 0 c 0 Y + f p" 6" N� C U o F— (B �•— O O O O • > DC MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORK TASKS MONTH OF: December, 2005 Employee's Hourly Labor Breakdown Crew#1 Crew #2 Crew #3 Maint. Mg. Code Activity 5 Men 3 Men 2 Men 1 Man Total 1000 Policing/Inspection 40 59 0 13 112 1001 Pot Hole -Repair/Patching 14 0 0 0 14 1002 Crack/Joint-Repair 8 0 0 0 8 1003 Pavement-Marking/Legends 0 8 0 0 8 1004 Pavement Marking/Striping 0 01 0 0 0 1005 Curb Painting 0 0 0 0 0 1006 Other Traffic Controls 8 5 0 0 13 1007 Curb & Gutter Repair/Const. 10 0 0 0 10 1008 Other Concrete Repairs/Const. 0 0 0 0 0 1009 Street Sign Install ( New) 3 2 0 0 5 1010 Street Sign Repair/Maint 32 14 0 0 46 1011 Debris Removal 28 29 0 7 64 1012 Right of Way Maint. 34 38 0 0 72 1021 CLEAN Catch Basin Inlet/Outlet 0 0 0 0 0 1022 Rondo Channel Outlet/Vault 17 0 0 0 17 1022A Desert Club Outlet/Vault 0 0 0 0 0 1023 S.D./D.W./C.B. Repair/Maint. 5 12 0 6 23 1024 Gutter/Median Sand Removal 16 0 0 0 16 1025 Street Sweeping (Machine) 118 6 0 0 124 1026 Street Sweeping (Hand) 0 10 0 0 10 1027 Sidewalk/Bike Path Cleaning 11 2 14 0 27 1028 Dust Control 0 0 0 0 0 1029 Flood Control 0 4 0 0 4 1031 Parks/Retention Basins Inspection/Clean-i 5 36 110 4 155 1041 Mowing/ Weeding, Shrubs & Tree Trimmin 15 13 3 0 31 1051 Landscape/Irrigation Contract Managemer 0 0 122 14 136 1052 Lighting/Electrical Contract Management 0 0 0 13 13 1061 Small Tools Repair/Maint. 3 0 0 0 3 1062 Equipment Repair/Maint. 2 6 0 0 8 1063 Vehicle Repair Maint. 15 6 0 0 21 1081 Trash/Litter/Recycable Removal 0 14 4 0 18 1082 Vandalism Repairs 9 0 0 0 9 1083 Graffiti Removal 173 49 28 0 250 1084 Maint. Yard Building Maint. 9 18 4 4 35 1085 Seminars/Training 18 1 0 3 22 1086 Special Events 0 0 0 5 5 1087 Citizen Complaints/Requests 56 6 4 0 66 1088 Meeting 1 23 29 4 21 77 1089 Office ( Phone, paperwork, reports, Misc_) 8 39 11 30 88 SUBTOTAL 680 406 304 120 1510 1091 Over Time 15 10 15 0 40 1094 Jury Duty () 0 0 0 0 0 1095 Sick Leave 40 2 0 0 42 1096 Vacation 40 24 0 32 96 1097 Holiday 40 24 16 8 88 1098 Workman Comp. 0 0 0 0 0 1099 Bereavement 0 24 0 0 24 SUBTOTAL 135 84 31 40 290 TOTAL HOURS 1 815 490 335 160 1800 TOTAL MILES 32801 1865 15361 171 6852 DEPARTMENT REPORT: CITY OF LA Q UINTA POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHL Y REPORT December 2005 City of La Quinta La Quinta Police Department Captain Walter Meyer, Commander December, 2005 Highlights (Numbers in parenthesis denotes number of calls for service that day) Thursday, 12-01-05 (118): 0700 hours - State Franchise Tax Board investigators conducted two arrest warrants in the City of La Quinta. The first warrant was served at the 81000 block of Miles Avenue, arrested Alfredo Gutierrez. The second warrant was served at the 53000 block of Avenida Martinez. arrested Atto LudwigIf. 2000 hours- Deputies responded to the 51000 block of Avenida Mendoza reference a suspect wanted by parole for escape. The information came from Palm Springs Police Department stating that Bryan Dennis Moore was at his mother's house on Avenida Mendoza. La Quinta deputies and a K-9 unit responded along with air support by CHP's helicopter H60. The house was vacant and Moore was not there. 2110 hours- Deputies responded to 54100 Avenida Vallejo in reference to a person attempting to commit suicide. Deputy Ervin detained Sandra Curci for being a danger to herself Curci was transported to JFK. Fridav, 12-02-05 (88): 1715 hours - Deputy Ervin arrested Rogelio Maciel for spousal abuse and child endangerment at the Target Department Store, in La Quinta. Maciel was booked at the Indio jail. Saturday, 12-03-05 (35): No significant activity. Sundav, 12-04-05 (50): 1405 hours — Deputy Brooker and Deputy Taylor, responded to the 54000 block of Avenida Martinez reference a suicide threat. La Wanda Ray was threatening to kill herself and became resistive when contacted by Deputies. She was detained and transported to J.F.K Hospital as a mentally disturbed person. Monday, 12-05-05 (61): 1415 hours - Deputy Moore arrested a 14 year old juvenile at La Quinta Middle School for attempted robbery. The juvenile demanded money from a younger student and then assaulted the victim when he refused to give the suspect money. The suspect was booked into Indio Juvenile Hall. 2100 hours - Corporal Diaz arrested Elio Maldonado for possession of drug paraphernalia and for an outstanding misdemeanor warrant at the 46000 block of Dune Palms Road. He was booked at the Indio jail. 2200 hours - Corporal Diaz arrested Christina Nunez for shoplifting at the La Quinta Wal-Mart. Nunez was given a citation and released. Tuesdav, 12-06-05 (71): Deputies from the La Quinta Special Enforcement Team issued 4 citations to juveniles at the Adams skate park. The juveniles were cited for various violations, including, failure to wear proper equipment and the use of bicycles within the skate park. 1200 hours - Deputies from the La Quinta Special Enforcement Team conducted a vehicle stop on Calle Madrid and Avenida Vallejo for a vehicle code violation. Deputies contacted the occupants and learned that the driver, Renee Kortekaas was unlicensed. A consent to search was obtained and Deputies located methamphetamine and marijuana. Kortekaas and her passenger, Ricky Sambrano, were arrested and booked into the Indio Jail for possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and driving without a license. 1300 hours - Deputies from the La Quinta Special Enforcement Team observed Enrique Ojeda, a wanted parolee, in the area of the Dune Palms mobile home park. Deputy Wedertz attempted to contact Ojeda, however, Ojeda fled from the location and hid in a nearby trailer . Deputy Wedertz organized responding units to form a perimeter while he maintained visual contact of the trailer. Deputies obtained a consent to search and located Ojeda hiding under a bathroom sink. Deputies also arrested Teodoro Palomares, a Parolee, for harboring a fugitive. Both subjects were booked into the Indio Jail 1610 hours - Deputy Ruiz was flagged down near Highway in reference to a two-year old child not breathing. The parents of the child were traveling eastbound on Highway 111, when the child stopped breathing. Deputy Ruiz requested CDF and AMR and began CPR. The child began breathing on her own after CPR was administered. She was transported to J.F.K Hospital and Deputy Bolton was assigned to inquire about the child's status. The staff at the hospital determined the child suffered a seizure and has a medical history of similar attacks. The child did not have any signs of abuse or trauma to her body. Wednesdav, 12-07-05 (68): 1835 hours - Deputy Brooker arrested Sylvia Gomez for battery and criminal threats at the Wal-Mart Shopping Center. Gomez assaulted an employee during an argument and made criminal threats. Gomez was booked at the Indio j all. Thursday, 12-08-05 (62): 1500 hours- Deputy Alexander handled a missing persons call at the 50000 block of Washington Street. The juvenile possibly ran off with her boyfriend named "Paco" on 12/7/05. Investigator Farewell located the juvenile with an adult in Cathedral City. Fridav, 12-09-05 (54): 1428 hours - Investigator Cervello and Sgt. Gnatek responded to an unattended death at the 43000 block of Skyward Way in La Quinta. Robert Johnson found his mother, Dorothy Johnson, deceased in her bed this afternoon at about 1300 hours. Dorothy was last seen alive at about 0100 hours this morning in her bed, which she was complaining of pain. Dorothy had numerous medical problems and it appeared she died of natural causes. No evidence of foul play was found. 1926 hours- Deputy Lingle responded to a hit and run traffic collision on Avenue 54 at Jefferson. A security unit was following the suspect's vehicle from PGA West. Deputy Burgle and Corporal Lopez located the suspect `s vehicle on Jackson Street and Avenue 54. The driver, Jesus Beltran was detained for hit and run and suspected driving under the influence. The victim identified the driver and vehicle involved in the collision. Beltran was booked into the jail for hit and run and driving under the influence. Saturdav, 12-10-05 (47): No significant activity. Sundav, 12-11-05 (54): 2315 hours - Deputy Bonnadio spotted a vehicle leaving a construction site on Ave 48 and Jefferson, and conducted a traffic stop for having a light out. During the vehicle stop the two occupants of the vehicle fled on foot. In the suspect's vehicle Deputy Bonnadio located 33 sheets of plywood, 2 Milwaukee power tools, and a large quantity of hand tools. Over 1 gram of Methamphetamine was also located in the truck. Since the construction site was in the City of Indio, IPD was called and responded. IPD said they would contact the owner of the property and initiate the burglary report. Mondav, 12-12-05 (79): No significant activity. Tuesdav, 12-13-05 (64): 1246 hours - Deputy Lewis responded to the 54000 block of Avenida Velasco to investigate a report of a teenage party occurring at the residence. She found eight high school seniors at the residence and one young child. Some of the youths had been drinking (vodka, coolers, and beer was found at the scene). Two of the subjects were initially asleep and unresponsive; CDF responded and determined they were not in medical distress. CDF indicated the juveniles were just suffering from the effects of alcohol. Deputy Speir responded to handle truancy issues with the La Quinta High School students. One of the intoxicated subjects, Antonio Garcia, admitted bringing the vodka and beer to the residence. He was booked into the Indio Jail for contributing to the delinquency of minors. The other minors were released to their parents and the young child was taken by a neighbor at the direction of her guardian. 1650 hours- Deputy Bolton contacted William Freeman, a local transient, at a bus stop located on Washington south of Avenue 42. Freeman was staggering into traffic and yelling at passing cars. Freeman was extremely intoxicated and was arrested for being intoxicated in public. Wednesday, 12-14-05 (75): No significant activity noted. Thursday, 12-15-05 (85): 1725 hours- Sgt. Pinon arrested Robert Gamez for commercial burglary at Wal-Mart. Gamez was booked at the Indio Jail. Fridav, 12-16-05 (63): 0710 hours - Deputy Alexander responded to the 51000 block of Avenida Carranza reference a burglary and stolen vehicle. Upon arrival, he met with the victim, Kathryn Ladner. This morning at about 0630 hours, she noticed her purse and car keys missing from the kitchen counter. She walked into the garage and noticed her vehicle, a gold 2000 Lexus RX300, Ca. Lic plate number 4HSU435, missing. The victim has no idea who stole the property. Saturday, 12-17-05 (61): 1300 hours -Deputy Alexander responded to the 53000 block reference a man down call. Upon arrival, he met with several residents in the area who had found a white male adult deceased in the backyard of a residence. Deputy Alexander entered the backyard and found the male decedent slumped over a shotgun. The deceased was last seen on Thursday walking around his residence. Calls for service were checked for the last two days and no "shots fired" calls were found. 1400 hours - Deputy Reynaga responded to the 46000 block of Cameo Palms reference a restraining order violation. Upon arrival, he arrested Adrian Serrano for violating a valid restraining order. Serrano was booked into the Indio Jail. 1803 hours - Deputy Knight responded to Wal-Mart reference two shoplifters being detained. Upon his arrival, he learned one of the detained suspects, Sergio Ayala, had a restraining order to stay away from the other detained subjects. Based on this Ayala was arrested and booked into the Indio Jail for violation of a court order. Sundav, 12-18-05 (45): 2355 hours - Deputy Krachman responded to a disturbance at AM/PM on Hwy 111 and Washington. Manuel Cardenas was intoxicated and bothering customers. He was arrested and booked into jail for public intoxication. 1910 hours- Deputy Bolton arrested Gary Allen Sutton for commercial burglary at the Home Depot. Sutton had collected receipts found in the parking lot of the business and returned to the store. Sutton pulled products from the shelf that were listed on the receipts and attempted to return the items for cash. Sutton was booked into the Indio Jail. 0140 hours - Deputy Adams arrested Talena Henderson for driving under the influence of alcohol at Fred Waring and Washington. 0240 hours - Sgt. Shields arrested Ronald Gaines for driving under the influence of alcohol at Fred Waring and Dune Palms. Monday, 12-19-05 (65): 1000 hours - Deputy Lewis responded to the area of Calle Nogales and Avenida Rubio in regards to a man wandering around yards, possibly under the influence. She contacted Enrico Carraro near the corner of Calle Chihuahua and Avenida Diaz. Carraro was confused and dazed, and appeared to be intoxicated. Deputy Lewis arrested Carraro for public intoxication and booked him at the Indio Jail. Tuesday, 12-20-05 (48): 0130 hours - Deputy Bawdon responded to a traffic collision on Washington St south of Darby. The investigation revealed that a recycling truck had pulled over to the side of the road because it had lost its load of plastic bottles onto the northbound lanes. Another driver, Justin Unruh, was driving northbound on Washington St. at a high rate of speed, and swerved to avoid colliding with the recycling truck. This caused Unruh's vehicle to drive up onto the median, striking a 30ft tall Palm Tree, knocking it downed onto the southbound lanes of Washington St. Unruh was found to be driving under the influence and was booked into jail. 1649 hours- Deputy Brooker and Deputy Taylor responded to Wal-Mart reference two shoplifters being detained. The two female juveniles were arrested and transported to the Indio station. Both were released to their parents. Charges to be filed through juvenile probation. 1918 hours -Deputy Brooker and Deputy Taylor responded to Kohl's and arrested Claudia Finnell for commercial burglary and possession of burglary tools. Finnell was booked into the Indio Jail.. Wednesdav, 12-21-05 (66): 0010 hours - Deputy Butvidas conducted a bicycle stop on Joshua Nelson at Avenida Martinez and Calle Durango. Nelson was found to be intoxicated and was arrested for driving a bicycle under the influence. A searched of his person revealed he was in possession of methamphetamine, marijuana and drug paraphernalia. He was arrested and booked into Jail. Y 1130 hours- Deputy Moore responded to Wal-Mart to investigate a reported fraud. Deputy Moore learned that employee Christina Rodriguez, had fraudulently credited $200 to a gift card on Dec. 13t'. On Dec. 20`h she was caught on video tape using the card to make purchases at the store. Rodriguez was placed under citizen's arrest by store security. Once the investigation was completed, Rodriguez was cite -released by Deputy Moore. 1430 hours - Deputies were dispatched to a domestic violence call at the 53000 block of Avenida Juarez. The reporting party, Jeanette Camper, advised that her son, Jared Brand, kicked open her front door and began removing electronics from her residence. Brand was physical with Camper and left the residence with a computer belonging to Camper. Brand later returned and violently began to vandalize the interior of the residence. Camper escaped through a rear slider and Brand barricaded himself in the home. Camper provided a consent search to the residence. Deputies entered and arrested Brand who was hiding in a bedroom. Brand was arrested for burglary, felony vandalism and battery. 1635 hours - Maria Vargas was arrested for shoplifting at Wal-Mart. Vargas was cited and released. 1658 hours - Deputy J. Diaz was dispatched to Target in reference to an employee being detained for theft. Deputy Diaz arrested Ingrid Franco for grand theft, conspiracy, and embezzlement. Her aunt, Alicia Perez, was also involved and arrested for grand theft, conspiracy, and burglary. Thursday, 12-22-05 (68): 1950 hours - Deputy Gaunt arrested Jeff Young for driving under the influence of alcohol at Avenida Martinez and Calle Durango. Young was booked into the Indio Jail. 2100 hours - Deputy Adams arrested Armando Rojas for driving under the influence of alcohol at Jefferson and Rancho La Quinta. Rojas attempted to escape and tried to fight with Deputy Adams. Deputy Adams was not injured and Rojas had minor injuries. Rojas was booked for driving under the influence of alcohol and resisting arrest. 2345 hours - Deputy Gaunt arrested Ruben Garcia Sr. for driving under the influence of alcohol at Fred Waring and Washington. Garcia was booked into Indio Jail. Fridav, 12-23-05 (81): 0120 hours - Deputy Adams arrested Raymond Martinez Jr. for driving under the influence of alcohol at Washington and Via Montero. Martinez was booked into the Indio Jail. 1330 hours - Deputies Black and Dusek responded to a report of a spousal abuse at the bus stop on Tampico and Washington St. Upon their arrival they located a crying female. The male became hostile towards both Deputies and spit on Deputy Dusek's pants. The subject had to be taken to the ground and handcuffed. While in the backseat he slipped his cuffs. The female advised they were involved in a verbal argument only. Israel Aaron Lerma was subsequently transported to the Indio Jail and booked for resisting arrest. Neither of the Deputies, or the suspect, were injured during the altercation. Lerma had just moved to La Quinta from Palm Desert and is living at the 53000 block of Avenida Vallejo. 1607 hours - Deputies responded to the 54000 block of Avenida Herrera in regards to a report of a past rape. The victim and suspect are both juveniles. The victim advised the two juveniles where drinking whiskey until the female passed out. The female advised she awoke from her drunken slumber to find the male juvenile sexually assaulting her. Notifications were made to Lt. Barfknecht and Sgt. McManus. Investigations responded and assumed the investigation. 1815 hours - Sgt. Shields arrested Yascha Feld for a felony terrorist threat warrant during a vehicle check at the Game Stop parking lot. Feld was booked into the Indio Jail.. 2000 hours - Deputy Gaunt arrested Nick Paternoster for driving under the influence of alcohol at Tampico east of Washington. Paternoster was booked into Indio Jail. 2335 hours, Deputy Adams arrested Wayne Block for driving under the influence of alcohol at Ave. 48 and Washington St. Block was booked into the Indio Jail. Saturdav, 12-24-05 (59): 0340 Hours Deputy Adams conducted a traffic enforcement stop for a red light violation at SR 111 and Adams. The driver, Gilbert Martinez was arrested for suspected DUI. Martinez was booked into the Indio Jail. Sunday, 12-25-05 (42): No significant activity. Mondav, 12-26-05 (52): No significant activity Tuesday. 12-27-05 (68): 1040 hours - Deputy Lewis responded to a residence in the 78000 block of Rio Seco, Rancho La Quinta, in regards to an unattended death. She found Ernest Riberty deceased in bed. Riberty had been in very poor health due to heart problems and had just been released from the hospital on December 24th. He was discovered by his wife. 1731 hours - Deputy Brooker and Deputy Taylor arrested a female juvenile for shoplifting at Wal-Mart. She was released to her parent's custody and a criminal complaint will be filed with the District Attorney's Office. 1911 hours - Deputy Gaunt arrested Charles Carter for driving while under the influence at Avenue 50 and Park Street. Carter was contacted during a traffic enforcement stop. Carter was booked into jail. 2240 hours - Deputy Adams arrested Steven Harris for driving while under the influence at Jefferson Street and S.R. 111. Harris was contacted during a traffic enforcement stop and was determined to be under the influence. Harris was booked into jail. Wednesday, 12-28-05 (64): At 2110 hours, Deputy Gaunt arrested Rick Floyd for driving under the influence at Calle Cadiz and Bermudas in La Quinta. Floyd was booked into the Indio Jail. At 2310 hours, Deputy Alvarado arrested Carole Frankel for driving under the influence at Washington and Fred Waring. Frankel was booked into the Indio Jail. Thursday,12-29-05 (60): Deputy Gaunt arrested Rebecca Moreno for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was booked into the Indio Jail. Fridav, 12-30-05 (61): 1740 hours- Deputy Knight responded to a suspicious person call at the 78000 block of Miles Avenue. Arrested for trespassing, burglary, possession of burglary tools, grand theft, possession of stolen property and conspiracy were Jose Aquilar and Jeremy Fleck. The two suspects entered the uninhabited dwelling and began to remove the existing cooper piping from within the walls and floor of the building and placed the property inside of their vehicle. Both suspects were booked into the Indio Jail. 1922 hours- Deputy Brooker and Deputy Taylor responded to a lewd conduct call at the 46000 block of Dune Palms. Ernesto Barrazza was arrested for lewd conduct and transported to the Indio Jail. 2052 hours- Deputy Gaunt arrested Elio Maldonado for driving under the influence of a control substance/alcohol, driving without a driver license, possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. Maldonado, a parolee, was located asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle in the westbound number one lane on Miles Avenue and Dune Palms. Maldonado was arrested and booked into the Indio Jail. Saturday, 12-31-05 (89): 0005 hours - Deputy Alvarado conducted a traffic stop on Avenue 50 and Washington St. on a red light violator. The driver, Max Uribe, had a suspended license and was taken into custody. During a search of Uribe's vehicle, Deputy Alvarado located a sawed-off shotgun in the back seat. After further questioning, it was found that Uribe had brandished the weapon earlier that evening at Hwy I I I and Ave. 52. The gang task force is investigating the brandishing case and interviewed Uribe. Uribe was booked into Indio jail for possession of an illegal weapon. Total calls for service: 2003 u J4 La Quinta Police Department Special Enforcement Team Monthly Report -- December 2005 Dep. Celaya, Dep. McFadden, Dep. Harter, Dep. Wedertz, Sgt. Jimenez The following is a summary of the Special Enforcement Team activities for the month of November. Ongoing Investigations 2 Probation Searches 3 Parole Searches 1 Arrests/ Filings 6 Vehicle checks 25 Business Contacts 8 Investigation assists 4 Arrest Warrants Served 3 Arrest Warrants Attempted 5 Programs 2 Pedestrian Checks 61 Crime Prevention Hours 18 Bar Checks 0 Back-ups 9 Follow-ups 9 Search Warrants 1 Meetings 1 Recovered Stolen Property 0 Citations issued 20 Surveillance's 0 Property Checks 10 Civil Commitments 0 Bicycle Time 40 hrs Training Hours 6 Illegal Drugs Seized 6 gms Meth Total Mileage: 1299 miles Noteworthy Accomplishments: ♦ Arrested Albert Palalay 20, of Indio for Embezzlement and Possession of stolen property. Palalay was positively identified stealing LCD televisions from RadioActive. A search warrant was conducted at Palalay's residence, 43-520 Reclinata in the city of Indio, where two stolen televisions were recovered as well as additional stolen electronics from the business. ♦ Arrested Enrique Ojeda as a "Parolee at Large" at the Dune Palms Mobile home park. Also arrested Theodoro Palomares of La Quinta for attempting to hide Ojeda from Law Enforcement. Palomares was arrested for 32-PC and booked into the Indio Jail. ♦ Arrested Renne Kortekaas and Ricky Zambrano for possession of Methamphetamine. Both subjects were contacted during a vehicle enforcement stop. Also located on their person's , was approximately 12 grams of marijuana. Both subjects were booked into the Indio Jail. QUINTA POLICE MOTORCYCLE ACTIVITY REPORT PROGRAM STATISTICS 7- Prepared By: Deputy Dave Adams Speed Violations Fail to Yield Turning Violations Calls for service & B/U' Red light / Stop sign Child Seat Violations 86 Lane Change Violation Seat Belt Violations DUI Arrests Misd. Arrest Felony arrest Warnings 3 Tows Injury T/C Non -Injury T/C Suspended DL Non -Moving Hot 19 1 10 5 6 20 14 51 8 8 12 37 42 0 16 0 HIGHLIGHTS CITY of LA QUINTA MONTHLY SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER REPORT DECEMBER 2005 SCHOOL: LA QUINTA MIDDLE SCHOOL Deputy: Kevin Moore School Session: 5 Reports 2 Arrests 0 DA Filings 0 Traffic Stops 1 Business Checks 1 YAT Referral 0 Vehicle Checks 0 Citations 0 Pedestrian Checks 1 Follow-up 2 Truant, (All Cited) HIGHLIGHTS - Investigated three assaults involving students. All participating students sustained minor to moderate injuries. Those students identified as suspects were referred to the YAT Probation Officer. - During a home visit with a Deputy District Attorney and a YAT Probation Officer, I discovered the female parent we were visiting had eleven outstanding traffic and municipal code warrants. She was cited for the warrants and released. - Arrested one student for attempted strong-arm robbery after discovering the suspect kicked another student after victim refused to give him money. Suspect was booked into juvenile hall and released to his parents. - Cited two La Quinta High School students for truancy. CITY of NIONTHLY SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER REPORT December 2005 School: La Quinta High School Deputy- Eric Speir 4 -Criminal Reports 2 -Non Criminal Incidents 4 -Arrests 4 -DA Filings 4 -YAT Referrals 0- Traffic Stop 0- Vehicle Checks 3 - Pedestrian Checks School Session-0 December 1st through December 31 st — 2005 Assisted school personnel and parents with school related problems involving their respective children. In the majority of cases, I referred the parents and/or students to the "Student Assistance Program" or "Conflict Mediation". Responded to a report of students "ditching" school and congregating at a home in the La Quinta cove. During the investigation, it was determined that three juveniles had been consuming alcoholic beverages. One individual, who admitted providing the alcohol, was arrested for contributing to the delinquency of minors. Four students were referred to the YAT Probation Program. One for theft, one for fighting and two for possession of marijuana. The two students found to have marijuana were truants from Amistad High School and were first detained by school security personnel as they attempted to come on campus. Assisted by personnel from the La Quinta Police Department, I conducted a decoy, "Shoulder Tap", program and three were arrested for providing alcohol to a juvenile decoy. CITY of LA QUINTA MONTHL"y, -,"OWOUNITY SERVICE O'f-,.'--ICER REPORT" DECEMBER 2005 3. �ayS,O, Fowler . M _: ry of ActivityI r t _a Montri of "January Burglary Investigations 15 Grand Theft Reports 4 PettyTheft Reports 9 Vandalism/Malicious Mischief Reports 9 Vehicle Theft or Recovery Reports 1 Traffic Collision Response 15 Vehicle Code or Parking Citations 43 Abandoned Vehicles Tagged w/ Warning 5 Towed Vehicles 0 Lost or Found Property Reports 9 Area Checks /LQ Skate Park/Laborers 6 Public Assistance 0 Custodial and Non -Custodial Transports 5 Miscellaneous Calls 2 City of La Quinta Community -Policina Office Volunto-ers o-' December -- 2005 Program Highlights • The volunteer program averages nineteen volunteers who are assisting in many capacities in the La Quinta C.P.O. Four new applicants for volunteers are in the background process. • Several volunteers enter all La Quinta traffic and parking citations and traffic collisions into the system from the C.P.O. Two volunteers are assisting with weapons identification on a computer at the C.P.O. A volunteer is assisting in Logistics and one in Property in addition to their staffing duties. Training in office and program procedures continues. • Proposals are being developed to increase the activities of the volunteers to include a Patrol Program. • In the year 2005, volunteers served the community with a total of 2,960 hours and saved the City $50,320 based on $17/hour. Volunteer Hours and Monthly CPO Stats Monthly YTD Totals (4/03 to Present) Hours 205 2960.5 7737 Visits 150 1701 5768 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT December 2005 Explorer Post 503 Program Report Submitted by Explorer Post Advisor Andy Gerrard December was a busy month for Explorer Post 503 Explorers. There were 4 training meetings, 1 range day, 1 pizza party and 3 volunteer event days. ❖ The training meetings covered patrol tactics, 10 and 11 Radio Codes training, building searches, gang presentation, competition event practice and physical training. Gang Task Force Deputies Mike Hernandez and Martin Alfaro gave the gang talk. The pizza did not last long during the December 21 training and pizza party. ❖ Sergeant W. Sullivan and Deputy J.C. Garcia coordinated the December 17 gun safety, instruction and shooting practice at the Lake Cahuilla range. After the safe gun handling and shooting sessions, Post 503 Explorers quickly consumed the catered Subway lunch. ❖ Several Explorer Post 503 members volunteered and assisted with crowd and traffic control during the three day, December 9-1 1 , Indian Pow -Wow event in Coachella. The Explorers helped make the event run smoothly. ❖ During 2005, Explorer Post 503 Captain Alejandro Barragan was hired as a Riverside County Sheriff's Department Correctional Deputy. Congratulations to Alejandro Barragan as he completed / graduated from the 49th Riverside County Sheriff's Department Correctional Academy on December 16! The Explorer Post 503 program helped prepare him for the academy. Post 503 Explorers successfully completed 2,388 volunteer community service hours in 2005! Great job to Post 503 Explorers for exceptional community service during the past 12 months! ., t DEPARTMENT REPORT: CITY OF LA Q UINTA Crime Statistics Summary November 2005 a LLJ m 0-- co T'- O ry J Z Q p J o O (D OM LL D Q m i LL 2 F-- W 0 U_ 00 w Z� O to LL 0� O W Q 0- Z �t Lu U ry Q J 0 N M LO�� M 1 f� O LO T- T- 00 U') N 00 O N ;T r' CD 0 v- Ln N CO N W) O N 00 O M O� 00 O N M I` O N ti rl- 00 ~~ M LO O~ Q 00 W L 00 W0 O M N CO M� ti O Q � N O Z O Z Z M C, Q O J LL tq o W � F' Ci O m N O O � O d) 0) L � CDW U Z U) z z O } LLLL W F— W W = _ U)w F— UU? ��F-} Q W o Wz Uz LLJ ULu 0UiZ ? U- <(DC) �m 0m00�< 0<ou)Z)LuQ�a2� -(--) U IQ�OfQm>JQZF-F-OF- F- r N M ct Lo C0 f` M 0 F�- W O zco LL M M O T— cr- Z Ln O O N W D O W W J Z LL O Z W M Lo Lq U 1= c"i o � Z O O LL z CL W 2 U U) r U J z W W Z W U CO W LU `L T V- 0 a a� a� H a) cn c 0 n. U) a) a� 0) a� Q a; cn 0 t a� ns 0 a) If m Q a) 0 a) L U) 0 U m a`) Of E 0 m 0 4 Month to Month Crime Comparison - November NOVEMBER 2005�1 i i NOVEMBER 2004 100 9"' qu 79 80 70 60 59 56 50 40 30 20 16 10 12 '0 0 0 F 0 ill HOMODE RAPE ROBBERY ASSAULT, FELONY BURGLARY VEHCLETHEF,' ARSON Year to Date Crime Comparison - November o YTD 2005'! a YTD 2004 1000 889 900 800 T43 700 613 600 554 500 4001. 300 215 200 130 105 179 100 - ----- 4 0 1 7 7 8 0 HOMIODE RAPE ROBBERY ASSALLT, FELONY BURGLARY VEKETFIEFT LARCENY,7HEFT ARSON 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 TRAFFIC CITATIONS NOVEMBER 2005, i Month to Month I rautc Activft Co parnsor, TIC NON -INJURY DUI TIC INJURY TIC FATAL F_ ci YTD 2005 ® YTD 2004 Year to Date Calls for Service Comparison 25000 20000 15000 re 1 II 5000 0 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 fl YTD 2005 p YTD 2004 Total Non -Criminal Criminal Month to Month Calls for Service Comparison - November 2005 Total Non -Criminal Criminal ' o Nov. 05 p Nov. 04 -- f4 OFTI��O COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of Site CONSENT CALENDAR: Development Permit 2005-838, Condition Nos. 35 and STUDY SESSION: 40(a). Appellant: Washington 1 1 1 , Ltd. -- PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council upholding the Planning Commission's action approving conditions and findings for Site Development Permit 2005-838. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Project Proposal On September 27, 2005, the Planning Commission granted approval of Site Development Permit 2005-838 (Attachment 1), to construct the Sub -Major 5 and Shops 4 retail portions of the Washington Park Specific Plan (SP 89-01 1), consisting of a total of 27,225 square feet of retail space. This phase of the commercial development is located at the center of the project site immediately east of Washington Street and southeast of Simon Drive. The Site Master Plan (Attachment 2) is from the original Specific Plan and does not show all improvements as they exist today. It is provided to illustrate that the project design and phasing have evolved over time. The September 27, 2005 Planning Commission minutes are included as Attachment 3. Existing phases of Washington Park include Target, Circuit City, and Trader Joe's. Appeal Request The applicant has presented an appeal specific to Condition Nos. 35 and 40(a) (Attachment 4). Condition No. 35 requires a driveway access connecting the subject retail development to La Quinta Center Drive, which is consistent with the location identified and approved in the Specific Plan. Condition No.40 (a) prohibits the use of wheel stops (Attachment 5). The applicant based their appeal on the grounds that the driveway access requirement is not in accord with the phasing in the approved Specific Plan (SP 89-01 1), that the applicant has a vested right to rely on the Specific Plan, and that the City can not prohibit the use of a safety device. This is the fourth time the appeal has been scheduled before the City Council. Should this item be requested for a continuance again, staff has notified the applicant in writing (Attachment 6) that the appeal will be tabled until written notice has been provided stating that the appeal is ready to be considered by the Council without need for further delay. Once written notice is received, a new public hearing notice shall be re -issued. Appeal Considerations The following points are offered for the City Council's consideration on Condition No. 35: Phasing The approved Specific Plan for the subject property identifies the entire project to be constructed in two phases (SP 89-011 Amendment No.4, p.23 — Attachment 7). Actual project phasing has been proposed by the developer and approved by the Planning Commission review and approval of multiple site development permits over a period of years. As a result, infrastructure improvements cited in the Specific Plan have been incorporated into each proposed SDP application. The driveway access, recommended by the Planning Commission, connecting the subject phase to La Quinta Center Drive, will reduce traffic congestion around the Washington Street side of the project, and will provide an alternative to Avenue 47, Washington Street, and La Quinta Center Drive, and the adjacent phases under construction, by providing the eastern ingress and egress as identified within the approved Specific Plan (Attachment 8). It should be noted that the approved Specific Plan does not address the extent of phased driveway access improvements, and site access has historically been addressed via the phased site development permit process. Traffic The Planning Commission was concerned that the left -turn movement at the corner of Simon Drive and Washington Street will be congested during peak hours. Hybrid -niche* } businesses such as Trader Joe's and fast -service establishments such as Pick -Up Stix and Just Java are considered high -volume, short -trip traffic generators and are an example of businesses proposed to operate in this portion of the subject property. This intersection will have a very short left turn signal time, due to timing issues with the signal at the corner of Highway 1 11 and Washington Street. At this point of development, an alternate route to the east will provide an important connection to La Quinta Center Drive, which in turn will allow connection to Avenue 47. Providing alternative south -bound ingress -egress options would effectively reduce dependence on the Washington Street and Simon Drive intersection. Vested Rights The applicant has stated that City's approval of the Specific Plan constitutes a vested right to develop the property. Specific Plans do not constitute vested rights in phasing that preclude the City from requiring necessary infrastructure improvements as part of the site development permit process. The southern driveway access to La Qunta Center Drive, identified and approved in the Specific Plan, has been deemed necessary as a part of this phase of development. Developers acquire vested rights only if they enter into a development agreement with the City or by obtaining all necessary permits and approvals and commencing construction. The Specific Plan phasing provision is vague and not intended to grant sole discretion to the developer in determining the need for on- and off -site improvements. The City has been open to the developer's proposed phasing program utilizing the Site Development Permit process. Since the phasing plan in the Specific Plan has not been followed, the City Council could require submittal and approval of a revised phasing program so infrastructure could be re- evaluated with the developer to facilitate the overall development of the site. The following points are offered for the City Council's consideration on Condition No. 40(a): Wheel Stops The Parking Chapter of the La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 9.150.080B (Attachment 9), provides parking space dimensions for regular and compact spaces. The regular space dimension requires a minimum 17-foot long parking space to curb with 2 feet of overhang. The compact space dimension requires a minimum length of 16 feet to curb with a 1 .5 foot overhang. Based upon the wording of the LQMC, staff has concluded that the intent of this provision is to encourage vertical curbing with a vehicle overhang as opposed to installation of concrete wheel stops. City policy has been to discourage the use of wheel stops as they have been deemed unnecessary when vertical curbing is in place and are also a trip hazard. Exceptions have been granted when walkway widths would be less than 4 feet without the use of wheel stops and no other feasible options were available to meet ADA compliance. The Planning Commission, in their review of the project, concurred with staff and determined that wheel stops were not necessary within the project area and approved the conditions of approval prohibiting wheel stops. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 5, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received concerning this appeal. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Uphold the Planning Commission decision of September 27, 2005 and deny the applicant's appeal; or 2. Accept the applicant's appeal request and direct staff to prepare a Resolution overturning the Planning Commission and granting the appellant's request; or 3. Require the developer to amend the existing Specific Plan phasing plan to reflect the developer's desire to have multiple phases; or 4. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Douglas,3, . Evans, Comm pity Development Director Approved for submission by: , ry Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . SDP 05-838 Site Plan 2. SP 89-01 1 Site Plan (large format, Council only) 3. September 27, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt) 4. Appeal Letter from Applicant dated October 12, 2005 5. Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval (excerpt) 6. Letter from Staff Concerning Continuances dated January 6, 2006 7. SP 89-01 1 Amendment No. 4, p.23 8. Staff Report for SDP 2005-838 9. La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.1 50.080(B) RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 27,225 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING FEATURING ONE SUB -MAJOR UNIT AND MULTIPLE MINOR UNITS WITHIN THE WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-838 APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 17th day of January 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, continued from the 15th day of November, 2005 and 6T" day of December 2005, to consider an appeal by Washington 1 1 1 , Ltd. regarding Conditions No. 35 and 40(a) of Planning Commission Resolution 2005-040 for the construction of a portion of a retail shopping center in the Washington Park commercial center located on the east side of Washington Street, south of Highway 1 1 1; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27T" day of September 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Washington 1 1 1, Ltd. to approve the construction of a portion of a retail shopping center in the Washington Park commercial center located on the east side of Washington Street, south of Highway 1 1 1, more particularly described as: Parcel Map #32683-3 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2002-072 for Specific Plan 89-01 1 Amendment No. 4, Washington Park Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, did on the 7th day of September, 2005, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the development plans, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify upholding the approval of the Planning Commission action on said Site Development Permit: P:\Reports - M2006\1-17-06\Washington Appeal\SDP Reso 1-17-06.doc City Council Resolution No. 2006-_ Site Development Permit 2005-838 Washington 1 1 1, LTD Adopted: January 17, 2006 1 . The commercial units in this proposed phase of the project are consistent with the General Plan in that they are designated for regional commercial uses. 2. The commercial project has been designed to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Zoning Code, or amended as allowed in compliance with Specific Plan 89-01 1 Amendment No.4. 3. The architectural design of the commercial project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with the surrounding development, previously approved and constructed phases, and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The commercial center is suitably designed and conforms to the established theme of the project. 4. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with previously approved and constructed phases, surrounding development, and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the arrangement, variety, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, with conditions, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. 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 constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby uphold the decision of the Planning Commission decision approving Site Development Permit 2005-838 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions, attached hereto; P:\Reports - CC\2006\1-17-06\Washington Appeal\SDP Reso 1-17-06.doc City Council Resolution No. 2006-_ Site Development Permit 2005-838 Washington 111, LTD Adopted: January 17, 2006 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on the 17T" day of January 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - CC\2006\1-17-06\Washington Appeal\SDP Reso 1-17-06.doc ATTACHMENT #1 L. 1- _ o. Q 2 CZ • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 ATTACHMENT #3 5. There being no other public comment hairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the h ring. 6. Commissioner Quill stated h ould prefer receiving a complete site plan, with color boar showing a better relationship of this building and the existin uildings. 7. It was moved by ommissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission R olution 2005-040, approving Site Development Use Permit 05-840, as recommended. ROLL CALL: ES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman irk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. Comrp(issioner Alderson rejoined the Commission. D. Site Development Permit 2005-838; a request of Washington 1 1 1, Ltd. ------ for consideration of development plans for a 27,225 square foot retail commercial building featuring one sub -major unit and multiple minor units within the Washington Park Commercial Center (Sub -major 5 and Shops 4)) for the property bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Avenue 47, Washington Street, and Adams Street. 1. Commissioner Alderson stated he had a potential conflict of interest due to the location of the project and withdrew from the dais. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the driveways were right -in, right - out only. Staff stated the southerly driveway would have a left turn in. 4. Commissioner Quill stated he was concerned as the building front appears to be flat. He would also like to see a more detailed color board and renderings submitted with the report. 5. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification regarding the statement in'the staff report regarding modifying eliminate the overhang and include Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 an access ramp for maintenance purposes. Does this mean that if a ramp were installed it would be easier to maintain? Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained that if they want to keep the encroachment into the retention basin there is room to reconfigure the basin to the north. Chairman Kirk asked if there was a ramp for maintenance purposes, and if so, what is staff's reaction to the cantilevered portion of the building? Staff stated the retention basin should be accessed regardless. There is also room on the north side of the retention basin. Chairman Kirk asked if there was room for a ramp what about the cantilever condition. Staff stated. they should be able to access the retention basin regardless. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the cantilever is a concern because of nuisance issues. 6. Commissioner Quill stated this retention basin will be fairly hidden. and the opportunity to not maintain it could be a problem. He asked if it was fenced, or accessible to the public. Staff stated it is not fenced and therefore will be accessible to the public;. it will be maintained by the property owner at the expense of the merchants. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any additional sub -drainage for nuisance drainage. Staff stated yes and explained their function. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if an underground retention system was considered. Staff stated yes and met with the applicant regarding them. The cost is expensive and they need to be maintainable. 8. Commissioner Daniels stated he is concerned this will be a problem. Could the building be turned to put the retention basin in the front of the building as a design feature. The retention basin will become a nuisance and maintenance problem. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they reviewed the building under the Specific Plan guidelines and there is no question, a backdoor retention basin will have problems. He does, however expect visibility because the Center has an access on the east side. 9. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any incentives that could be offered to the developer to redesign this portion of the Center. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated he is unaware whether or not there could be any incentives offered. Any change would require a renegotiation of the Specific Plan. • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Tarr, Bill Sanchez, and Michael Kerredy, representing Washington 1 1 1, Ltd.. gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Kerredy noted the elevation deviations and the awnings that extend out six feet as well as variations. in height. The rear is very blank as it is the loading area and will not be seen from the public. 11. Chairman Kirk noted there was not a lot of vertical plant material on the north elevation. Mr. Kerredy stated that was because it was too close to the street and limited in what could be done. 12. Commissioner Quill asked if they intended to cantilever the building. Mr. Tarr stated they had considered it, but the stem wall works fine for them. 13. Chairman Kirk asked about the concerns that had been raised about the retention basin. Mr. Tarr stated it is a cost benefit ratio. The City does not have clear criteria as to what is required. Based upon their meeting with staff, the City prefers the more expensive alternative for underground. They are analyzing their options. They have no objection to amending the Specific Plan to address some of these issues. He noted the maintenance of the retention basin will be included in the rental contracts as common area costs. 14. Commissioner Quill asked where the tenants will deposit their trash. Mr. Bill Sanchez noted the location of the trash enclosures on the site map. Mr. Tarr stated the maintenance will be included in the CC&R's for the Center for maintenance. He would like to request the memo submitted by staff dated September 27, 2005, with the revised changes be adopted. They only condition they are in disagreement with is Condition #36, regarding driveway access and circulation. They believe they have all the accesses that are needed and request Condition #36 be deleted. 15. Commissioner Daniels asked if this portion of the Center could be redesigned to move the retention basin, Mr. Tarr they do not believe there is a viable design that gives them the efficiency they need. Discussion followed regarding -benefits to the present design. 16. Commissioner Quill stated with this design the tenants delivery trucks will be dropping -off at the front door. He cannot see how a • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 semi -truck can get in and out of the loading dock as designed. Mr. Tarr stated these tenants use the smaller trucks. He noted the circulation on the site plan and discussion followed. Mr. Tarr noted the access would be constructed on the future phase, east of the parcel map for this project. 17. Commissioner Daniels asked if along the east side of the building there is a driveway that connects to the driveway beh-ind Lowes. Mr. Tarr stated yes. 18. Commissioner Quill noted that is not where the trash enclosure is or where the shop loading would be located. Mr. Sanchez clarified the loading areas for the sub -major and the shops on the site map. • 19. Chairman Kirk noted the Specific Plan has been approved and typically when a Site Development Permit is brought back, the focus will be on the architecture and landscaping and yet on this application major issues are being addressed that should have been resolved when the Specific Plan was being considered. How much discretion does the Commission have addressing issues that conceptually were approved in the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that circulation and circulation phasing can be discussed at each phase of the development. With regards to the specific plan flexibility, this City has reviewed Site Development Permits for conformity to a specific plan and staff does believe this site plan does conform as far as location of buildings and primary access points with the exception of the one concern. We.do have issues .with the access and retention basin but a Memorandum of Understanding .was entered into to resolve several of these issues. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston added that while the City takes the position that specific plans do confer entitlement, a discretionary body does have the ability to add additional discretionary conditions at a subsequent approval process; especially when the site has not been built. If additional traffic impacts need to be studied, it would be appropriate to have that study done and not take action. With respect to the retention basin, he would defer to the Public Works Department to the particulars. It may be appropriate to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that exists between the City and the developer should the Commission desire so. i 20. Chairman Kirk asked why and when the MOU entered into. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated in May, 2004 because , Planning Commission Minutes • September 27, 2005 the City and the developer could not come to terms in regard to how much water they have to take onto their site. The Specific Plan has proposed the location of the basin at this location. Chairman Kirk asked if the MOU precludes the Commission from making suggestions in regard to the retention basin or the design of the retention basin requiring the undergrounding of the retention basin. Staff stated the City did not require it to be under - grounded. This was the option the developer determined. Staff worked on how much water had to be retained more than where it should be retained. 21. Commissioner Daniels asked if the developer had submitted an "L" shaped design, would the City have found that compatible with the earlier approval. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the Commission could have made the findings that it did not change the intent of the approval. If the Commission wants to pursue the retention basin further, staff would recommend continuing the application to allow further time for review in relation to the MOU. 22. Chairman Kirk stated this is a good looking commercial project, and it would be a benefit to get it approved as soon as possible. Mr. Tarr stated the retention basin was designed as part of the overall hydrology for the entire Specific Plan site. It was not designed as a part of just this particular building. 23. Commissioner Ladner asked if staff was comfortable with the retention basin and overall circulation plan. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they have no issue with the retention basin. In regard to the circulation, staff does think proving another connection to the north -south street that connects to Avenue 47 would be useful. Additionally, in regard to traffic onto Washington Street, the big concern about the signal is to keep the traffic flow moving on Washington Street. Stacking will cause people to look for an alternate route and this is why staff is .looking for those alternate routes. The temporary road behind Lowes would be a solution. 24. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened it to Commission discussion. • i �d 25. Commissioner Quill stated he understands the site has been • E Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 engineered to meet the water demand, but it seems it could have been designed to be more aesthetically pleasing if hydrology was not the driving force for design. He does .believe loading and unloading will take place in the front of the building instead of the rear and the rear access is not going to be easy. He has concerns that when the signal is installed and does not work in sequence with the signal at Highway 1 1 1, it will be a nightmare. He agrees the temporary street would be to the benefit of everyone. He questions why there are no parkway landscaping plans in this submittal. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if it is not already approved, they will have to be submitted for approval. 26. Chairman Kirk reopened the public comment. Mr. Tarr stated the streetscape has already been approved under prior approvals. 27. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion again. • 28. Commissioner Daniels agreed the three signals at Highway 1 1 1, Simon Drive and Point.Happy will all need to be in sequence. The S applicant has made a good argument for the retention basin being where it is, but he still believes it was not good planning and should have been caught before. 29. Commissioner Ladner stated that in regard to the retention basin she has a problem with liability and believes that the rear location is better. It is a high -end development that will be maintained by the tenants. As to the access road she believes it is necessary'to have access to Avenue 47. 30. Chairman Kirk stated the design of the building is excellent, however he would prefer to have the fine architecture closer to Washington Street and therefore agrees with the retention basin in the rear. He does object to the sea of asphalt next to Washington Street. He would like to see the developer and City come to some agreement that is a cost benefit and provide the underground retention. This could resolve a lot of the issues raised for the rear of the building. He would also like to see the temporary access behind Lowes constructed and would support keeping Condition #36. In addition, he would support accelerating development of the access across the site. In terms of loading access, he would like to see a diagram to ensure that the circulation works.. Therefore, he would like to continue the application to review some of these issues. At that time show the articulation of the d ; . Planning Commission Minutes 0 September 27, 2005 elevations as well as the design on the rear of the building with increased landscaping. 31. Commissioner Daniels stated he would be more comfortable if the retention basin were underground. 32. Commissioner Quill stated he does not believe undergrounding the retention basin would solve the issues. He would suggested some of the issues could possibly be resolved at this time and not continue the application. 33. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Tarr pointed out the location of the proposed retention basin for Phase 3. The undergrounding at this location will not work and would be a. million dollars in costs. In regard to the roadway, they can design cul-de-sacs for temporary turnarounds for the loading behind the shops. In regard to the elevations, they do have a lot of vertical as well as horizontal articulation. The rear of the shops could have some articulation, but they are the rear of the buildings. Mr. Kerredy stated there are some areas where they could break up the parapet and introduce some alternative materials to break up the rear. 34. Chairman Kirk asked if the suggestion for the temporary access would be acceptable to staff as well as the applicant to not hold up the project. 35. Commissioner Quill suggested Condition #36 be revised to read, "...the temporary road access would be installed prior, to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued." 36. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-040, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-840, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: A temporary road shall be constructed and maintained across the southeast portion of the site prior to a certificate of occupancy. b. Condition added: 'A turn around for loading and unloading and trash collection shall be added to the east side .of the building. C. Condition added: Additional articulation shall be added to Planning Commission Minutes • September 27, 2005 the rear of the building. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Alderson. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Daniels. Commissioner Alderson rejoined the Commission. E. Site Development Permit 2005-837; a request of ND La Quinta Partners, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a Guard House complex for the property located on the south side of Avenue 52, idway between Madison Street and Monroe Avenue within the Madison ub. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff eport. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information c ntained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Co munity Development Department. 2. Chairm n Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commiss' ner Alderson asked for an explanation of the buildings at the entr ce. Staff explained the layout. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.- John Gamlin, representing the applicant, gave a presentation of t e project. He asked that Condition #43 be deleted as they belt ve they had negotiated the best solution with both the City of Inds and La Quinta in regard to the entrance. Community Developm t Director Doug Evans suggested it not be eliminated, but allow st f to review the documents Mr. Gamlin referenced, and not requir a Specific Plan Amendment. 4. It was moved by Commis 'oners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resol ion 2005-042, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005- 37, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alder n, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. F. Environmental Assessment 2005-543 and TentXtive Tract Map 33444; a request of Coral Mountain Tails, LLC for consider tion of the subdivision .of approximately 317.61 acres into 219 resident I lots, amenity lots, street lots, and open space lots for the proper located west of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS • FOUNDED 1910 FOR THE Firm: 550 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 300 Mark A. Ostoich SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408-4205 e-mail: Mark.Ostoich@greshamsavage.com (909) 884-2171 • FACSIMILE (909) 888-2120 www.greshamsavage.com October 12, 2005 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78--495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 ATTACHMENT 4 Re: Application for Appeal of Findings and/or Conditions Applicant/Appellant: Washington 111, Ltd. Site Development Permit 2005-838 -- Construction of Three Conunercial Buildings La Quinta Planning Commission Hearing of September 27, 2005 Dear Sirs/Madams: This firm has been retained by Washington 111, Ltd. (the "Appellant") regarding their appeal of conditions of approval for Site Development Permit 2005-838 regarding the proposed construction of three commercial buildings within the Washington Park Commercial Center project ("Project"), and any findings supporting those conditions of approval. Appellant is appealing only the following conditions of approval adopted by the La Quinta Planning Conunission (the "Commission") at the hearing on September 27, 2005, and any findings supporting those conditions of approval: 1. Appellant appeals and objects to Condition 36, requiring Appellant to advance the scheduled extension of the planned, internal drive aisle running from the southern portion of the Site and providing access to La Quinta Center Drive and Avenue 47 ("Southeasterly Drive Aisle"). 2. Appellant appeals and objects to Condition 40(a) prohibiting wlieel stops. Appellant appeals and objects to those conditions of approval and any findings supporting them based on a variety of grounds, including the following: A. The Commission cannot impose the condition that Appellant provide the specified access ahead of schedule. The Commission and the City are concerned about circulation and access, and apparently found that the extension of the planned drive aisle running from the southern portion of the Site Development Permit to La Quinta Center Drive and thereby providing access to La Quinta RIVERSIDE OFFICE • 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 250, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501-3335 • (951) 684-2171 - FACSIMILE (951) 684-2150 VICTORVILLE OFFICE • 13911 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 208, VICTORVILLF, CA 92392 • (760) 243-2889 - FACSIMILE (760) 243-0467 " W742-000 -- 50522.1 - GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mark A. Ostozch October 12, 2005 Page 2 Center Drive and Avenue 47, would alleviate the concern. Circulation and access are basic project infrastructure issues, which were resolved in Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and the environmental document prepared in connection with the Amendment. Consistent with those approvals, the City subsequently approved a phased parcel map, which allowed the project to be built in multiple -phases. The Southeasterly Drive Aisle was always planned for installation during a later project phase, and the City has not provided any evidence showing a change in conditions. As long as the sequencing of the ingress and egress improvements is consistent with the Specific Plan, Appellant objects to the Planning Commission's attempt to advance the timing of the scheduled improvements. B. The Commission cannot prohibit the use of wheel stops. Applicant owes a duty of care to third persons who enter onto Applicant's property. (California Civil Code § 1714 (a)) As stated in Davert v. Larson, 163 Cal.App.3d 407, 410, 209 Cal.Rptr. 445 (1985), "Generally, the duty owed by a landowner is nondelegable." Since Applicant will be responsible for safety of those on the property, the Commission cannot prohibit the use of wheel stops as a safety device. Wheel stops promote safety in several ways. Without a wheel stop, the front of a motor vehicle may overhang the sidewalk by several feet. If a pedestrian is on the sidewalk, a vehicle may actually strike the pedestrian in the absence of a wheel stop. Furthermore, the Americans with Disabilities Act (codified in Title 42 of the United States Code) requires a minimum_ sidewalk width to accommodate people with wheelchairs or other mobility -related needs. A. vehicle overhanging the sidewalk might reduce the available sidewalk area to below this minimum and hamper access by someone with disabilities. Wheel stops have been approved for all prior Site Development Permits on this project, including the Specific Plan. Conditioning approval of this Site Development Permit on the absence of wheel stops will create an aesthetic break across the Washington Park project and exacerbate the problem of vehicle overhang as drivers rely on the nonexistent wheel stops. In addition, City staff s apparent preference for bollards over wheel stops never arose at the above -referenced Planning Commission hearing. Neither the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing nor the conditions of approval themselves requires any safety improvements such as bollards. The Applicant's preferred safety measure is wheel stops, rather than bollards. For all of the above reasons, the Applicant's preferred safety measure is reasonable and should be given preference over City staff's preferred safety measure. C. Appellant has a vested right to rely on the Specific Plan. Appellant has a "vested right" to rely on the Specific Plan and the approvals and permits obtained thus far on this project. Appellant has already performed a substantial amount of work W 742-000 -- 50522.1 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA-rION Mark A. Ostoich October 12, 2005 Page 3 in reliance thereon and has diligently proceeded with the Washington Park Project. Since Appellant has proceeded in good faith reliance upon the approvals already obtained firom the City, the Commission. should not now accelerate conditions or add preventive conditions which do not have a nexus to the proposed buildings. As stated in Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission, 17 CaUd 785, 791 (1976), "It has long been the rule in this state and in other jurisdictions that if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit." Since the City of La Quinta has previously approved the Specific Plan Amendment No. 4, as well as the remaining provisions of the Specific Plan and the pen -nits for the work done thus far on the Washington Park Project, the Commission should not now make approval of this particular Site Development Permit conditional upon improvements approved for a later stage or abandonment of wheel stops as safety features. Fairness dictates,,that Appellant be allowed to complete development of this project in accordance with the approvals that it has already obtained. Very truly yours, Mark A. Ostoich, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation MAO/pmj Cores\Appeal Letter -Site Development Permit 2005-838 • m-y W742-000 -- 505211 ATTACHMENT N5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-041 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-838 WASHINGTON PARK 111, LTD. - SUBMAJOR 5 & SHOPS 4 ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 35. Ancillary access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Washington Street 1) Primary South Entry — Right turn movements in and out and left turn movements in are permitted. Left turn movements out are prohibited. 2) Secondary North Entry — Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. B. Simon Drive 1) Westerly Entry — Full turn movements are permitted. 2) Easterly Entry — Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. The applicant shall extend the driving aisle from the southeastern portion of the Site Development Permit to provide access to La Quinta Center Drive and Avenue 47, as cited for a latter phase in the specific plan, ahead of schedule. This temporary read, paved with 3" AC on native base, shall be completed prior to any certificate of occupancy approval. Final conditions concerning the improvements of this driving aisle will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. 36. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot Areas (except high traffic areas) 3.0"a.c / 4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot Areas (High traffic Areas) 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. { PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-041 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-838 WASHINGTON PARK 111, LTD. - SUBMAJOR 5 & SHOPS 4 ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 37. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 38. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 39. The applicant shall construct a temporary 65' radius truck turnaround paved with 3" AC on native, to be located at the end of the driving aisle serving the Shops 4 side loading area. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 40. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). In particular, the following are conditioned with this approval. A. 4-foot clearance for ADA accessibility across all sidewalk areas shall be provided excluding 2-foot overhang for parked vehicle. Wheel stops are not permitted. B. Parking spaces at the end of parking aisles against curb or wall shall be widened by two additional feet. C. Accessibility routes to other buildings and public streets shall be shown on the precise grading plan. D. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. E. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. F. If flush curbs are proposed for the proposed buildings, truncated domes shall be installed where required. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-041 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-838 WASHINGTON PARK 111, LTD. - SUBMAJOR 5 & SHOPS 4 ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. SITE LAYOUT 41. Based on Drainage requirements, the applicant shall provide a Final Building Layout reconfigured or modified based on the aforementioned requirements or other requirements conditioned in this Site Development Permit to the Community Development and Public Works Department for approval. CONSTRUCTION 42. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. LANDSCAPING 43. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 44. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 45. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. ATTACHMENT 6 P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 January 6, 2006 Mr. Bill Sanchez Washington 1 1 1 , Ltd 80-818 Declaration Avenue Indio, CA 92201 RE: Appeal for Site Development Permit 2005-838 Dear Mr. Sanchez, (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 On October 12, 2005 the City received an appeal of two conditions of approval for Site Development Permit 2005-838, approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 2005. As you are aware, these conditions are specific to an internal drive connecting the southern section of the proposed development with La Quinta Center Drive and the prohibition of wheel stops. Since receiving the appeal this matter has been scheduled before the City Council on three separate occasions (11/15, 12/6 and 12/20). On all three occasions, requests to defer have been submitted by you just prior to the City Council meeting and the Council has elected to continue the matter. The last letter received requested the matter be deferred to the January 17 City Council meeting. Since the appeal requires a public hearing, please be advised that should there be a need to defer the matter once again the appeal will be tabled until written notice is provided stating that the appeal is ready to be considered by the City Council without further delay. Please note that tabling the appeal will require issuing a new public hearing notice which in turn will require additional time to comply with the public notice posting and publication requirements. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 777-7071 or at liohnson@la-quinta.org. Sincerely, r es Johnson Planning Manager c: Jack Tarr, Washington 1 1 1 , LTD Mark A. Ostoich, Grisham Savage Nolan & Tiden ATTACHMENT #7 SPECIFIC PLAN Washington Park V. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The development regulations contained herein provide specific standards relative to permitted land uses in addition to site design and construction regulations to be applied within the Specific Plan Area. They are intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to create a. harmonious relationship with surrounding land. In general, this specific plan is consistent with. the CC Zone of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code unless a different standard is identified. below. Should ' a development standard contained in this Specific Plan conflict with an equivalent standard contained in the City of La Quinta Zoning Code, the provisions of the Specific Plan shall take precedence. In instances where the Specific Plan does not address a particular regulation, the applicable portion of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code shall govern., The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve minor adjustments during Development Permit Review, so long as he determined such adjustments are consistent with the Specific Plan Land Use Plan. VI. PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION Required ROW improvements, site preparation, and utilities work will begin as soon as the required approvals are available. The entire development will be constructed in two phases with construction beginning as soon as the required approvals are available. Two general contractors have been selected. The development will be sequenced to maximize efficiency and to accommodate current tenant requirements as quickly as is reasonable. Lease negotiations and project marketing to attain 100% occupancy are subject to market conditions and are ongoing. VII. DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Overview The Design Guidelines for the Specific Plan have been developed as a method of achieving a high quality, cohesive design character for the development of Washington Park. They provide specific design criteria for the development of the project, as well as encouraging creativity, imagination and a high level of harmony and consistency within the surrounding community. Adherence to the Design Guidelines will create a desirable asset to the community and enhance the project's overall value. These guidelines will govern the design quality of the project for application in the following ways: • To provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary assurance that the Specific Plan area will develop in accordance with the quality and character proposed; • To provide guidance to developers, builders, engineers, architects, landscape ,architects and other professionals in order to maintain the desired design quality; • To provide guidance to City staff, the Planning Commission aqq the City Council in the review of construction plans for the Specific Plan area. Washington 111, LTD ATTACHMENT #S STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-838 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 27,225 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING FEATURING ONE SUB -MAJOR UNIT AND MULTIPLE MINOR UNITS WITHIN THE WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER (SUB -MAJOR 5 & SHOPS 4) LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 1 1 1, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD PROPERTY OWNER: WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-072 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-01 1, AMENDMENT NO.4 WASHINGTON PARK SPECIFIC PLAN. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Site Development Permit The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a portion of a retail shopping center in the Washington Park commercial center, consisting of a total 27,225 square feet. Though the specific plan initially identified the project to be constructed in two phases (SP 89-01 1 Am. No.4, p.23), submittal of the project have been by means of multiple site development permits. This submittal is designated as Sub -Major 5 and Shops 4. Site Plan This phase of the site is located at the center of the project site along Washington Street and southeast of Simon Drive. Parking will be located along the front of the proposed units towards Washington Street and, to a lesser extent, at the south side of the development. A landscaped retention basin is proposed immediately to the rear of the units, requiring the Shops 4 segment of units to utilize the southeast side for loading access. A water feature is proposed at the center pedestrian court, which will serve as the focus for this phase. The previously approved Shops 3 portion of the site, currently under plan check, will be attached to the north side of the Sub -Major 5 unit. Parking and Access Primary vehicular access to this proposed phase of Washington Park will be from two un-signaled driveways accessing Washington Street. Driveways along Simon Drive will provide secondary access. As currently proposed, access to Avenue 47 will not be available until future phases are completed. The overall parking standard for Washington Park is 5 spaces per 1,000 SF of floor area (SP 89-01 1 Amd#4, p.10), which would require 135 parking spaces for this phase. Site plans identify approximately 175 parking spaces either adjacent to, or immediately fronting this phase of the project (Attachment 1 ). Public Works Concerns Concerns have been raised with regards to circulation and access associated with all previously approved phases combined with the phase under consideration. The traffic study conducted for the Specific Plan did not consider phasing of development or specific uses such as Trader Joe's that are known for generating a relatively large number of trips. Currently, ingress and egress for these phases of development is focused upon the Washington Street driveways and Simon Drive, preventing opportunity for left turn movement on to Washington Street. A future signal is currently under construction for the Simon Drive and Washington Street intersection. Once constructed, left turn movement on to Washington will be permitted. However, a short left turn signal cycle will exist due to the need to coordinate timing with the Washington and Highway 1 1 1 signal. The introduction of this signal will result in a significant increase in trips at this intersection primarily due to the demand for left turn movement on to Washington. Future phases of development will provide an additional alternate access route by connecting with La Quinta Center Drive, which in turn connects with 47th Street and Highway 111. 47th Street provides another option for left turn movement on to Washington as it is an existing signalized intersection. In order to address the circulation and access concerns, two options have been proposed. The preferred method would be to provide a south access connection to La Qunta Center Drive, as previously identified and approved in the specific plan. This would be constructed prior to occupancy of this phase of development. This route would allow the opportunity for vehicles to access Avenue 47 via La Quinta Center Drive. The alternative would be to conduct an updated traffic study to specifically address the Washington Street and Simon Drive intersection and the trip impact of the previously approved phases combined with the phase under construction. Study recommendations for improvements, if any, would be installed or constructed prior to occupancy for this phase of development. Retention Basin The applicants have proposed a portion of the aforementioned retention basin to extend underneath the southeast corner of the Sub -Major 5 structure. Staff recommends this cantilevered condition be revised to a stem wall, in order to prevent the accumulation of debris or other activity. Although the purpose of this is to provide additional storm water retention, Public Works has indicated that the retention basin could be modified to eliminate the overhang and include an access ramp necessary for maintenance purposes. Architecture and Landscape Design The proposed architectural design is a continuation of the Washington Park style, characterized as "Desert Deco ... an interpretation of contemporary, modern, and art deco architecture." Identical to existing phases, Sub -Major 5 and Shops 4 will have a seamless architectural transition from the previously approved Shops 3 phase currently under plan review. The building utilizes a staggered roof line at 18 to 22 feet in height, an anodized aluminum store front, glass doors, awnings, wood trellises with steel support, and color band wainscoting. Exterior walls will consist of stonework and stucco with warm muted colors in the same manner as previous phases, such as the existing Target, Stein Mart, and Circuit City retail stores. The proposed landscape plan is consistent with and conforms to the Specific Plan guidelines, including the palette of plant materials. Landscaping is proposed at regular intervals along the front, side, and rear of the structure. The rear retention basin will utilize decomposed granite and a soil stabilizer. Trees and shrubs are proposed along portions of the basin rim. The preliminary landscape plan consists of Guadalupe Palms and Mexican Fan palm trees and shade trees including Sweet Acacia, Chilean Mesquite, and Hybrid Palo Verdes. The ground cover and shrub plant material are low water consumption and are native to the area. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at the September 7, 2005 meeting (Attachment 3). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2005-838 recommending approval with the following conditions: 1 . Landscaped areas adjacent to parking spaces shall include an 18" inch concrete strip to prevent damage from passengers exiting vehicles. Such provisions could include a wider curb or step for passengers and should not reduce the overall landscaped area or conflict with the proposed landscaping and sidewalk pattern. 2. The trash enclosures should be revised to Waste Management specifications with consideration to the proposed side loading area. 3. Details concerning the loading area designed for Shops 3 should be submitted, as Sub -major 5 utilizes the Shops 3 loading area. Parking and driving aisle details concerning the adjacent future phases located to the south would help clarify ingress and egress at the proposed side loading area for this phase. 4. The proposed Sub -major 5 structural overhang at the retention basin should be eliminated and modified to a stem wall. 5. Additional landscaping should be planted along the entire rim of the retention basin, including the rear of the structure and the side loading area. 6. Provisions for a maintenance ramp have been requested by Public Works. Ramp access should have a 3:1 slope. 7. Items cited on the materials board should include a citation that they will be consistent with materials used in previous approved phases of Washington Park. 8. Although the plans identify variations between awnings and trellises, additional canopy shade for pedestrian areas should be considered. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on August 16, 2005, requesting comments returned by September 2, 2005. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on September 17, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , approving Site Development Permit 2005-838 to allow construction of three commercial buildings (Sub -Major 5 & Shops 4), subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Plans and Elevations 2. Minutes for the September 7, 2005 Architecture and Landscape Review Committee Prepared by: Aew J. Mogensen, Associate Planner 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 1 Title 9 ZONING* ,-hntor Q 1 rO PARIUKU-4 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Attachment #9 A. Parking Layout and Circulation. 1. Except for single-family detached, single-family attached, duplex and townhome residential uses, no parking facility shall be designed so that vehicles are required to back into a public street to exit the facility. 2. No parking space shall be located within three feet of any property line. 3. Tandem parking shall be permitted only in mob]lehome parks/subdivisions, as driveway guest parking for single-family detached, single- family attached and duplex residential uses, and where valet parking is provided. 4. With the exception of single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex residential uses, all parking bays shall be bordered by continuous curbs to serve as drainage channels and as wheel stops. Individual wheel stops shall not be permitted in lieu of such curbs. 5. All driveways shall be designed for positive drainage. If an inverted crown is proposed for a driveway, the center portion shall be a ribbon gutter of portland cement concrete rather than asphaltic concrete. 6. Parking lot layouts shall provide a clear hierarchy of major access drives (connecting the parking area to the public street), fire lanes, loading areas, minor drives, parking bay maneuvering areas, etc. Parking shall not be arranged to require backing out into major access drives. 7. In order to avoid dead-end aisles, parking bays with ten spaces or more shall connect with other parking bays or drive aisles or shall provide a turnaround area at the end of the bay. S. Parking accessways are those driveways that provide ingress or egress from a street to the parking aisles, and those driveways providing interior circulation between parking aisles. No parking is permitted on an accessway. Such accessways shall conform to the following standards: a. All parking facilities taking access from a major, primary or secondary arterial highway shall have a parking accessway between the arterial and the parking aisles. b. Parking accessways from arterial highways shall not have parking spaces taking direct access therefrom and shall not be intersected by a parking aisle or another parking accessway for a minimum distance of thirty feet for projects with zero to two hundred parking spaces, fifty feet for projects with two hundred one to three hundred fifty spaces, seventy feet for projects with three hundred fifty-one to four hundred fifty spaces, and ninety feet for projects with four hundred fifty-one spaces or more. All distances shall be measured from the curb face of the ultimate curbline of the adjacent street. c. Parking accessways from nonarterial streets and highways shall be not less than twenty feet in length from the ultimate curbline of the adjacent street. d. One-way accessways shall have a minimum width of fifteen feet, unless the accessway is afire lane, which requires a minimum of twenty feet. Two-way accessways shall have a minimum width of twenty-eight feet. Entry/exit driveways shall be placed where they result in the least interference with the flow of traffic on the public street to which they connect. 10. Joint entry driveways are encouraged and shall be arranged to allow parking lot maneuvering from one establishment to another without requiring exit to the street. Adjacent properties shall maintain agreements which permit reciprocal driveway connections across property lines. B. Parking Facility Design and Dimensions. 1. Regular Space Dimensions. All parking spaces up to the minimum required shall be designated for regular vehicle parking. Regular vehicle spaces shall have the following minimum dimensions: width, nine feet; length, seventeen feet to curb plus two feet overhang; where curbs are not provided, a minimum length of nineteen feet is required. 2. Compact Space Dimensions. Compact spaces are permitted only if such spaces are in excess of the minimum parking requirement for the use. Compact vehicle spaces shall have the following minimum dimensions: width, eight and one-half feet; length, sixteen feet to curb plus one and one-half feet overhang; where curbs are not provided, a minimum length of seventeen and one-half feet is required. Compact vehicle spaces shall be clearly marked and distributed throughout the parking facility. 3. End Spaces. Parking spaces at the end of a parking aisle against a curb or wall shall be widened by two additional feet and/or shall have a backing -out pocket provided. 4. Parallel Spaces. Spaces provided for parallel parking shall be a minimum of nine feet wide and twenty-four feet in length to permit room for maneuvering. If a wall or curb in excess of eight inches in height is adjacent to the parallel parking space, the space shall be ten feet in width. All end spaces confined by a curb shall be thirty feet long. 5. Support Posts. No support posts or other obstructions shall be placed within one and one-half feet of any parking stall, except that such obstructions are allowed adjacent to the stall within the first six feet of the front of the stall, including any overhang area (see illustration). 10 J 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 2 : M �0—r, .GfrC9 fJ-jM/1111111�1�1M :'t70 T'J AL:4�'EO (. ). rat" 90" ow SIA" ,� 1 '�fYpl%Skri�t i R 7 iMaO� s• r Fieure 9-I0: Limitatio,w on Obanicrions Adjkcent to 1'"arkings StaiL 6. Parking Aisles. Table 9-13 following contains minimum dimensions for parking aisles: Table 9-13 Minimum Parking Aisle Dimensions Parking Angle (degrees) One -Way Aisle Width (feet) Two -Way Aisle Width (feet) 0-44 (0' = parallel) 14 26 45-54 16 26 5564 18 26 65-79 22 26 80-90 26 26 7. Space Marking. All parking spaces in a residential or nonresidential parking lot shall be clearly marked with white or yellow paint or other easily distinguished material with each space marking consisting of a double four inch wide hairpin stripe, twelve inches on -center. S. Entry/Exit Driveways. Entry and exit driveways for commercial and multifamily parking lots shall be a minimum of twenty-eight feet wide plus any median width (medians shall be a minimum of three feet wide). Additional turning lanes, if required, shall be a minimum of twelve feet in width. One-way entry or exit drives shall be a minimum of sixteen feet in width. Maximum driveway width shall be forty-eight feet plus median width properly radiused. Internal driveways shall conform to the minimum widths, depending on the angle of parking in Table 9-13 of this section. 9. Curve Radii. Entry driveways shall have a minimum curb radius of five feet. Internal curb radii shall be a minimum of three feet. Driveway curve radius shall be a minimum of sixteen feet inside and twenty-nine feet outside if confined by a curb or other construction. 10. Sight Distance. No parking space shall encroach on the obstruction -free zone provided for sight distance at access points to major drives or streets. The obstruction -free zone shall be a six -foot -wide linear strip adjacent to the curbline of the street or major drive and shall extend in both directions from the access point in accordance with Riverside County road department standard drawing No. 806. 11. Residential Garages. Minimum interior dimensions in residential garages and carports shall be ten feet in width per car by twenty feet in depth. (For example, a two -car garage shall be minimum twenty feet wide by twenty feet deep.) C. Fire Lanes. 1. Fire lanes meeting fire department standards shall be provided to allow access to all structures (both front and rear) for fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical purposes. 2. Fire lanes shall be kept separate from loading or service areas and the overall parking layout shall be configured so as to minimize possible obstruction of the fire lane. Fire lanes shall be adequately marked and patrolled to prevent parking and other obstructions. D. Pedestrian Circulation. 1. The purpose of a parking lot is to provide for the transition from vehicular to pedestrian movement. All parking lot arrangements shall be designed to provide for the maximum safety and convenience of pedestrians in their movement to and from the parking area. Where possible, landscaped areas shall also contain paved pedestrian walks for the safe movement of pedestrians. On major driveways, crosswalks shall be provided to mark cross -vehicular pedestrian movement. Textured surfaces, signs and speed bumps shall be used to keep vehicular speeds low. E. Loading and Other Service Facilities. 1. Off -Street Loading Requirements. a. Whenever the city determines that the normal operation of any use or development requires that goods, merchandise or equipment to be routinely delivered to or shipped from that location, sufficient off-street loading and unloading area must be provided in accordance with this subsection to accommodate such activities in a safe and efficient manner. For purposes of this chapter, the term "loading" means both loading and unloading. t� t 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 3 b. Table 9-14 following shows the number and size of loading berths expected to satisfy the standards set forth in this subsection. However, the planning commission may require more or less loading area if it determines such change to be necessary to satisfy the purpose set forth in subsection El a of this section: c. Each loading berth shall be not less than forty-five feet in length and twelve feet in width exclusive of aisle or maneuvering space, and shall have an overhead clearance of not less than fourteen feet. d. Loading berths may occupy all or any part of any required yard space except front and exterior side yards and shall not be located closer than fifty feet from any lot in any residential zone unless enclosed on all sides (except the entrance) by a wall not less than eight feet in height. In addition, the planning commission may require screening walls or enclosures for any loading berth if it determines that such screening is necessary to mitigate the visual impacts of the facility. e. Loading berths shall be so located and designed that the vehicles intended to use them can maneuver safely and conveniently to and from a public right-of-way, complete the loading and unloading operations without obstructing or interfering with any fire lane, public right-of-way or any parking space or parking lot aisle. f. Each loading berth shall be accessible from a street or alley or from an aisle or drive connecting to a street or alley. Entrance from and exits to streets and alleys shall be designed to minimize traffic congestion. g. Sufficient room for turning and maneuvering delivery vehicles shall be provided on the site so that vehicles are not required to back up in order to leave the site. h. The loading berth, aisles and access drives shall be paved so as to provide a durable, dustless surface and shall be graded and drained so as to dispose of surface water without damage to private or public properties, streets or alleys. i. Bumper rails and bollards shall be provided at locations where needed for safety or to protect property. j. If the loading area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential sites so as to minimize glare. k. No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in any loading berth. 1. Off-street loading facilities shall be located on the same site as the use served. m. If more than one use is located on a site, the number of loading berths provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed in this chapter for each use. If more than one use is located on a site and the gross floor area of each use is less than the minimum for which loading berths are required but the aggregate gross floor area is greater than the minimum for which loading berths are required, off-street loading berths shall be provided as if the aggregate gross floor area were used for the use requiring the greatest number of loading berths. n. Loading facilities for a single use shall be considered as providing required loading facilities for any other use on the same site as long as sufficient spaces are provided to meet the requirements of all uses. o. Off-street loading berths shall be provided prior to the time of initial occupancy or prior to completion of major alterations or enlargement of a structure or site. The number of loading berths provided for a major alteration or enlargement of a structure or site shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlargement. p. No area allocated to loading facilities may be used to satisfy the area requirements for off-street parking, nor shall any portion of any off- street parking area be used to satisfy the area requirements for loading facilities. q. No loading berth which is provided for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this section shall hereafter be eliminated, reduced, or converted in any manner below the requirements established in this title, unless equivalent facilities are provided elsewhere, conforming to this chapter. r. Because of the weight of trash trucks and other delivery vehicles, alleys and loading berths serving such vehicles shall be improved with a minimum structural section of three and one-half to six inches of portland concrete over a suitable base, depending on a recommendation by a registered civil engineer. 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 4 2. Utilities. All utility connections, utility meters and mechanical equipment shall be accessible from an area adjacent to (but not within the maneuvering area oO the Ere lanes. Enough space shall be provided for a service truck to park adjacent to the utility area. Such area shall not conflict with the loading and maneuvering areas required per subsection G 1 of this section. 3. Trash Facilities. Trash enclosures shall be provided exclusively for trash collection in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.100.200. F. Parking Lot Surfacing. 1. All parking areas shall be designed and built with positive drainage to an approved drainage conveyance. No ponding shall be permitted. 2. All parking and maneuvering areas shall be paved with paving blocks or asphaltic or portland concrete over the appropriate asphaltic base. The structural section of the pavement and base material shall be commensurate with the anticipated loading and shall be calculated in accordance with the method promulgated by the California Department of Transportation (Ca trans). 3. The minimum thickness for portland concrete surfacing is three and one-half inches and shall be increased as needed to accommodate the expected loading. Expansion joints shall be provided. 4. The minimum structural section for asphaltic concrete pavement shall be compacted to a minimum thickness of three inches on four inches of Class Two base. The base thickness can be varied based on the recommendation of a preliminary soil report. A modified structural section may be used based upon the recommendation of a registered civil engineer if approved by the city. G. Valet Parking. 1. Valet parking shall be reviewed by the planning commission in conjunction with the site development permit or other entitlement for the use or separately as a minor use permit per the procedures of Section 9.210.020. 2. When valet parking is provided, a minimum of twenty-five percent of the required parking area shall be designated and arranged for self - parking to prevent on -street parking and blocking of fire lanes. 3. The drop-off point for valet parking shall be convenient to the front door of the facility, shaded, one way, and of sufficient capacity to accommodate three cars. 4. The route from the drop-off pickup point to the area designated for parking shall be via an on -site private drive and shall not utilize any public street. 5. A safe pedestrian route for valet staff shall be provided which does not cross the path of the valet parking route. 6. All valet parking approvals shall be conditioned to require that sufficient liability insurance for patrons be carried during each year of operation. H. Shopping Cart Storage. l . Every use which utilizes shopping carts shall provide a shopping cart collection area or cart racks. 2. Cart racks shall be distributed so that no parking space within the facility is more than 100 feet from the nearest cart rack in order to prevent parking spaces from being lost to the random abandonment of shopping carts. 3. Each cart rack shall include either a steel frame or curbs on the lower side to contain the shopping carts. 4. Nonresidential site development permit approvals shall include a condition requiring parking lots to be cleared of shopping carts no less frequently than once every two hours. More than twenty-five percent of the required parking spaces blocked by shopping carts shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be abated. 5. Site plans and parking facilities shall be arranged in such a way that pedestrians with carts need not cross major internal driveways or alternatively, to provide a crosswalk at crossing points with textured paving preceding the crosswalk to alert drivers. 6. If sidewalks adjacent to stores are used for temporary storage of assembled shopping carts, such sidewalks shall be designed with extra width so that pedestrian flows are not blocked by shopping carts. The planning commission may also require a screening wall or landscape screening in front of such a cart storage area. I. Underground and Decked Parking. 1. The minimum dimensions for underground, decked or covered parking shall be as required for uncovered surface area parking as specified throughout this section, except additional minimum dimensions may be required for specific circulation conditions or structural impediments created by the parking structure. 2. The clearance heights of overhead obstructions shall be clearly marked. 3. A level or nearly level transition area between the street and ramps up or down, parking shall be provided for a distance which will provide adequate sight distance at the street. 4. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures to blend them into the environment. This shall include perimeter grade planting and rooftop landscaping as deemed appropriate by the planning commission. 5. Parking structures shall be subject to site development permit review in all cases. As part of such review, special care shall be taken to prevent the mass and height of parking structures from intruding into the streetscape. 6. Multiple -level parking structures shall contain light wells (minimum dimensions: twenty by twenty), placed at least every two hundred feet. The base elevation of the light well shall be landscaped. Tall trees (especially palms) shall be used to tie together the various levels of the parking structure. In addition, the planning commission may require that upper levels be set back from the level immediately below in order to minimize the t apparent mass of the structure from the street. 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 5 J. Drive -Through Facilities. Drive -through facilities shall conform to the following regulations: 1. No drive -through facility shall be permitted within two hundred feet of any residentially zoned or used property. 2. Safe on- and off -site traffic and pedestrian circulation shall be provided including, but not limited to, traffic circulation which does not conflict with entering or exiting traffic, with parking, or with pedestrian movements. 3. A stacking area shall be provided for each service window or machine which contains a minimum of seven tandem standing spaces inclusive of the vehicle being served. The standing spaces shall not extend into the public right-of-way nor interfere with any internal circulation patterns. 4. The drive -through facility shall be designed to integrate with existing or proposed structures, including roof lines, building materiels, signs and landscaping. 5. Vehicles at service windows or machines shall be provided with a shade structure. 6. Amplification equipment, lighting and location of drive -through elements and service windows shall be screened from public rights -of -way and adjacent properties per the provisions of subsection L of this section. 7. Exits from drive -through facilities shall be at least three vehicles in length, shall have adequate exiting sight -distance, and shall connect to either a signalized entry or shall be limited to right turns only. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of twelve feet in width. K. Lighting of Parking and Loading Areas. 1. Illumination of parking and loading areas shall conform to the requirements of this subsection and Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor lighting). 2. Lighting shall be provided for all parking facilities. 3. All off-street parking areas in multifamily residential projects shall be illuminated at night. 4. Commercial establishments shall provide night lighting throughout required parking areas at all hours of customer and employee use. 5. Lighting, where installed for parking area, sales and/or display area, shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjoining residential areas and shall be designed to minimize impacts on vehicular traffic and residents. 6. Light sources shall not be visible from off the property, shall not direct light skyward, and shall be so arranged by means of filters or shields to avoid reflecting light onto adjoining properties or streets per Section 9.100.150. 7. Light standards should be placed between parking spaces or built into landscaped areas. 8. Light standard heights shall be as per manufacturer's recommended photometrics, but in no case shall the height exceed the maximum permitted building height of the zone in which it is situated or eighteen feet (measured from finish grade at the base of the standard), whichever is greater. Graduated light standard heights within a site with lower heights in peripheral areas may be required by the planning commission to provide compatibility with adjoining properties and streets. 9. Average illumination levels at finish grade in parking areas which require lighting shall be between one and two footcandles, with a maximum ratio of average light to minimum light of three to one. Lighting plans shall take into account the placement and growth of landscape materials. L. Screening of Parking Areas. 1. Screening Required. Except for single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex residential, all parking areas shall be screened by means of walls or other materials in accordance with this subsection. 2. Height. Screening shall be a minimum of three feet high adjacent to public streets or nonresidential uses and a minimum of six feet high adjacent to residential uses, except that screening shall not exceed thirty inches high where required for motorist sight distances as specified in Section 9.100.030. This height restriction shall not apply in the VT Tampico urban mix district. 3. Screening Walls. a. Wall Materials. Walls shall consist of concrete, stucco, plaster, stone, brick, tile or similar type of solid material a minimum of six inches thick. Walls shall utilize durable materials, finishes, and colors consistent with project buildings. b. Wall Articulation. To avoid visual monotony, long straight stretches of wall or fence shall be avoided. Walls and fences shall be varied by the use of such design features as offsets (i.e., jogs), pilasters, open panels (e.g., containing wrought iron), periodic variations in materials, texture or colors, and similar measures. Screening walls or fences may also include open portions (tubular steel, wrought iron, etc.) if the city determines that the desired screening of parking areas and noise attenuation is still achieved. c. Wall Planting. Shrubs and/or vines shall be planted on one or both sides of perimeter walls to add visual softening except where determined infeasible or unnecessary by the city. 4. Other Screening Materials. In addition to walls, if approved by the decision -making authority, screening may consist of one or a combination of the following materials: a. Plant Screens and Berms. Plant materials, when used as a screen, shall consist of compact evergreen plants or landscaped berms (earthen mounds). Such planting shall be of a kind or used in such a manner so as to provide screening with a minimum thickness of two feet within eighteen months after initial installation. Width of landscape strips and other landscaping standards shall be in accordance with subsection M of this section. b. Solid Fences. If permitted in the zoning district, a solid fence shall be constructed of wood or other materials with a minimum nominal thickness of two inches and shall form an opaque screen. c. Open Fences. An open weave or mesh -type fence shall be combined with plant materials to form an opaque screen. M. Parking Facility Landscaping. 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 6 1. Purpose. Landscaping of parking lots is beneficial to the public welfare in that such landscaping minimizes nuisances such as noise and glare, provides needed shade in the desert climate, and enhances the visual environment. Therefore, landscaping shall be incorporated into the design of all off-street parking areas in accordance with this subsection. 2. Preservation of Existing Trees. Where trees already exist, the parking lot shall be designed to preserve as many such trees as feasible (in the opinion of the decision -making authority) in order to make the best use of the existing growth and shade. 3. Screening. Screening of parking areas shall be provided in accordance with subsection L of this section. 4. Perimeter Landscaping. Whenever any parking area, except that provided for single-family dwellings, adjoins a street right-of-way, a perimeter planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area shall be landscaped and continuously maintained. All planting within ten feet of any entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty inches. Berms or low walls may also be incorporated into the planting imate property line (i.e., after street dedication), shall be in accordance with Table 9-15 strip. The width of the planting strip, measured from the ult following. (See also Nonresidential Development Standards, Chapter 9.90.) 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 7 Table 9-15 Required Perimeter Landscaping Street or Highway Minimum Width of Planting Strip (feet) Highway 1 I 1 50 Primary image corridors* 20 Other streets and highways 10 * The following are primary image corridors as identified in the general plan: Washington Street efferson Street Fred Waring Drive , C'alle Tampico, Eisenhower Drive (fi•om Tampico to Washington Street 5. Interior Landscaping. a. Within open parking lots (i.e., not including parking structures) containing four or more parking spaces, landscaping equal to at least five percent of the net parking area shall be provided within parking areas. Perimeter planting strips shall not be credited toward this interior landscaping requirement. b. All open areas between curbs or walls and the property line shall be permanently landscaped and continuously maintained. Landscaping shall include native or drought -tolerant shrubs, trees, vines, groundcovers, hedges, flowers, bark, chips, decorating cinders, gravel, and similar material which will improve the appearance of parking areas. (See also Nonresidential Development Standards, Chapter 9.90.) c. Interior landscaping shall be distributed evenly throughout the entire parking area. d. All landscaped areas shall be separated from adjacent parking or vehicular areas by a curb at least six inches higher than the parking or vehicular area to prevent damage to the landscaped area. 6. Parking Lot Shading. As part of the minimum interior landscaping required per subsection M5 of this section, eight to ten foot tall (minimum fifteen -gallon container size) trees of suitable mature size, spread and climatic conditioning shall be placed throughout the parking area to provide adequate shade for pedestrians and vehicles. Canopy -type trees shall be placed so as to shade a portion of the total parking area within fifteen years in accordance with Table 9-16 following. Table 9-16 Required Parking Lot Shading Minimum Required Parking Spaces Minimum Percent of Parking Area to be Shaded 0-4 n /a 5 or more 50 a. A shade plan shall be submitted with detailed landscaping plans which shows canopies after fifteen years growth to confirm compliance with the above percentage requirements. Professional landscaping judgment shall be used to evaluate the plan as to its fifteen -year growth and coverage and its compliance with the table's percentage shade requirements. Shade coverage shall be determined by the approximate crown diameter of each tree species at fifteen years of age. �J 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards. Page 8 b. Shade structures, such as trellises, may be credited for up to fifty percent of the required parking lot shading specified in Table 9-16 preceding. c. Tree locations should not interfere with required lighting of public areas or parking areas. 7. Landscaped Planters. All planter beds containing trees shall be at least six feet in width or diameter. All landscape planter beds not containing trees shall be at least three feet in width or diameter. Boulders, gravel, and the like, may be integrated with plant material into a well - conceived plan. Berming or other aesthetic approaches integrated into the overall design are encouraged. 8. Curbs Required. All landscaped areas shall be separated from adjacent parking or vehicular areas by a curb or landscape planter at least six inches higher than the parking or vehicular area to prevent damage to the landscaped area. 9. Irrigation. Effective full -coverage irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained in all landscaped areas so that landscaping remains in a healthy growing condition and in compliance with the approved plan. All dead vegetation shall be removed and replaced with the same size and I of not less than two hundred feet. Irrigation water shall be contained within property species plant material. Hose bibs shall be placed at lines. 10. Landscaping of Undeveloped Areas. All undeveloped areas within the interior of any parking area, such as pads for future development, shall be landscaped with appropriate plant material and maintained in good condition. 11. Landscape Plans. Landscape plans shall be submitted in conjunction with grading and other development plans for all parking facilities with four or more spaces, except for single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex residential. Plans shall include all planting, hardscape, items required by this subsection. Plant lists shall be included giving the botanical and common names of the plants to be used irrigation and other and the container size at time of planting. N. Nonconforming Parking. The continuation of uses with parking which does not conform to the provisions of this Chapter 9.150 shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.280 (Nonconformities). (Ord. 414 § 1 (part), 2005; Ord. 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001; Ord. 299 § I (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 ITEM TITLE. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Resolution for Approval of Proposals, Reprogramming Funds and Authorizing the City Manager to Submit Applications to Riverside County Economic Development Agency for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for FY 2006-2007 RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: ,-�=- Adopt a Resolution of the City Council allocating and reprogramming the use of CDBG funds totaling an estimated $202,600 for FY 2006-2007 to: the Boys and Girls Club, La Quinta Unit for the Fee Waiver/Reduction Program ($30,000); and to the City of La Quinta Public Works Department for public facility improvements, i.e. a Village round -a -bout reconstruction located at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro ($172,600), within Redevelopment Project Area 1. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Upon approval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) of the County of Riverside Urban County CDBG monies, the City will be eligible for approximately $202,600 in funds for the project(s) identified in the Resolution. CITY CHARTER IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The CDBG program is an important source of special program funding for the City of La Quinta. The CDBG program is administered by the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA). Each year funding is available from EDA to participating cities in the County for eligible activities. Eligible activities must meet national objectives which include benefits to low- and moderate -income families, the elderly or handicapped; or aid in the elimination of slums or blight. S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\PH 2 CDBG.doc Public service is one of the specific project categories eligible for CDBG funding. The list includes child care, recreation programs, and education programs, among others. All public service activities must show benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. The percent of CDBG funds allowed each year for these activities are limited by formula. The City's maximum allowable public service dollar amount this year is $ 30, 000 . Staff recommends allocating the maximum allowable dollar amount ($30,000) for public service activities to the Boys and Girls Club of the Coachella Valley, La Quinta Unit, to continue the Membership Fee Waiver/Reduction Program. The program provides a fee waiver/reduction for certified low- and moderate -income families of La Quinta students to utilize day care and after school care services provided by the Boys and Girls Club in La Quinta. The Boys and Girls Club charges both an annual and a summer membership fee; the fee waiver and/or reduction allows approximately 1 1 5 children to utilize the programs that otherwise would not be able to participate because of the fee structure. The City also received two other applications for public service monies. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) has requested $10,000 to recruit, train, and provide supervision for five new community volunteers to serve abused, neglected or abandoned children. American Red Cross has requested $5,000 for local disaster relief services. Staff is recommending allocation of funds to the Boys and Girls Club because, as proposed, more La Quinta residents will be served by funding this program than the other requests for public service monies. Historically, the City has funded only one public service agency request. Since the City does not receive any CDBG administrative funding to manage these grant monies, it is not cost effective to allocate monies to several agencies. An estimated amount of $170,000 in CDBG FY 2006-07 grant funds is available to be allocated to the City for public facility improvements. The City of La Quinta Public Works Department has requested funding for the reconstruction of a Village rounda- bout located at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro (Attachment 1) . The proposed project includes the removal and reconstruction of the dysfunctional traffic circle, the construction of a raised center island, elimination of the one-way shortcut circular route immediately west of the existing traffic circle, revised entry alignment of the entering roadways, and the installation of a raised 6 foot wide "truck apron" around the perimeter of the center island. The intersection is well suited for a round -a -bout as five streets converge at this location. The reconstruction of the existing round -a -bout will serve to control traffic speed and better promote the pedestrian oriented environment encouraged in the Village. The project provides improved access to the Community Park and existing and potential affordable housing units. The project meets the national objective for the utilization of CDBG funds to eliminate slums and/or blight and can be funded with the CDBG allocation. The project also meets the criteria for eligibility of eliminating slum or blighting influences as documented in the City Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 . S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\PH 2 CDBG.doc Staff is also recommending reprogramming FY 2003-04 unexpended funds from the Downtown Lighting Improvement project in the amount of $2,600 to the current project request, a Village round -a -bout reconstruction. Please note that since these are unexpended funds they are essentially limited to public facility projects and cannot be used for public service funding. The purpose of this hearing is to review and comment on all proposals, to take public comment, to select and identify proposals, and to reprogram funds if appropriate. The Council's final decision on the use of funds must be reached at the close of tonight's public hearing in order to meet EDA and HUD submittal deadlines. The City will submit "Entitlement Funds Project Application Forms" to EDA. EDA submits, for all participating cities in the CDBG Urban County program, a "Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds to HUD for final approval of CDBG funds for FY 2006-2007. The City received the following grant applications for funding, and copies of the requests are available in the City Clerk's Office: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS: Agency Amount Purpose City of La Quinta $172,600 Public Facility Improvement: Village round - a -bout reconstruction located at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS: Agency Amount Purpose La Quinta Clients Proposed to Serve Boys & Girls Club $30,000 Fee Waiver/Reduction 115 La Quinta Unit After School Program Court Appointed $10,000 Recruiting, training and 15 Special Advocates on -going supervision of (CASA) For Children five new community volunteers American Red Cross $5,000 Disaster Relief Program 29 S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\PH 2 CDBG.doc FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council allocating and reprogramming the use of CDBG funds totaling an estimated $202,600 for FY 2006-2007 to the Boys and Girls Club, La Quinta Unit for the Fee Waiver/Reduction Program ($30,000); and to the City of La Quinta for public facility improvements, i.e. a Village round -a- bout reconstruction located at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro ($1 72,600), within Redevelopment Project Area 1 ; or 2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the City Council allocating and reprogramming the use of CDBG funds totaling an estimated $202,600 for FY 2006-2007 to the Boys and Girls Club, La Quinta Unit for the Fee Waiver/Reduction Program ($30,000); and to the City of La Quinta for public facility improvements, i.e. a Village round -a -bout reconstruction located at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro ($172,600), within Redevelopment Project Area 1 ; or 3. Approve funding alternative eligible requests submitted; or 4. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Douglas R. vans Community Development Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachment: 1 . Location of proposed public improvements At S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\PH 2 CDBG.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING PROPOSALS, REPROGRAMMING FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Funds for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 will be approximately $200,000 to begin July 1, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta must submit to the Riverside County Economic Development Agency project applications; and, WHEREAS, a public notice was published on December 19, 2005, announcing the availability of funds, requesting proposals, and public hearing dates; and, WHEREAS, the merits of all proposals were openly discussed and considered; and, WHEREAS, by a majority vote of the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, the following proposal(s), or reprogramming(s), were selected: PROJECT NAME SPONSOR AMOUNT 1 . Public Facility Improvements: a Village City of La Quinta $1 70,000 Round -A -Bout reconstruction located at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro 2. Fee Waiver/Reduction Program Boys & Girls Club $30,000 La Quinta Unit WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 in the amount of $2,600 were not expended on the approved project, Downtown Lighting Improvement (Project No. 4.LQ.027), the above amount shall be reprogrammed to the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 for the approved CDBG public facility improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta as follows: 1 . That the City of La Quinta does hereby select the above named project(s) or reprogramming(s), for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. P:\Reports - CC\2006\1 -1 7-06\CDBG\CC RESO CDBG 2006-2007.doc City Council Resolution No. 2006- Community Development Block Grant Adopted: January 17, 2006 Page 2 2. That the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to prepare and submit the designated applications to the Riverside County Economic Development Agency in a timely fashion proposing the named activities and use of funds. 3. If there is a shortfall in funding, the City Council directs the City Manager to request the County to increase the City's public service cap in order to fully fund public service approved applications. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 17th day of January, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor, City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, CMC. City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - CC\2006\ 1 - 1 7-06\CDBG\CC RESO CDBG 2006-2007.doc ATTACHMENT 1 !i �11 om..:. Avenioa ivioniezuma anu Hveniva ivavarr0 PROJECT LOCATION