Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PCRES 2002-087
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 98-032, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30651 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-452 APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 3`d day of September, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-452 for Tentative Tract 30651 and Specific Plan 98- 032, Amendment No. 1 herein referred to as the "Project" for Winchester Development; and, WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of 'The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-452) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. P:\PC Reso & COA\September 2002\PC RESO EA 2002-452.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002-087 Environmental Assessment 2002-452 Winchester Development Adopted September 3, 2002 3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified . 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is attached hereto pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance during Project implementation. 7. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 8. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002- 452 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 9. EA 2002-452 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 10. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment P:\PC Reso & COA\September 2002\PC RESO EA 2002-452.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002-087 Environmental Assessment 2002-452 Winchester Development Adopted September 3, 2002 2002-452 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 3rd day of September, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: 1Y HERlYIAN, Community Development Director of La Quinta, California P:\PC Reso & COA\September 2002\PC RESO EA 2002-452.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1 . Project Title: Specific Plan 1998-032, Amendment No. 1, Tentative Tract Map 30651, Quarry Ranch 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Southeast corner of Cahuilla Park Road and Jefferson Street (extended) APN: 766-050-002, 776-050-008, 766-060-001, 766- 060-002, 766-060-013 through -017 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Winchester Development 1 Quarry Lane La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed Specific Plan Amendment removes a 2.2 acre parcel from the "Retreat at the Quarry" Specific Plan (No. 1998-032). The approved Specific Plan permitted up to 23 residential dwelling units on this 2.2 acres, under the Tourist Commercial land use designation. The proposed amendment is required because the property will now be used as the entry point and open space areas for proposed Tentative Tract Map 30651 (see below). The proposed Tentative Tract Map will divide 74.78 acres into 28 lots for single family residential development, lots for private streets and public roadway dedication, 50.49 acres of golf course area, and 5.01 acres of landscaped and/or drainage area. The residential lots range in size from 13,375 to 42,921 square feet, and will generally occur along the southern, eastern and northern edges of the property. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. P:\FR ED\Qu arryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd North: Bureau of Reclamation dike, Open Space lands South: Vacant desert lands, Low Density Residential lands West: Existing single family residential (The Quarry), Low Density Residential East: Jefferson Street (extended), Open Space lands 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 12 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. n I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date P:\FRED\QuarryRanchC hklstEA02-452. wpd Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question, and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance PAFRED\QuarryRanchCh kl stEA02-452. wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving AESTHETICS: Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Site topography, TTM 30651) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) it. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. Land in proximity to project site) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X X P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd IV V d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Attached -Exhibit "A") b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 2002) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)?("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.." Keith Co., June 2002) X X X X X X X X U EI P:\FRED\QuarryRanchCh k1stEA02-452. wpd c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 2002) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) it) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002) in) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (`Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). creating substantial risks to life or property? (Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002) VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChk IstEA02-452. wpd X hi X X X X X X X X X X X d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) vHl. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452.wpd X X X X X X g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede X or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) IX, LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan p. IS ff.) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan p. 95) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no ground borne vibration) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-144 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: X iq X X X X X X X P:\FRED\Quarry RanchCh k1stEA02-452. wpd 9 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan, Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which [night have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(General Plan FIR p. III-29 ff.) P:\FRED\Quarry RanchChklstEA02-452. wpd 10 X X X 0 X X X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Tract Map 30651) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Tract Map 30651) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA. p. 58 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVM MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd 11 X X X X X X X X X X X X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. X X X Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis were used in this review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..., prepared by the Keith Companies, June, 2002. Geotechnical Investigation..., Prepared by Sladden Engineering, July 2002 P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChkistEA02-452.wpd 12 Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study..., Prepared by Tettemer and Associates, July 2002 Personal communication, Patti Schwartz, engineer, Coachella Valley Water District, July and August, 2002 PAFRED\Qu arry Ra nchCh klstEA02-452. wpd 13 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-452 I. a) & c) The proposed project is not located within a General Plan Image Corridor. The site is located at the base of the Coral Reef Mountains, and will not infringe on the mountainside. I. b) The project site is currently vacant. No significant outcroppings or other aesthetic features occur on the site. I. d) The project will generate a minimal amount of light, insofar as the City's dark sky ordinance will be implemented for all lighting plans. These requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties. Furthermore, the project will ultimately result in the construction of only 28 homes, which will not require parking lot lighting or other significant lighting facilities. The potential impacts associated with light and glare are not expected to be significant. II. a)-c) The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The Tentative Tract Map will result in the construction of 28 homes, which will generate up to 269 average daily trips'. Based on this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 8.34 0.32 1.71 -- 0.04 0.04 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 269 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAOMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR. "Trip Generation. Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on single family detached home category. P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 1 The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant. III. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality violations, since buildout will generate only 28 homes. III. c) & d) The construction of the proposed project will have the potential to generate dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller)• The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM10. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. The contractors of all homes on the site will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping shall be installed with the first phase of development. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. P:\FR ED\0.0 arryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 2 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation of the Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts to air quality from buildout will not be significant. III. e) The construction of 28 homes will not generate any objectionable odors. IV) a)-f) A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project2. The assessment found that although the project occurs in the potential habitat area for several species of concern, the habitat on the project site has been degraded by off -road vehicle use and illegal dumping, and these species are not expected to occur on the site. Impacts to biological resources are not expected to be significant. V. a), b) & d) A Phase I cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project3. The survey found no historic structure on the site, but did identify a historic trash dump. The survey also identified a prehistoric site, in the form of sherd scatter. The Phase I study made recommendations for mitigation measures which were confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, as follows: 1 . An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. 2. A Phase II testing program for the historic and prehistoric sites identified on the project shall be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. 2 "General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," prepared by VHBC, Inc., July 24, 2002. 3 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Quarry Ranch Development," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 12, 2002. PAFRED\QuarryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 3 VI. a) i), ii) & iv) A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site °. The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. These requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, and will therefore not be subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The site is subject to flooding erosion, however. The project proponent will be required to secure approval from the Coachella Valley Water District for all flood control plans on the site. These plans will be required to include control of soil erosion. Please also see hydrology discussion below. VI. c)-e) The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and that they will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are loose and that caving occurred during borings. The soils on the site will not support foundation designs unless the following mitigation measure is implemented: 1 . All building areas shall be watered and recompacted as described in the geotechnical analysis, resulting in 90% relative compaction to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing grade or 3 feet below pad grade, whichever is deeper. VII. a)-h) The construction of 28 homes on the project site will not expose residents or neighbors to hazards or hazardous materials. The site is not located within an airport land use plan. The site is not located within a wildland fire area. All emergency responses will be implemented in accordance with the City's Emergency Response Plan, in cooperation with the County of Riverside. VIII. a), c), d) & e) The project site is located immediately south of the Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 2, which is managed by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The site will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows tributary to ° "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Short Course Development The Quarry �•prepared by Sladden Engineering, July 31, 2002. P:\FR ED\Qu arryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 4 Dike No. 2. Siltation and debris were also identified as issues in .this area, due to its proximity to the Coral Reef Mountains. The proposed project improvements include an earthen ditch with flood wall at the southwest corner of the property, another along the southern boundary of the site, and a trapezoidal channel within the Jefferson Street right of way. CVWD required the preparation of a hydraulics, hydrology and drainage study for the proposed projects, to address flood control issues on the site. CVWD is still reviewing the materials at this writing, but has indicated that the proposed improvements, with some modifications, will reduce the impacts associated with drainage and flood control on the site to less than significant levels. In order to assure that this is the case, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. The project proponent shall secure approval of all flood control improvements from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any earth moving activity at the site. VIII. b) Buildout of the site will result in the construction of 28 homes which will utilize groundwater for domestic and landscaping. The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. All units will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on - site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water - conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. IX. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site. No impacts to land use and planning will result from construction of 28 single family homes. X.a) & b) The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain resources. XI. a) The project site is not located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise levels. The location of 28 homes on the site will not generate significant noise levels. The impacts associated with noise are not expected to be significant. XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction 5 "Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study for Quarry Ranch....," prepared by Tettemer and Associates, July 2002. P:\FR ED\QuarryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 5 equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the north, west and south of the site. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located as far away from existing homes as possible. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XI. d) & e) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. XII. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and witl result in the construction of only 28 residential units. No impacts to population and housing are expected. XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services. All homes within the tract map boundary will be required to pay the state - mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, each project within the tract map area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XIV. a) & b) The buildout of the tentative tract area will result in an increase in population which will have a need for recreational facilities. The project site will include golf course areas which can be used by the residents for recreation. The generation of property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level. P:\FREE\QuarryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 6 XV. a) & b) The buildout of the proposed project will result in 269 average daily trips. The proposed project falls well within the land use analysed in the General Plan EIR traffic study. The impacts associated with traffic are not expected to be significant. XV. c)-g) The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the map does not create any hazardous design features. The homes will be required to provide parking according to City standards. The map provides for two emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form of trails will be implemented based on General Plan policies and programs. XVI. a)-f) Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer and individual homeowners will be required to pay connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to incorporate future needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities at the site. P:\FR ED\Qua rryRanchAdd02-452. wpd 7 � � ° F d L U) o z o o � � A F o � F ' 0 � ° W k Cd F I� o 1 z o � U � a o O d a r O dC) p z w F• p v� z w a F d F �a z w o Fz Y F N oFa U m U o U Vw] H� UO, A FA d N a U N N w w 0 U N U N U w F zz o° o z O z v ad rA w A U w d F O w C a � U �WqW, .a U �w O� UU � m Y � on p O U U F o N o N ��o 0 C.)U 0. U o h � o Y o co Y Y Y D.P. bo ci a m z va o t � Ca Ca A to w �c r U U U N z cn a w .. a `n ° b �Fy � a�i N `" C ✓. �' on r; Cd to a .. � 8 m / \� �q \� / � ; u \§ \\ ]5 tn \ b \ Eto to .[ 2 / \( ) ) e3 ƒ ƒ /k�- 2 � \\ \\ uo uo § to - to /b § § ) )\ \ \\ ) \ \ \ \/ \ \\o) ( ; \� & \� / � \ § : \\ / E � ) 3 ($ \$ E / \ \� w§ ( §\ o � § 4 J \ j q u }) Q \ / � \ [i y )7 ! /§ \ * tt § � / (\ uo \ � j- rq > } }_ � \ ( 7 0.2 2 9 ° § )\ \ \� ; \� § 2 \ / \ i ) / = o = E\ (cn \ j / ) z [ / 2 0 / \z 4 / eb \ & ) § �wCfj \ @ _ \ / Q ± Q c EXHIBIT A General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch La Quinta, CA — Martinez Mt. Quad, Section 29 UTM 11: 567334E, 3719637N APN: 766-050-002 SUMMARY FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT: No signs of rare, threatened or endangered species were observed on the proposed Quarry Ranch project site while protocol surveys for the desert tortoise, bighorn sheep, flat -tailed horned lizard, Palm Springs ground squirrel, Palm Springs pocket mouse and burrowing owl were completed. The site does provide potential habitat for these species in the form of Palo Verde Woodland/Sonoran Desert Scrub and mountainside habitat. This habitat may be used for foraging and shelter by although no signs of the use of the site by these species were observed during the extensive surveys. Development of the project would eliminate 70 acres of lowland habitat and up to 1 acre of mountainside habitat which may be used by these species. Impacts to wildlife corridors are expected to be insignificant. Owner: Quarry Ranch, L.L.C. 41865 Boardwalk, Suite 214 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Survey Period: June 15 — July 21, 2002 Biologists: VHBC, Incorporated 6895 Ironwood Drive Riverside, CA 92506 Report Date 24 July, 2002 Prepared By: Victor M. Horchar, Senior VHBC Biologist TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Biological Resource Evaluation 5 Survey Findings 9 Species -Specific Information . 10 Conclusions 17 Mitigation 17 Literature Reviewed 18 Appendix A: Botanical Resources 20 Appendix B: Wildlife Resources 22 Appendix C: California Natural Diversity Database. 24 Appendix D: County Attachments (E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6) 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A comprehensive assessment of the biological resources on the Quarry Ranch site was completed between June 15, 2002 and July 21, 2002. No signs of rare, threatened or endangered species were observed on the proposed Quarry Ranch project site while protocol surveys for the desert tortoise, bighorn sheep, flat -tailed horned lizard, Palm Springs ground squirrel, Palm Springs pocket mouse and burrowing owl were completed. Development of the project would eliminate 70 acres of lowland habitat and up to 1 acre of mountainside habitat which may be used by these species. Survey timing is a primary limitation to these findings. Annual botanical resources were difficult to identify because they were dessicated, damaged or dead. Botanical surveys conducted during the spring would have resolved the identity of many annual species. Additionally, the air temperature during the first weeks of the surveys was excessive (ranging from 97F to 118 F). Surveys during late June and throughout July were conducted only in the early morning and late aftemoon/early evening in order to increase the chances of observing active wildlife resources. INTRODUCTION Quarry Ranch, L.L.C. proposes to construct 28 residential lots and a golf course on the proposed project site. The project site is located in southern La Quinta, California (Figure 1). The site includes an abandoned sand and gravel quarry (Figure 2) around which the residential lots are to be constructed. Two additional lots may be constructed on the southwestern portion of the site ("the panhandle" portion of the site). The proposed golf course is planned for the center of the site and the southwestern portion of the site. Because VHBC has extensive experience completing biological surveys in the area for the University of California, California Department of Fish and Game and private developers, Quarry Ranch, L.L.C. contracted VHBC, Incorporated to complete a Biological Assessment of the proposed project site. The goal of Quarry Ranch L.L.C. is to address any biological resource issues that may arise from the development of the project and resolve them prior to development. FIGURE 1 Project Location FIGURE 2 Project Site Aerial BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prior to conducting surveys of the project site and extensive review of federal, state and local records of biological resources in the vicinity was completed. Data from the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database was obtained for the La Quinta USGS quadrangles. The literature review indica.-,d that the following endangered, threatened or rare species occur in the vicinity and have the potential to occur on -site: desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Deep Canyon snapdragon (Antirrhinum cyanthiferum), glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana), California ditaxis (Ditaxis serrata californica), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum), slender woolly -heads (Nemacaulis denudata gracilis), flat -tailed homed -lizard (Phrynosoma m'callii), black -tailed gnatcateher (Polioptila melanura), vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale), Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), and the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata). The County of Riverside includes the following additional species: bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi) , and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). In order to determine if the aforementioned species occur on the project site, intensive biological surveys were completed using the 1992 federal survey protocol for desert tortoise surveys. This protocol required a detailed review of the entire site by walking 30-foot wide belt transects that spanned the length of the site (Figure 3). Additionally, the survey protocol required the evaluation of perimeter ("zone of influence") transects situated 100', 300', 600', 1,200' and 2,400' from the edge of the site where possible. The terrain around the site made it difficult to cover the extremely steep areas (Figure 4). FIGURE 3 Survey Transects The lines crossing the project site depict the location of survey transects. The lines outside of the site perimeter depict the location of "zone of influence" transects which were disrupted in several locations by the presence of the Coachella Canal, private property and insurmountable peaks and ridges. IN FIGURE 4 U.S.G.S. Topographic map of the project site and surroundings. The hillsides around the site were so steep that zone of influence surveys were interrupted. .. + f Y ( `F _ [ ___aaaaa An l AVENUE 2 NI awl 28 Pit �ke�cahuil „ Q = _.County Pa 11t0 22 .i h Weather Conditions Surveys were conducted over several weeks from June 15 through July 21, 2001 The weather conditions during the surveys follow and are averages based on three weather readings taken on -site during each survey day between June 15 and June 28. Afterwards, surveys were scheduled for early morning and late afternoon (instead of all day) and the data collected were averaged for both a.m. and p.m. surveys (from July 5 through July 21). Date Air Temperature Precipitation Cloud Cover Wind Sneed June 15 34.6 C 0 clear 9.4 mph June 16 28.4 C 0 clear 7.6 mph June 17 31.5 C 0 clear 8.2 mph June 18 36.6 C 0 clear 9.1 mph June 19 37.1 C 0 clear 9.7 mph June 20 29.8 C 0 clear 8.4 mph June 21 34.5 C 0 clear 11.3 mph June 22 33.4 C 0 clear 9.4 mph June 23 36.3 C 0 clear 7.3 mph June 24 35.2 C 0 clear 7.9 mph June 27 37.2 C 0 clear 11.8 mph June 28 34.5 C 0 clear 6.2 mph July 5 23.1 C 0 clear 4.0 mph July 6 23.3 C 0 clear calm July 7 23.9 C 0 clear calm July 8 25.6 C 0 clear calm July 9 24.0 C 0 clear calm July 12 29.4 C 0 clear 4.0 mph July 13 29.0 C 0 clear calm July 14 29.4 C 0 clear 7.0 mph July 15 31.1 C 0 clear calm July 16 29.2 C 0 clear 4.6 mph July 19 28.3 C 0 clear 8.5 mph July 20 24.4 C 0 clear 12 mph July 21 21.7 C 0 clear 6 mph K SURVEY FINDINGS After surveying a total of 36.7 linear miles of transects no signs of rare, threatened or endangered species were observed. The site includes habitat that is suitable for use by the following species: desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), flat -tailed homed -lizard (Phrynosoma m'callii), black -tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale), Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis ), Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). However, none of these species were observed on the project site during these extensive surveys. Plants Approximately 70 acres of the 78 acre site includes a mixture of Palo Verde Woodland and Sonoran Desert Scub (Figure 5 & Figure 6). The perennial botanical species that comprise the habitat on the project site include: blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), cat -claw acacia (Acacia greggii), ironwood (Olneya tesota), smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus), cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), creosote (Larrea tridentata), Spanish needles (Palofoxia arida), saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), tequilia (Tequilia plicata), desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi), pencil cholla (Opuntia ramocissima) and Croton (Croton californica) among others. The annual botanical species included schismus (Schismus barbatus), Chia sage (Salvia columbarea), red brome (Bromus rubens), Bermuda grass (Cyanodon dacrylon) among others. A complete list of botanical resources is included herein as Appendix A. FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 Animals The wildlife species observed on the project site included the following: desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), zebra -tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), red diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus Tuber), glossy snake (Arizona elegans), coyote (Canis latrans), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), beechy ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechyi), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), raven (Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodactus mexicanus), European starling (Sturnus vulgarus), Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costa), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottus), and western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis). A complete list of wildlife resources is included herein as Appendix B. SPECIES SPECIFIC INFORMATION Desert tortoise (Gopherus apassizii) Although the project site is within the range of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) as shown on the CVMSHCP map in Figure 7 below, no signs of this animal were observed on -site. Signs would have included any of the following: a live tortoise, scat, bones, scutes, burrows, tracks, etc. The human use of the site as is shown in Figure 8 wherein vehicle tracks, trails and debris may have eliminated the desert tortoise from the site. 10 Glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana) This species of plant is known to occur in the La Quinta area. It is normally found in Sonoran Desert Scrub and would be detected during the spring of 2003 if it occurs on the project site. Detailed surveys of the site during this effort yielded only dead and dessicated specimens that could not even be identified as Ditaxis because of their condition. Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) This falcon is known to occur in very limited numbers in the Coachella Valley. The project site may be used as a place to forage. Nesting sites are possible, but surveys for nesting prairie falcons would have to be completed during their breeding and nesting season. Flat -tailed homed -lizard (Phrynosoma m'callii) The common assumption about flat -tailed homed lizard is that it is restricted to aeoline sand deposits similar to those required by the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard. However, this species of homed lizard has been observed in high abundance near El Centro where aeoline sand deposits are sparse. In 1990 we observed 24 flat -tailed homed lizards on the bombing range in El Centro wherein these animals utilized non-aeoline sand soils and existing rodent burrows for cover. Some of the soils utilized by this species included hard -pan and rocky substrates. The Quarry Ranch project site includes a variety of soil types ranging from coarse loamy sand to hard -pan and rocks. Aeoline sand dunes are not present on -site. Because of this, the surveys for this species were intensified and did not focus on only sandy areas. However, no signs of this species were observed. Black -tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura) This small bird is known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. It usually occurs in desert wash habitat and desert scrub habitat in the Sonoran Desert of Southern California. This species is typically found in winter although observations have been made throughout the year by these surveyors on other sites. Habitat for this species is present on -site although no live black -tailed gnatcatchers were observed during these surveys. Vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus) The bird is not difficult to identify because of its striking coloration. Although CNDDB records document only one sighting of this species in the Indian Wells area in 1930, this species was observed immediately north of Deep Canyon Research Center in Palm Desert a few months ago by this surveyor. It was observed in Sonoron desert scrub similar to that which is on the project site. Although no signs of this species were observed during these surveys, the project site does include potential habitat for this species. Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) This species of bird occurs in riparian woodland plant communities such as wet wash areas and the surrounding areas. It has been observed in more xeric conditions while foraging. Recent sightings of this species have not included the La Quinta area although 12 the presence of artificial water sources and riparian areas on golf courses may attract this species. No signs of this bird were observed on the project site and typical habitat for this species is absent from the site. Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) This species of bird occurs in open desert wash areas which include desert scrub, alkali scrub and/or desert succulent scrub according to the California Department of Fish and Game. This bird has been observed on several occasions in the La Quinta area by this surveyor although it was not observed on the project site. Habitat for this bird is present on -site. Desert Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) The San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains are known to be occupied by extremely limited numbers of the desert bighorn sheep. The San Jacinto population includes less than 35 sheep and the Santa Rosa population has no more than 50 bighorn sheep (Figure 9). A group of the Santa Rosa population is known to occur near the La Quinta area. Information on the exact location of the La Quinta population has been suppressed to prevent curious viewers and poachers from impacting them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bighorn Sheep Institute have the records on the La Quinta population. The project site is immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of bighorn habitat but the site is not within designated "Critical Habitat". Impacts to the lowlands of the project site wherein residential units and the majority of the golf course are planned may remove potential foraging habitat for this species, although heavy human use of the area from existing developments, vehicle use on -site and debris deposition appears to have eliminated their use of the site. FIGURE 9 Range of the desert bighorn sheep SOUTHERN CALFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP RANGE ! q �r 6� = Habitat Area for Ovis ca+radensis off. nelsoni PROJECT d SITE 13 Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus) This ground squirrel is known to occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Figure 10). Although it was not observed during these surveys there is a chance that this species may utilize the site to forage. The desert scrub present on -site is typical of that which is used commonly by the Palm Springs ground squirrel. The species of ground squirrel observed on the project site is the Beechy ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechyi). FIGURE 10 Palm Springs Ground Squirrel Distribution Map • Known locations ® Palm Sorings Ground Squirrel Distribution Model Cities f PROJECTI k, 14 Palm Springs pocket mouse Werooathus loneimembris bangsi) Because of the heavy humand impacts to the site (trash deposition, off -road vehicle use) the Palm Springs pocket mouse is not expected to occur within the borders of the proposed development. This species does occur in the La Quinta (Figure 11) according to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and California Department of Fish and Game. FIGURE 11 Palm Springs Pocket Mouse Distribution • Kn( ® Pal Dis 0 Citi 15 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) The burrowing owl is the smallest North American owl. It is found typically utilizing ground squirrel burrows, abandoned pipes and abandoned structures for cover. Although no signs of this owl were observed on the project site it is known to occur in low numbers throughout North America and therefore the Coachella Valley (Figure 12). Burrowing owls were observed in the open space north of Avenida 58 northeast of the project site. FIGURE 12 Range of the burrowing owl in North America. 16 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the data collected during this extensive survey, the proposed development of the Quarry Ranch residential and golf course project is not expected to result in significant impacts to any rare, threatened or endangered species. The project will remove approximately 70 acres of potential disturbed and degraded foraging habitat for common species. Impacts to the glandular ditaxis or California ditaxis cannot be quantified at this time because these surveys were contracted during a time when these ditaxis species are dessicated, dead or dying. Habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, Deep Canyon snapdragon and Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket are not present on the project site. MITIGATION No mitigation should be required because of the degraded nature of the project site at this time. 17 LITERATURE REVIEWED Bainbridge, David A., Veronique M. Rorive and Robert M. Dixon. 1993. Imprinting to improve native plant establishment in and lands. Prepared for Caltrans, District 11 as part of the Desert Revegetation Project. Bainbridge, David A. and Ross A. Virginia. 1991. Irrigation for remote sites. Prepared under contract to Caltrans, District 11. 1990. Restoration in the Sonoran Desert of California. Restoration and Management Notes 8(1):3-13. California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Natural Diversity Database Printout, La Quinta Quadrangle. 5 pp. Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2001. CVMSHCP Maps. 26 pp. Hickman, James C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1400 pp. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Horchar, V. 1995. Flat -tailed horned lizard home range on NAS El Centro bombing range. Unpublished report. 29 pp. Horchar, V. 1990. Home range dynamics of the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard. Unpublished MA thesis. California State University, Fullerton. 72 pp. LSA Associates, Inc. 1993. The Reserve: biological assessment for desert tortoise, Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep, Coachella Valley milk -vetch and triple -ribbed milk -vetch. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs/South Coast Resource Area and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1992a. The Reserve at Hidden Valley, evaluation of regulatory jurisdiction. Prepared for the Lowe Development Corporation. Mayhew, W. M. 1988. Vertebrates and their habitats on the Deep Canyon transect. Unpublished Report prepared by Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, Univ. of California Natural Reserve System. 32 pp. Muth, A. and M. Fisher. 1994. Population dynamics of the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. 47 pp. W. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphihians. Houghton - Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 338pp. St. John, T.V. 1988. Soil disturbance and the mineral nutrition of native plants. In J.P. Reiger and B.K. Williams (eds.). Proceedings of the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium, San Diego, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Habitat mitigation and monitoring proposal guidelines. Los Angeles District, Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles, CA. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Survey protocol for the Desert Tortoise. 24pp. VHBC, Incorporated. 1999. Biological Assessment of the Seawest Catellus site. 34 pp. VHBC, Incorporated. 2002. Biological Assessment of the Fairway Outdoor Advertising site. 21 pp. VHBC, Incorporated. 2002. Biological Monitoring Report Years 1 - 4: Lowe Development. 137 pp. 19 APPENDIX A FLORAL COMPENDIUM Key Y = yes N=no GYMNOSPERMAE CONE -BEARING PLANTS Ephedraceae Ephedra Family Ephedra aspera Mormon tea Ephedra nevadensis Mormon tea ANGIOSPERMAE Asteraceae Ambrosia dumosa Bebbia juncea Encelia farinosa Hymenoclea salsola Boraginaceae Amsinkia tessellata Cryptantha microantha Cactaceae Ferocactus acanthodes Opuntia bigelovii Opuntia brevifolia Opuntia echinocarpa Opuntia ramossimma Capparaceae Isomeris arborea Chenopodiaceae Atriplex polycarpa Grayia spinosa Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia albomarginata Euphorbia polycarpa Fabaceae Acacia gregii Cercidium jloridum Psorothamnus fremontii DICOTYLEDONES (picots Sunflower Family burrowbush sweetbush brittlebush cheesebush Borage Family fiddleneck small -flower cryptantha Cactus Family California red barrel cactus teddybear cholla beavertail cactus golden cholla pencil cholla Caper Family bladderpod Saltbush Family saltbush hopsage Spurge Family rattlesnake weed sandmat Pea Family cat-calw acacia blue palo verde indigo bush Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y a ANGIOSPERMAE DICOTYLEDONES (picots) Psorothamnus schottii dalea Psorothamnus spinosus smoke tree Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare Salvia columbarae Salvia carduacea Loasaceae Petalonyx thurberi Onograceae Camissonia (boothii ?) Polygonaceae Eriogonum fasciculatum Eriogonum inflatum Eriogonum viridescens Zygophyllaceae Larrea tridentata ANGIOSPERMAE Poaceae Bromus rubens Poa ssp. Schismus barbatus Geranium Family storksbill Mint Family horehound chia sage blue sage Loasa Family sandpaper plant Primrose Family bottlebrush Buckwheat Family California buckwheat desert trumpet angle eriogonum Caltrop Family creosote bush OBSERVED? Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y (dead) Y Y Y Y MONOCOTYLEDONES (Monocots) Grass Family red brome Y Poa grass Y (dead) schismus Y 21 APPENDIX B WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM Key E = Expected O = Observed OBSERVED/ REPTILIA REPTILES EXPECTED Colubridae Colubrid Snake Family Masticophis flagellum coachwhip E Gekkonidae Gecko Family Coleonyx variegatus desert banded gecko O Iguanidae Iguanine Lizard Family Callisaurus draconoides zebra -tailed lizard O Crotaphytus insularis collared lizard E Dipsosaurus dorsalis desert iguana O Urosaurus microscutatus small -scaled tree lizard E Uta stansburiana side -blotched lizard O Teiidae Whiptail Lizard Family Cnemidophorus tigris western whiptail lizard O Viperidae Pit Vipers & Rattlesnakes Crotalus ruber red diamondback rattlesnake O AVES BIRDS Cathartidae Vulture Family Cathartes aura turkey vulture O Columbidae Pigeon & Dove Family Zenadia macroura mourning dove O Corvidae Crow & Raven Family Corvus corax raven O Fringillidae Finch Family Carpodactus mexicanus house finch O Laniidae Shrike Family Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike O 22 MAMMALIA Canidae Canis domesticus Canis latrans Heteromyidae Dipodomys merriami Leporidae Lepus californicus Sciuridae Spermophilus beechyi OBSERVED/ MAMMALS EXPECTED? Dog, Wolf & Fox Family domestic dog O coyote O Kangaroo Rat Family Merriam's kangaroo rat E Rabbit & Hare Family Black -tailed jackrabbit O Squirrel Family CA Ground squirrel O 23 APPENDIX C CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE PRINTOUT (Follows this page.) ►W u z z 00 Eu a 0 u a W W O F 4 � S a w o F y toil w❑ 433 u u W ry 0 m a W z a .A O U a Z O W W V O u W G z° z a o a fWil 2 w ❑W ❑ N a ads Y C zo O z Y C zo 4. a 4 w z O ZZ,, W a WE o ❑ o °Fa 0 fal F FSN y W . ££UO SO 4 Wu Wa fa.] mza z+O F vwiF W faw wooz o q4z$$0mo O ° W a EE � W as0�❑in Qo.a�.]] Z W W o W w N Q H K 41 O C .a] gg pOW� Q 446 roO0f+ry1 a > .l F W Z 4 > O 4 V u u u u G C L C C N X itl x A x N L x x W W w w w 'O 9 E E E E E m Y m V m V m m H a M a H a N 1Vi a a x a x x K x o 0 x m x x a a Y C zo io ° Pw3 �` » _¥ !.6 0 }]®! �r 2,l: )§ a 2e) \)§a\)/§ \u \0a a, /!m§® §§�(/§�(§ ).04 w §)5E `/ . �. }{ ) ) { { { ) ) 40 \-0 E} ;, \z\\\§) )\� ;/2 ]E §( /]).m[ /\\\ § ) \ () )(\ ( ) r }� \� ) !§ w§ {2[6 � � ( [§EE§ /§ { { ) ) �/ a N 5 04 W O 3 N n F 5 U S 3 3 W aou�a g N g n a n a m o a� o�� A Y N u N rG4 N N N N W W W W W fil W LXl W Ir%1 E E E E E E E E u v M v N v v N M v Y N y y v v W N O O N X X P P X X rl rl '1 n ti .PX4 X N N W W o W� uyo. 0 aZ o 0.0.0.z''' w w z� ym Zi a h a o a E o 0 f0�1 a3 F0.' „rFi W W W a41 a' W 42 4„1„ µW1 >yW 4 fa+140F� W�N 4�SO W W H a W u o�wzrmH� OF a Z W 4 Q W W£ N 4 " O N K Z F m W F 2 F H F F w w < 4 'Ho zoowowow.4www..0 u u aoa O U M W m v v v v m C ❑ c c v 0 ° ° z z z z° uGi V C N C W N W W C C C H O z Z Z z F m W q 4u NW SR FF m a a w62 N w N O W £ N K U w 4 q a 4z Q d w N O O O U N N w a sd a w w o d a H .❑i 0.�.]�F O W V 4 FAO O pp£ W U 3 C V F ❑ o� 4 3� O m 3 to ; 0 OU 4 3 C G A u A K X 41 9 til U C U j m U y U m j m u u ti Y m 4 41 d u ❑ O X o u e m m N y m 6 Attachment E-2 APPENDIX D RIVERSIDE COUNTY ATTACHMENTS FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE REPORTS Information Summary Item A Report Date: 24 July, 2004 Survey Period: June 15 — July 21, 2002 Item B Report Title: General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch Item C Project Site Location: La Quinta, Riverside County, CA Martinez Mt. Quadrangle Section 29 UTM 11: 567334E, 3719637N Item D APN: 766-050-002 Item E Owner/Applicant: Mr. John Shaw, Quarry Ranch, L.L.C./Dave Dawson, TKC 41865 Boardwalk, Suite 214 Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-9844 (Quarry Ranch) (760) 250-9426 (TKC) Item F Principal Investigator: Victor Horchar, VHBC Incorporated Senior Biologist 6895 Ironwood Drive Riverside, CA 92506 (909)789-1015 Item G Report Summary: No signs of rare, threatened or endangered species were observed on the proposed Quarry Ranch project site. The site does provide potential degraded foraging habitat in the form of Palo Verde Woodland/Sonoran Desert Scrub. Impacts to wildlife corridors are expected to be insignificant. Item H Name and Phone Number of Person Preparing Report: Victor Horchar (909) 789-1015 25 Attachment E-3 BIOLOGICAL REPORT SUMMARY SHEET (Must be attached to biological report) Applicant Name: 01dR 22y IZa v�.0 , t,�� C. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN): 76G — t Si) — ,�P�F-eeak-c MaR--ri.dEz nd7. [&tRn2a.�c�-l.F Site Location: Section: 2 Township: Range: Site Address: LA ©vt rrH . GA Related Case Number(s):. PDO Number:. Check /TEM(S) Habitat Assessment Check /TEM(S) *Focused Surve SPECIES or HABITAT OF CONCERN (Circle whether a potential for significant impact to species or resource exists **) Arroyo Southwestern Toad Yes No Drainages/WatersofU.S. Yes No ✓ Coachella Valley Fringed -Toed Lizard Yes o Coastal California Gnatcatcher Yes No Coastal Sage Scrub Yes No Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Yes No Desert Pupfish Yes No Desert Slender Salamander Yes No Desert Tortoise Yes o V Flat -Tailed Homed Lizard Yes o Least Bell's Vireo Yes No Oak Woodlands Yes No Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Yes No Riverside Fairy Shrimp Yes Santa Ana River Woolystar Yes San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Yes [jNo Slender Homed Spineflower Yes Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Yes No Vernal Pools Yes No Ch eck /Ch ck ) Habitat Assessment Check !TL M(S) *Focused Surve SPECIES or HABITAT OF CONCERN Wetlands (Circle whether a potential for significant impact to species or resource exists **) Yes No Riparian Habitat Burrowing Owl Bighorn Sheep Yes Yes Yes No No o IL r .J Red -legged Frog Yes No IIYJ Other: ?pLMS Ril v r e-� Yes o �Ik,"� Other.` M5 ftq- c ,;Cr Yes Other: Yes No I� Other: Yes No Other: Yes No * Focused Survey: a) Survey on a listed species performed per USFWS or CDFG protocol by licensed individual (i.e., CaGn, SKR, QCB), OR b) For non -listed spp., survey performed per protocol recognized by USFWS or CDFG, or other applicable agency (i.e., Burrowing Owl), OR c) For jurisdictional waters, wetlands, & riparian areas, following protocol of U.S.Army Corp of Engineers. ** Species of concern are any unique, rare, endangered, or threatened species; species used to delineate wetlands and riparian corridors; and any hosts, perching, or food plants used by any animals listed as rare, endangered, threatened or candidate species by either State or Federal regulations, or those tracked by the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB). I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this summary sheet is in accordance with the information provided in the biological report. _/ and Title 20tf%-z- Date Report Prepared I0(a) Permit Number (if applicable) 10(a) Permit Expiration Date Attachment E-3 Page 2 of 2 E-3.2 766-050-002 U &N LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Must be attached to report) Riverside County Case No.*: Wildlife & Vegetation Potentially Less than Significant I Less than No Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact (Check the level of impact that applies to the following questions) QJC, rf y P-A,4 c L LL C- A h ttac ment E4 EA Number: a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan? 0�:� • b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? 0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? OLoss of degraded foraging habita* d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? O f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Q h) Create any impact which is individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130 (14 Calif. Code of Regs). • • O Loss of degraded foraging habitat * Required — E-4.1 Attachment E4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Findings of Fact: Seventy (70) acres of Sonoran Desert Scrub/Palo Verde Woodland mix will be eliminated. Less than one (1) acre of rocky mountainside habitat will be eliminated. No rare, threatened or endangered species were observed on -site or are expected to be impacted significantly by this project. Loss of potential degraded foraging habitat will result. Impacts to this potential foraging habitat is not considered significant to these species. Proposed Mitigation: None Monitoring Recommended: None Prepared By: Received by: Date: 2A-1 04 County Use Only PD-B# Related Case #: Date: Jun 10 02 10:59a Ct? LJ o O J w 0 .( Liz \l > C O Qj_j d LO The Keith Companies 760 346 9368 p.2 r 1 o i' � 11 r P q i � r i _ _ C v 4 r } m-P,-.—'—tie= , a -- <. � .. a 4 a Y t L S nr R_ Y + .t. �l � r e 4 - n .. 7:, 1 . ..._....,., . non s.. s r. >e 9�t f View From NE Corner to the SE Imana(1Q