Loading...
2013 01 22 CC5 CF`M OP Tttti9� NOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND TO THE CITY CLERK: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of La Quinta is hereby called to be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 5:00 p.m., at the La Quinta Public Library, 78-275 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. Dated: January 16, 2013 Attest: Susan Maysels City Clerk DECLARATION OF POSTING �. r. I, Susan Maysels, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Special La Quinta City Council meeting of January 22, 2013, 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 111 on January 18, 2013 DATED: January 16, 2013 Susan Maysels, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California City Council 1 January 22, 2013 f ZY City Council agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: wwwda-quinta.org CITY COUNCIL AGENDA LA QUINTA LIBRARY 78-275 Calle Tampico, La Quinta SPECIAL MEETING on TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013 AT 5:00 P.M. Beginning Resolution No. 2013-007 Ordinance No. 507 CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 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 fimit your comments to three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.21b►. CLOSED SESSION — NONE CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA PRESENTATIONS 1.' PRESENTATION REGARDING CITY REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND SERVICES, AND CITY COUNCIL, BOARD AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION REGARDING REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OPTIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE "n,. i . 002 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 JANUARY 22, 2013 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE BUSINESS SESSION - NONE STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF THE 2035 LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - NONE DEPARTMENT REPORTS - NONE MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBER'S ITEMS - NONE PRESENTATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on February 5, 2013, commencing with closed session at 3:00 p.m. and open session at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Susan Maysels, City Clerk, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting was posted near the entrance to the Council Chambers at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on January 18, 2013. DATED: January 17, 2013 SUSAN MAYSELS, dity Clerk City of La. Quinta, California 0 0113 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 JANUARY 22, 2013 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 777-7123, 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, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777- 7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission 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 meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Planning Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. 004 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - 3 JANUARY 22, 2013 CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: January 22, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Discussion of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: I PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Discuss language of the 2035 General Plan and provide direction to staff regarding language deletions or modifications that align the General Plan with the Council's visions. SUMMARY: During the December 18, 2012 City Council meeting (Attachment 1), a public hearing was conducted for the 2035 La Quinta General Plan (Plan). Several public comments were received and, as a result, the Council decided to continue the matter and hold a study session. Discussion points are as follows: • The Plan includes the use of certain words resulting in concerns that there may be a connection between the Plan and the United Nations Agenda 21 action plan. For example, the word "sustainability," which has been commonly defined as "the capacity to endure," appears to have originated from the concept sustainable development that the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations introduced in 1987. "Sustainability" is now commonly used in a variety of ways that have no direct connection to the UN Agenda 21 action plan. A list of words previously provided to staff that have been identified as supporting the UN Agenda 21 initiative is attached (Attachment 2). • Discussion during the December 18, 2012 public hearing briefly focused upon eliminating the Sustainable Community Element (Element) of the Plan and distributing its contents to different chapters and sections. The purpose and intent of this Element is to focus upon quality of life options and opportunities for the community. Though the language, as well as the goals, policies and programs, could be integrated into other chapters and sections, retaining this Element would emphasize the importance of the quality of life 'matters identified. In addition, this effort would result in additional resources being expended and is anticipated to exceed the project budget. • With much of the concern being focused upon the perception that the City is supporting the UN Agenda 21 action plan as the Plan is currently written, a disclaimer or explanation of the City's purpose and intent, including direct reference to not supporting Agenda 21, could be a viable solution. The addition of such language would provide the opportunity for the City to clearly define the Plan's main objective, while also allowing certain concerning words to remain as currently written. ALTERNATIVES: Refer proposed draft Plan and supporting documents back to staff for further revisions, or discuss and incorporate any adjustments deemed appropriate. Respectfully Les Director Attachments: 1. December 18, 2012 Staff Report 2. Agenda 21 related word list ATTACHMENT 1 CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: December 18, 2012 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Resolutions to Approve the Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan and the 2035 La Quinta General Plan RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: _ STUDY SESSION: 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt Resolution 2012- approving the certification of an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Update, making certain findings and statements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Adopt Resolution 2012-_ approving the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Update. Adopt Resolution 2012-_ approving the General Plan Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The General Plan serves as the primary guiding policy document for the City. It is based upon extensive research and modeling, feedback from public outreach, prior policy determinations, as well as the professional recommendations of City staff and the consulting team. While its format and certain subject areas are mandated by State law, the document has been crafted to reflect the goals and values of the City.of La Quints. The policies and data it contains serve as the foundation of the City's planning efforts and, as such, the General Plan is one of the most important policy documents adopted by the City. The current General Plan was adopted on March 20, 2002. Due to a number of changed factors since then including new state legislation and the recent economic slowdown, the General Plan has been revised and updated to better reflect the direction of the community. While much of the land use designations and policies are largely consistent with the current General Plan, adjustments have been made to simplify the document as well as address recent legislative changes. The notable adjustments are as follows: «a ... 007 • Two new Elements have been added to the draft General Plan: Sustainable Community (Attachment 1 pg. II-133) and Economic Development (Attachment 1 pg. II-163). • The land use categories have been simplified and consolidated (Attachment 1 Table 11-1, pg. II-2). • A few minor changes to existing land use designations have been made from the current General Plan map, such as the accurate designation of existing conservation lands, pocket parks, water district facilities, recent amendments to the General Plan, and adjustments required by the recently adopted Housing Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-18). • The boundary area of the draft General Plan now matches the City's Sphere of Influence (Attachment 1 Exhibit II-1). • An area study or master plan will be required for the eastern Sphere of Influence prior to any future annexations (Attachment 1 pg. II-18 & Policy LU-1.4). • The target population and build -out projections have been more accurately revised to accommodate recent changes in the housing market and reflect data provided from the 2010 U.S. Census (Attachment 1 pg. II-12). • The Land Use and Sustainable Communities Elements enable a mixed -use overlay to be developed in the Zoning Ordinance, and identify new development concepts to be provided for in the Village and Highway 111 corridor (Attachment 1 pg. II-14 & II-143). • The Housing Element, adopted by the City Council in August of 2011, has been incorporated into the General Plan update (Attachment 1 pg. II-193). • The Circulation Element is supported by a new city-wide traffic model that is consistent with the Riverside County model. This Element also incorporates "Complete Streets" and provides updated roadway classifications (Attachment 1 pg. II-31). FISCAL IMPACT: No direct fiscal impact is anticipated with adoption of the Draft General Plan. An analysis to guide and improve long-term fiscal policy has been provided within the Economic Development Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-163). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Population Projections One of the most important updates to the General Plan involves demographic and build -out projections to the year 2035. The 2010 U.S. Census estimated the City's population at 37,467 with an average 2.53 persons per household. Upon projected build -out, the draft General Plan estimates the population within the current City limits to be 79,956 persons with 100% occupancy of all potential housing units. When the City's seasonal vacancy rate of 27.5% is applied, the estimated build -out population drops to 57,968. The draft General Plan also reflects potential growth in the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). In 2010, the estimated SOI population was 2,264. The draft General Plan identifies an S01 build -out population of 54,396. Therefore, a total population in both the City and Sphere at build -out is estimated to be 134,352 persons. Compliance with State Law The draft General Plan has addressed multiple changes in state law since 2002, which is summarized as follows: • California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32, requires that all cities prepare an inventory of greenhouse gases and adopt a plan to reduce the emission of those gases to 1990 levels. As a result, the General Plan update is accompanied by a Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan (Attachment 3) which measures the City's emissions levels and recommends policies for implementation which have been estimated to achieve the required goals. • The Circulation Element takes into account California's Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) by incorporating designs which accommodate and enable safe access for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, golf carts, and transit riders. • The General Plan update accommodates the Sustainable Community and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) through the new Sustainable Community Element and by integrating supporting transportation, land -use, and housing policies throughout the General Plan. • The addition of the new Sustainable Community Element allows streamlined CEQA exemptions for certain infill, transit -oriented, and walkable community projects under environmental legislation enacted in 2011 under SB 226. e„�., 009 Land Use Summary The draft General Plan includes a minor change the allocation of land in the City. The attached Table 1 (see Attachment 2) compares the land use allocation in the existing General Plan with the proposed General Plan. The differences fall into a few limited categories: • Lands previously designated Low -Density Residential that have since been developed as golf courses have been changed to Open Space Recreation, which reduced the residential acreage and increased the Open Space Recreation acreage. • Lands designated Commercial and Low Density Residential has been changed to High -Density Residential, either for specific projects or for consistency with the newly adopted Housing Element. • Lands designated Low -Density Residential in Section 5 bought by public agencies for conservation under the Multi -Species Plan has been changed to Open Space Recreation. • . Lands annexed into the City since 2002, including and in particular lands south of Avenue 58 and west of Monroe have increased the overall acreage of land within the City limits. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan . The California Warming Solutions Act of 2006, referred to as Assembly Bill 32 (or AB 32), in conjunction with the Sustainable Community and Climate Protection Act of 2008, referred to as Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), requires all cities to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by no later than 2020. In accord with these laws, the Planning Department has prepared a Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan (Attachment 3) which analyzes emissions levels and contains recommended policies intended to help the City reach its target goal. While most GHG emissions are generated by vehicles and power generation, there are a number of measures that can be applied on a city-wide level relating to building construction, energy efficiency, transportation planning, and land use. When applied together, these recommendations will help the City comply with the legislation's target goals. The Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan serves as an appendix to the draft General Plan and supports the energy efficiency and conservation goals, policies, and programs found within the Sustainable Community Element. Sustainable Community Element The Sustainable Community Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-133) helps the City ".. 010 develop responsibly and efficiently through the conservation of resources, the enhancement of the built environment, encouraging transportation options that do not rely as much on the automobile, and improved community health. The Sustainable Community Element has been drafted so that its recommendations provide additional choices rather than mandate limitations. It contains a number of concepts and programs that are interconnected with State Building Codes, Regional Water Quality Plans, public health initiatives, other General Plan Elements, and the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan. Economic Development Element An Economic Development Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-163) was prepared in light of recent economic events and contains long-term strategies to maintain the City's current economic base and to help improve growth and revenue. The Economic Development Element contains an analysis that determines the costs and revenues associated with the future build out of the City. It takes into account existing and potential sources of revenue and is intended as a basis for the City's annual Economic Development Plan. Traffic and Circulation The update to the Circulation Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-31) reflects the evolution of land use and development in the City, the Sphere of Influence, and neighboring communities. The Element is supported by extensive traffic and transportation modeling. Based on modeling projections, a number of physical improvements have been identified at key intersections and roadway segments to assure that future traffic operations can provide an acceptable level of service. These recommendations will be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Element identifies a priority for roundabouts over signalization at specific intersections, strategies to maximize alternative modes of travel, the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, and the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). With the recommended physical improvements and management strategies identified in the Circulation Element, it is expected that most components of the City's circulation network will operate at acceptable levels of service upon General Plan build out. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, an Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 4) was prepared for the General Plan update (State Clearinghouse No. 2010111094). All of the impacts identified from the proposed General Plan are able to be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of air quality and traffic and circulation, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations is being proposed for consideration by the City oil Council. With regards to air quality, emissions associated with operation of land uses at build out of the General Plan will exceed established thresholds, even when mitigated, and are therefore significant and unavoidable. These emissions result from daily emissions in the city at build out, including electricity generation, natural gas usage, vehicular exhaust, construction activity, and emissions generated by individual businesses and residences. With regards to traffic and circulation, even with the proposed mitigation programs, management strategies, and physical improvements identified in the Circulation Element, up to six roadway segments and four intersections may operate at level of service (LOS) E or F at build out, which fall below City standards, and are considered to be significant and unavoidable impacts (Tables 2 and 3 below). With these exceptions, most components of the City's circulation network will operate at acceptable levels of service upon General Plan build out. Table 2 Intersections with the Potential to Operate at LOS E or F General Plan Build Out Intersection ILOSI Projected Level of Service AM PM Washington St. at Fred Waring Dr. F ' F Washington St. at Miles Ave D F Miles Ave at Adams St. D E Madison St. at Avenue 50 E F Table 3 Roadway Segments with the Potential to Operate at LOS E or F General Plan Build Out Roadway Segment Projected Daily Level of Service (LOS) Washington St.: Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr. E Washington St.: Fred Waring Dr. to Miles Ave at Miles Ave F Washington St.: Highway 111 to Avenue 48 E Washington St.: Avenue 48 to Eisenhower Dr. E Madison St.: Avenue 54 to Airport Blvd (Ave 56) F Harrison St.: Airport Blvd. (Ave 56) to Avenue 58 F 10 612 PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW Public Outreach Campaign The City conducted an extensive community outreach effort for the General Plan update. The public outreach campaign began with a kick-off workshop to garner input held in April of 2010, stakeholder workshops for residents and businesses in both the Village and along Highway 111, and presentations before homeowner associations, the local Rotary Club, and at the annual City Picnic. A detailed website was prepared, www.lg2035.org, to keep the public informed and apprised of the project's ongoing progress and to allow public access to the draft General Plan and supporting documents. Public Notification The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report was posted and released for comment on November 24, 2010. A scoping meeting for the NOP was advertised and held on December 8, 2010. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was posted with the State Clearinghouse on July 10, 2012. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on July 12, 2012. The 45-day public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ran through August 27, 2012. All General Plan documents have been posted online for public review on their respective release dates. All comments received during the DEIR comment period have been responded to and are located within the Final Environmental Impact Report's Response to Comments. The General Plan Update was subject to review by Native American Tribal organizations, under SB 18 requirements. One request for consultation was received from the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians during the 90-day tribal consultation request period, but there was no follow-up to our response from that organization. Comments were also received from the Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The public hearing for the proposed Environmental Impact Report, Greenhouse Gas Assessment Inventory and Reduction Plan, and General Plan Update were advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 7, 2012. The public hearing notice was published as 1/8 page legal advertisement. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report During the 45-day comment period, the City received written responses regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 5) from the following agencies: Native American Heritage Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use 013 Table 1 Existing General Plan land Use Allocation, City Limits Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan General Plan Designations Develop- ad Un- developed Total Developed Un- developed Total VLDR Very Low Density up to 2 du/ac 261 198.2 459.2 4,006.0 1,583.7 5,589,7 LDR Low Density up to 4 du/ac 3 202.50 3 096.90 6.299.40, MDR Medium Density up to 8 du/ac 1.063.90 1 324.2 1,388.10 1,292.4 373.6 1,666.0 MHDR Medium -High Density up to 12 du/ac 14.5 69 83.4 HDR High Density up to 16 du/ac 0.6 86.7 87.3 Total Residential Acreage 4 542.40 3 776.00 6,317.50 5,298.4 1,957.3 7,255.7 M/RC Mixed Commercial 87.9 309 397 386.6 184.0 569.6 CC Community Commercial 24.2 93.7 117.9 NC Neighborhood Commercial 61.81 50.8 112.5 CP Commercial Park 64 64 O Office 39.9 39.9 TC Tourist Commercial 206.2 145.3 351.5 206.61 138.9 345.5 VC Village Commercial 64A 68.8 133.2 77.1 12.9 90.0 Total Commercial Acreage 444.5 771.5 1216.00 669.3 335.E 1005.1 MC Major Community Facilities 178.3 13.1 191.3 252.7 193.8 446.5 P Perk Facilities 601.3 128 729.3 4,392.2 867.0- _ ____5,259.2. G Golf Course Open Space 3,125.30 986.7 4,111.90 OS Open Space . 1 246.20 41258.70 6,505.00 2,171.6 4,761.7 6.933.3 W Watercourse/Flood Control 468.91 132.8 601.7 Street Rights of Way1,764.6 191.1 1,955.7 Total Other Acr e 561990 51619.30 11 139.20 8 661.1 6,013.6 14 94.7 �. GM;. rh �.: 014 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2010111094) FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN Prepared For City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Preps BY r � Terra Nova Planning & Research ,[nc.0 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 i1y November 2012 015 Teea Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN NOVEMBER, 2012 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.2010111094 AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for the La Quinta General Plan project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The following agencies and interested parties have commented on the Draft EIR. Please note that Section I contains verbatim comments from agency and other interested parties, and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full text of commenting agency correspondence. '.0. 016 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR SECTION I• Page Commenting Agencies/Parties and Responses A. State Clearinghouse Closing Letter - Office of Planning and Research 5 B. Native American Heritage Commission 6 C. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 9 D. South Cost Air Quality Management District 12 E. City of Coachella 15 F. Coachella Valley Water District lg G. Endo Engineering 25 H. City of Indio 36 I. County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency 43 J. Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District 46 K. Riverside County Transportation Planning Department 49 L. Hoffman Land Development 50 M. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 52 SECTION II: Commenting Agencies/Parties Letters ' A. State Clearinghouse Closing Letter- Office of Planning and Research B. Native American Heritage Commission C. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission D. South Cost Air Quality Management District E. City of Coachella F. Coachella Valley Water District G. Endo Engineering H. City of Indio I. County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency J. Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District K. Riverside County Transportation Planning Department L. Hoffman Land Development M. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians "� 017 Terra Nova/La Quints General Plan Final EIR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN SECTION I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following comments were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. These comments concern aspects of the Draft EIR, including clarification of information, adequacy of analysis, and similar issues. Related comments may occasionally be combined to allow one response to address these related questions. The following responses have been prepared to address issues raised in the agency/interested party, comments. t�» 018 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR A. CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Comment A-1: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 27, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Response A-1: Comment noted. The comments received from the Native American Heritage Commission are addressed separately, under Response B, below. 019 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan B. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Comment B-1: This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. This project is also subject to California Government Code Section 65352/3, et seq. Response B-1: Comment noted. Comment B-2: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA- CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a'signifrcant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether. the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project. Response B-2: Comment noted. Comment B-3: The NAHC "Sacred Sites; as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items -in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ). Response B-3: Comment noted. Comment B-4: ' Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations 020 Terra Nova/La Qainta General Plan Final EIR concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Response B-4: As part of the preparation of the Cultural Resources Technical Study for the General Plan (Appendix D of the DEIR), a written request was made of the Native American Heritage Commission (March 22, 2010), for a records search of the Commission's sacred lands file. The Commission identified 13 Tribal representatives in its response, and all these representatives were contacted in writing, and were asked to provide concerns or comments on the General Plan Technical Study. In addition, representatives of the August Band, the Cabazon Band, the Ramona Band, the Santa Rosa Band and the Torres Martinez Band were contacted at that time. One response was received from the Cabazon Band, stating that they had no specific information regarding cultural resources in the area. In addition, the City completed SB 18 consultation, and received one response from the Cabazon Band, to which the City responded. Comment B-5: Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 432143351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect' 021 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EtR Response B-5: Comment noted. The General Plan is not subject to NEPA. Comment B-6: Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA'or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cc 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APES and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Response B-6: Comment noted. Comment B-7: Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery of human remains in a project location other than a'dedicated cemetery'. Response B-7: Comment noted. Comment B-8: To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Response B-8: Comment noted. Comment B-9: Finally, when Native American cultural -sites and/or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends 'avoidance' of the site as referenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a). Response B-9: Comment noted. 022 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR C. RIVERSIDE COUNTY AMPORT LAND USE Comment C-1: On page 111-99 of the Draft EIR, Bermuda Dunes Airport is variously referred to as a "private airfield" or a "private airstrip." This is an incorrect classification. Bermuda Dunes Airport should be described as a "privately - owned public use airport." As a public use airport, Bermuda Dunes Airport is subject to permitting requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. Another distinction between a public use airport and a private airstrip is that Airport Land Use Commissions are required to prepare Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for the environs of public use airports. A handwritten annotated copy of page 111-99 is attached hereto, and we would recommend that the Final EIR incorporate the recommended changes. Response C-1: Comment noted. The changes are hereby incorporated. Comment C-2: A portion of the City of La Quinta located northerly of Fred Waring Drive and westerly of Jefferson Street is within Compatibility Zone D and is proposed for a land use designation of Low Density Residential (0 to 4 dwelling units per acre). This land use designation is not consistent with Countywide compatibility criteria for Compatibility Zone D; however, as this designation reflects an existing land use (a recorded tract map), a finding of consistency could still be made by the Airport Land Use Commission. Response C-2: Comment noted. Comment C-3: The current boundaries of the City of La Quinta lie outside the Airport Influence Area for Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, but the sphere of influence extends into this area and is included primarily in Compatibility Zones D and E. Small portions of Compatibility Zones C and B1 extend into the area directly southwesterly of the Airport Boulevard/Harrison Street intersection. This area is within the community of Vista Santa Rosa, where the Commission has indicated a willingness to consider special policies if large expanses of open area can be preserved in perpetuity. (Please see the attached letter from the Airport Land Use Commission to the Riverside County Planning Department regarding this issue.) Response C-3: Comment noted. Comment C-4: Pursuant to Section 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code, "prior to the amendment of a general plan ... the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to [ALUC]." At the appropriate time prior to action (ideally before Planning Commission consideration, but definitely 9 023 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EtR before City Council action), the new General Plan should be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency review. (A copy of the "Application for Major Land Use Action Review" form is attached, for your convenience.) Response C4: Comment noted. As stated by the commenter, all property in the City within the Bermuda Dunes area of influence is built out. The sphere of Influence is not within the City's jurisdiction, and Land Use designations are pending preparation of a Master Plan. The Master Plan will be submitted to ALUC for review at the time that it is prepared. Comment C-5: We urge your consideration of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the 2004 Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and the 2005 Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in proposing land use designations for properties within the Airport Influence Areas of these two airports. Additionally, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, is an excellent resource that should be consulted in your efforts to provide for a General Plan that furthers the objectives of airport land use compatibility planning. We recommend that the chapter addressing "Responsibilities of Local Agencies" be reviewed. Response C-5: Comment noted. Comment C-6: In situations where a jurisdiction's General Plan has not been determined by ALUC to be consistent with applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, ALUC is empowered to require submittal of all actions, regulations, and permits (such as land divisions and development of structures with a cumulative floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater) involving land within an Airport Influence Area for individual determinations of consistency or inconsistency. All major land use actions, with or without legislative actions such as general plan amendments, specific plans and specific plan amendments, and zoning changes, affecting land within the Airport Influence Areas of Bermuda Dunes Airport and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport are presently subject to ALUC review. ALUC reviews for conformance with ALUCP compatibility criteria, including land use intensity, noise, and height. (Once ALUC has determined a jurisdiction's General Plan to be consistent, only those projects involving general plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, ordinance amendments, or zoning changes are subject to ALUC review.) Response C-6: Comment noted. See comment C-4. �24 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment C-7: The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachments is vital to California's economic future. ALUCs were created by the State of California to work with local jurisdictions in a joint effort to provide for compatible land uses in the vicinity of public use airports. ALUC staff is available to assist the City in this effort in order to provide for a General Plan that is consistent with adopted Compatibility Plans, and would be happy to meet with you and City staff to discuss the General Plan and the ALUC review process at your convenience. Response C-7: Comment noted. n 025 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR D. SOUTH COST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Comment D-1: Based on a review of the Draft EIR the lead agency has determined that the proposed project will achieve its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 10% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 28% below 2005 levels by 2035. Based on information presented on page IV-7 of the GHG Reduction Plan the lead agency established BAU using historical growth rates (2005 baseline data) within city limits. As a result, the lead agency applied this same growth rate to land area outside of city limits and in the project's sphere of influence (SOI). However, it does not appear that the land outside of the lead agency's jurisdiction and in the SOI (see Figure I- 5 of Draft EIR) has a growth potential that is consistent with the growth rates assumed in the BAU analysis. Specifically, it does not seem appropriate to allocate the same growth rate to land in the city limits boundary and land in the SOI boundary given the existing lower density. Waal designation within the SOI. Therefore, the AQMD staff requests that in light of a recent court ruling regarding BAU analysis' the lead agency demonstrate that the BAU analysis properly captures the growth potential in the city's sphere of influence and provide clarification about the use of this rate to establish the project's BAU emissions value. Response D-1: The GHG Reduction Plan utilizes the growth rates as defined on page IV- 7 of the Plan to specify the projected rate of growth for each sector based on historic data. The GHG Reduction Plan includes land uses within City limits only and excludes the SOI, as the City has no jurisdiction over these lands at this time. In the event that the SOI is annexed into the City, a SOI specific GHG Reduction Plan would need to be prepared, or the existing GHG Reduction Plan amended to address this increased territory. As stated on page 39 of the La Quints AQ/GHG Report prepared for the La Quinta General Plan Update, the air quality analysis assumes that full buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan occurs by 2035. This assumption is both reasonable and practical within City limits. As the commentor notes, full buildout of the SOI is also assumed for analysis purposes in order to estimate the potential impact to air quality. BAU for the SOI is based on the City's General Plan Update land use designations, and is in substantial conformance with the existing General Plan land use designation for that area as well as the County's Vista Santa Rosa Plan, which currently governs development within the SOI. As such, the land uses proposed for the SOT have been assigned for at least the past 10 years. Although the historic rate of growth within the SOI has been minimal, land within the City limit is nearly built out and the land within the SOI contains a majority of the developable land within the Planning Area. It is therefore expected that the SOI will be the next area of growth. 026 Terra Nova/La Quint& General Plan Final OR In order to evaluate impacts from implementation of the General Plan Update, full buildout of the Planning Area, including City Limits and the SOI is analyzed in the AQ/GHG Report and the EIR. Comment D-2: The lead agency indicates that thepopulation, housing and employment growth rates in the GHG Reduction Plan were provided by the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG). However, the lead agency does not provide any quantitative analyses or measures to demonstrate that the project is consistent. with the recent Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) adopted by the SCAG. Therefore, the final CEQA document should provide a quantified analysis demonstrating consistency with the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/SCS. Response D-2: Table 19 of the GHG Reduction Plan provides detailed information on the use of SCAG growth forecasts to project future year trends in demographics within the City of La Quinta. Growth rates in the GHG Reduction Plan are based on the "Draft Integrated Growth Forecasts" released May 2011 by SCAG. The "Draft Integrated Growth Forecasts" were subsequently used as the basis for establishing growth projections for the 2012 RTP/SCS. As such, growth rates set forth within the GHG Reduction Plan are consistent with the growth forecasts presented by SCAG in the RTP/SCS. Comment D-3: The lead agency's operational air quality analysis demonstrates significant air quality impacts from all criteria pollutant emissions including NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts. These impacts are primarily from mobile source emissions related to vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. However, the lead agency fails to adequately address this large source of emissions. Specifically, the lead agency requires nominal mitigation measures in the Draft EIR that lack emission reduction targets and specificity relative to the mobile source emissions. Therefore, the lead agency should reduce the project's significant air quality impacts by reviewing and incorporating additional transportation mitigation measures from the greenhouse gas quantification report2 published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association and by revising mitigation measures 1 through 6 on page 111-35 of the Draft EIR to provide specific emission reduction targets in the Final EIR. Further, the lead agency should be mindful of significant mobile source reductions that are needed in the near future for the South Coast Air Basin to achieve Federal Clean Air Standards by 2023 and 2030'. Response D-3: As stated on page III-33 of the DEIR, the General Plan requires adoption of the GHG Reduction Plan in order to mitigate for impacts to air quality resulting from transportation, among other sectors. Feasible mitigation measures have also been included in the DEIR. Pages V-6 through V-8, and V-10 of the GHG Reduction Plan identify specific transportation 027 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan related measures" that will substantially reduce air quality emissions (criteria pollutants and GHGs). These include measures set forth in the CAPCOA Report. Quantifiable reductions for the transportation sector are provided in Table 26 of the GHG Reduction Plan. While the reduction to GHG's are highlighted and presented in terms of CO2e reduction, it should be understood that these measures will also substantially reduce emissions of criteria pollutants. Adoption of the comprehensive GHG Reduction Plan is expected to be sufficient to limit air quality emissions to the greatest extent practicable. Comment D4: The lead agency determined that the proposed project will exceed the CEQA regional construction significance thresholds; therefore, AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide the following additional mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx and PM emissions requirements. Response D-4: Comment noted. Mitigation measure #2 on Page III-33 of the DEIR will be amended pursuant to the above comment. 14 028 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR E. CITY OF COACHELLA Comment E-1: The Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan (Exhibit I-5) shows the entire geographic area bounded by Jackson Street, Airport Boulevard, Harrison Street and the Coachella City boundary as "Low Density Residential" except for two areas of "Community Commercial" at SW comer of Van Buren and Avenue 53, and on the west side of Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 60. (north of Avenue 54). The City is concerned about this blanket designation for the following reasons. a) The preferred land use plan deviates from the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Concept Plan (VSRLUCP) with respect to the clustering of densities at the Village Center near Coachella Valley High School. The City of Coachella believes that "Medium High Density Residential", "High Density Residential", "Village Center" and "Community Center" uses identified in the VSRLUCP at Calhoun Street and Airport Boulevard are beneficial to the long term quality of life in the area. The City of Coachella would encourage the creation of a neighborhood center similar to what is envisioned in the VSRLUCP in order to reduce vehicular trips for the commercial needs of nearby residents, and to have a cluster of density near the existing High School to promote walking routes to school. b) The intersection of Van Buren Street and Avenue 52 in Coachella has approximately 160 acres of undeveloped land designated for General Commercial use. Commercial land developers have studied this intersection future node for regional commercial and medical office uses. This area has the potential to become a significant employment center. The City of Coachella is in favor or designating the land north of Avenue 53 and east of Calhoun Street to include "Medium Density" and "High Density" Residential uses to cluster homes near this future employment center. Response E-1: Comment noted. As described on page I-19, the Low -Density Residential land use designation applied to the area described above and throughout the eastern Sphere -of -Influence is assigned in anticipation of the preparation of a Master Plan required prior to annexation of the area. Page III-129 indicates that, prior to annexation into the City, the General Plan will require the preparation of a Master Plan of development to further evaluate the plan's consistency with the Vista Santa Rosa (VSR) Land Use Concept Plan and to assure that future development reflects the desires of the community. 15 029 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR The Preferred Land Use Map provides for General Commercial development at several locations, including those at the intersection of Airport Blvd. and Monroe St., the intersection of Avenue 53 and Van Buren St., and along Harrison St. between Airport Blvd. and Avenue 60. Additional commercial centers, including those proposed in the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Concept Plan will be evaluated as part of the Master Plan process. Comment E-2: The proposed roadway diagram for Harrison Street south of Airport Boulevard is shown as a Major Arterial consisting of six lanes with a raised median. Please note that the City of Coachella has approved a policy document for Harrison Street between Avenue 54 and Highway I I I ("Harrison Street Corridor Study") that calls for a de-emphasized roadway with four lanes of travel and parallel parking on the street. It is our desire to shift regional traffic onto Van Buren Street and Calhoun Street as future north -south arterial streets within Coachella. In addition to anticipated future commercial uses and possible expansion of the Augustine Casino, the Van Buren and Calhoun Street corridors will provide connectivity between planned community parks at Van Buren and Avenue 49 (Rancho Las Flores) and at Avenue 50 and Calhoun Street (La Colonia Park). The City of Coachella would encourage policies that would require a transitioning section of Harrison Street between Avenue 58 and Airport Boulevard to reduce the number of lanes for north -bound traffic into Coachella. Response E-2: Comment noted. Traffic modeling was conducted to evaluate roadway conditions at General Plan buildout (year 2035); the results are shown in Table HI-48 of the Draft EIR. The La Quints. General Plan traffic model is a focused version and extension of the latest RivTAM model. The analysis conducted by the City (and the County) indicates that Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 58 will operate at an unacceptable Level -of -Service (LOS F) even when constructed as an 8-lane Augmented Major roadway with a capacity of 76,000 ADT. While this segment is south of the Coachella segment between Avenue 54 and Highway 111, the projected traffic volumes and existing and long-term circulation pattern imply that traffic volumes higher than those that can be accommodated on a divided four lane roadway could eventually occur along the referenced Coachella segment of Harrison Street. Ongoing focus and coordination of Harrison Street operations will be required to assure that the La Quinta and other segments operate at LOS D or better in 2035. Prior studies conducted by the County raised the potential of grade -separated intersections to enhance capacity. The General Plan Update identifies additional recommendations for increasing peak hour traffic volumes, including the implementation of well - coordinated traffic signals, improved access control, and uniform travel speeds. 16 030 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR The City of Coachella comment indicates that it will shift Harrison Street traffic west to reduce demand for capacity along the Coachella segment of Harrison Street. However, it should be noted that the La Quinta General Plan designates Van Buren Street as a 4 lane Primary Arterial within a 108-foot right-of-way, which substantially conforms with the County General Plan Circulation Element for this roadway. To the extent projected future Harrison Street traffic volumes can be shifted westward to Van Buren Street, neither the La Quinta nor County General Plans designate this roadway with sufficient capacity to absorb long-term traffic projected for Harrison Street. Comment E-3: The draft Circulation Element diagram as shown in Exhibit I11-18 identifies the major roadway arterials on the traditional section lines throughout La Quinta's sphere of influence (i.e., Avenue 54, Airport Boulevard, Jackson Street, Van Buren Street, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60, etc.). While a majority of Coachella's arterials have not been developed, we see this as an opportunity to enhance connectivity by including the %z- mile connecting roadways as much as possible into the General Plan network. Accordingly, the City of Coachella will be including Avenue 53, Avenue 55, Avenue 57, Avenue 59, and Avenue 61 into the Circulation Element. Similarly, we will be including Calhoun Street, Frederick Street and Shady Lane as north -south arterial streets to distribute the traffic in a manner that would allow all arterial streets to be no larger than a four -lane roadway. The City of Coachella would encourage smaller block distances between arterial streets to discourage highway -type arterials and encourage pedestrian -friendly streets that provide access to local commercial and public uses within identifiable neighborhood centers. The City has an over -arching to improve the health of our residents through the built environment by promoting walkable communities, improving opportunities for short distance non -motorized travel, and improve access to parks and recreational uses. Response E-3: Comment noted. The City of La Quinta has and expects to continue to see larger -scale master planned development in the southern quadrant of the City. It should also be noted that the City largely provides for low -density residential development in this area, which will limit the need for a General Plan roadway network along the mid -section lines, although their development is not precluded if they are integral parts of overall master planning in this area. With the exception of Harrison Street, none of the major roadways planned in the southeast quadrant of the City are planned to be larger than 4 lanes divided. Also, as previously stated in Response E- 1, this area will be master planned, and roadway designations finalized through that master plan process, so that it will relate to the land use pattern established in the master plan. 17 " , 031 Terra NovwLa Quinta General Plan Final EIR F. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Comment F-1: Where applicable throughout the DEIR, references should be made to the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan. Update (approved in January 2012), the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Recharge Facility. Response F-1: Comment noted. Comment F-2: Page M-9. Environmental Summary Mattix: Under the "Existing Conditions" heading, "Hydrology" is misspelled. Response F-2: Comment noted. Correct spelling is hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-3: Please revise first sentence under "Hydrology" to state: "Analysis and design of regional flood control structures is the responsibility of CVWD". Response F-3: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-4: Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Hydrology" to state " ... the Bear Creek System, the East La Quinta Channel System, Dike No. 2, Guadelupe Dike, and Dike No. 4. " Response F-4: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-5: In reference to the second paragraph under the "Project Impacts" heading, please note that the portion of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel within the Planning Area is not a "levee ", and most of this section has slope protection. Response F-5: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-6: Page M-10. Environmental Summary Matrix: In the last sentence of the third paragraph under the headings "Existing Conditions" and "Water Resources/Quality", please revise to read: "CVWD estimates the annual overdraft for 2010 to be 7, 457 acre-feet. " Response F-6: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-7: Page 1142: Please revise the third paragraph to read "... which drains an approximate 1,069-square-mile watershed at Indio ... " or " ... which drains an approximate 1,525-square-mile watershed at the Salton Sea... ". Response F-7: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. b 18 ,.� 032 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment F-8: In the last paragraph, please replace "Whitewater River" with "Whitewater River Stormwater Channel". Response F-8: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-9: Page II-13: Under the heading "Domestic Water Resources", please revise the second sentence to the following: "It uses wells to extract groundwater which naturally recharges from mountain runoff. Natural recharge is supplemented by replenishment programs supplying supplemental water to the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Recharge Facility near Dike No. 4 and at the Martinez Canyon Pilot Groundwater Recharge Facility near Martinez Canyon. " Response F-9: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-10: Under the heading "Whitewater River Subbasin", please revise the last sentence of the fast paragraph to state " ... Lower Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. " . Response F-10: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference Comment F-I 1: In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please revise to read " ... groundwater use in the Whitewater River Subbasin has been steadily increasing to a point where demand has exceeded natural supplies. " Response F-11:, Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-12: Page II-20: In the third sentence of the fast paragraph under "Domestic Water", please revise to read "... and south and east of the Planning Area at the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Recharge Facility near Dike. No. 4 and at the Martinez Canyon Pilot Groundwater Recharge Facility near Martinez Canyon. " Response F-12: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-13: In the last two sentences of the paragraph under "Wastewater Services", please replace "Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant" with "Water Reclamation Plant No.4 ". Response 17-13: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-14: Page III-104: In the first sentence of the paragraph under "Regional Stormwater Management", please revise to read: "Analysis and design of regional flood control Structures is the responsibility of CVWD ". Response F-14: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. �:33 Term Nova/La Quints General Plan Comment F-15: Please revise the second to last sentence to read "... include the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the Bear Creek System, the East La Quinta Channel System, Dike No. 2, Guadalupe Dike, and Dike No. 4. " Response F-15: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-16: Please revise the first four sentences in the first paragraph under "Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel" to read: "The Whitewater River, which ,flows into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel in the Planning Area, is the principal drainage course in the City, extending through the Coachella Valley for 50 miles, with an average cross-section of 350 feet. The Channel is generally dry, but may be inundated during storm events. Most of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel sections within the City have reinforced slope protection; the remaining portions are protected by unreinforced earthen berms. " Response F-16: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment 17-17: Please revise the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: "The aforementioned reinforced slopes and remaining unreinforced earthen banks are classified by FEMA as 'Provisionally Accredited Levees" indicating that they provide protection from the 100year flood. " Response.F-17: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-18: Page III-105: Please revise the last sentence under "Bear Creek System" to read: "CVWD has applied for FEMA accreditation of the Bear Creek Channel System including the training dike, and is awaiting receipt of the formal accreditation letter. " Response F-18: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-19: In reference to the last sentence of the paragraph under "Oleander Reservoir", the Standard Project Flood elevation is projected to be 54 feet at the reservoir; please verify 44-foot elevation associated with the 100- year flood. Response F-19: Comment noted. Comment F-20: Page III-106: In reference to the first two sentences of the fast paragraph under "Dikes", please note that the dikes were constructed to protect agricultural lands. Response F-20: Comment noted. 20 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment F-21: Also, the Eastside Dike is not located within an area covered by the City's General Plan Update. Response F-21: Comment noted. Reference to Eastside Dike is hereby deleted. Comment F-22: Page HI- 110: Please revise the first two sentences of the first paragraph under "Levee Failure and Seiching " to read: "There are several major stormwater or irrigation facilities located in the Planning Area including the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Coachella Canal, and Lake Cahuilla. " Response F-22: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-23: In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please replace "sand levees" with "banks" or "levees". Response F-23: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-24: Page III-238: Please revise the second sentence of the third paragraph under "Existing Conditions" to read: "Although Colorado River water is one of the Coachella Valley's main sources of water, it has, elevated levels of salinity. This water has been cited as contributing to the elevated salinity levels found in the Valley. " Response F-24: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-25: Page III-239: Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Thermal Subarea" to read: " ... increased pumpage has lowered groundwater levels in the lower portion of the Whitewater River subbasin. " Response F-25: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-26: Please revise the first sentence of the third paragraph to read: "The upper and lower aquifer zones of the Thermal subarea... " Response 17-26: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-27: Please revise the first sentence under "Regional Water Supply and Demand" to read: "The Coachella Valley's principal domestic water source is groundwater. " Response F-27: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. 035 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment F-28: Page III-240: Please revise the first and second sentences under "Regional Water Supply" to read: "Domestic water is provided in the City and most of the sphere by CVWD. Groundwater is the primary source for this water supply. " Response F-28: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-29: In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please add "Area of Benefit" after "Subbasin'. Response F-29: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-30: Please revise the last sentence of the third paragraph to read: " ...the annual balance in the Area of Benefit for 2010 was estimated to be -7,457 acre-feet. im" And please add this sentence: "The cumulative overdraft for the Area of Benefit through 2010 is estimated to be 4,497,609 acre- feet. 109„ - Response F-30: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-31: Under "Historic and Current Consumption", please add "Area of Benefit" after "Subbasin ". ' Response F-31: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-32: Page III-241: Please revise the title of Table 111-50 to "Coachella Valley Water District Annual Water Production Within the Lower Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benef t. " Response F-32: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference Comment F-33: Under "Domestic Water Facilities", please update data to include the following: "CVWD has 102 active wells, 59 reservoirs, and in 2011 delivered 102,805 acre-feet of water to a population of 286,240. " Response F-33: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-34: Page III-243: Please replace "... and the Mssion Creek subbasins ... "with " ... and the Mission Creek Subbasin Areas of Benefit" in the second and third paragraphs on this page." Response F-34: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-35: Page III-244: Please revise the heading "Reclaimed Water/Tertiary Treated Water" to "Recycled Water/Tertiary Treated Water". Response F-35: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. 22 Tens Nova4A Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment F-36: In the second sentence under this heading, please revise to state " ... of which two have facilities to treat wastewater ... " and add this sentence after the second sentence: "A third CVWD water reclamation plant produces secondary treated water suitable for irrigation where uses are restricted. " Response F-36: Comment noted Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-37: Page III-245: hi the next to last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, please replace "turn" with "turf'. Response F-37: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-38: Page 111-246: Please revise the fourth and fifth sentences of the second paragraph under "Water Quality" to read: "In some areas, low levels of naturally -occurring arsenic have been found. CVWD has three ion exchange treatment facilities for arsenic removal, these are located in the Mecca and Thermal areas. " Response F-38: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-39: Page 111-247: Please revise the second and third sentences under "Total Dissolved Solids" to read: "The secondary MCL for TDS includes an upper level of 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and a short-term level of 1,500 mg/L. Based on CVWD domestic well monitoring data for 2009, TDS levels ranged from 150 to 980 mg/L. " Response F-39: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-40: Under 'Nitrates", please remove the "s" from "commons" in the second sentence of the first paragraph. Response F-40: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F41: Page 111-248: Please revise the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on the page to read: "The primary water quality issues in the Coachella Valley are salinity and nitrates. " Please add "River" after "Whitewater" in the second sentence. Response F-41: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F42: Pie 111-252: Please replace "reclaimed" with "recycled" in the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Impacts to Water Supply Resources". 23 :M - r3 i Term Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Response F-42: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F43: Page III- 254: In the third sentence of the first paragraph, revise to read "... established thresholds for domestic water..." and place a comma after "chromium-6" in the last sentence. Response F43: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F44: In the third sentence under "Nitrates", please revise to read "... nitrate concentrations in domestic water provided by CVWD range from "not detected" to a maximum of 40 mg/L. " Response F-44: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F45: Page 111-255: Please remove the "s" from "impacts" in the first sentence of the first full paragraph. Response F45: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment F-46: Exhibit I I I-10: The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel is mislabeled as the "Whitewater River ". Response F-46: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. 24 �.� 038 Terra Nova U Quinta General Plan Final EIR G. ENDO ENGINEERING for HOFFMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Note: The Endo Engineering comment letter was submitted with and is associated with a separate'letter provided by Hoffman Land Development Company, comments from which are addressed separately in Comment Letter M, below. Comment G-1: As shown in General Plan Exhibit II-10, EIR Exhibit III-20, and Table 10 of the TIA, future traffic projections are not provided for several General Plan roadway segments that are critical to the development of the Travertine Specific Plan. Future traffic projections are needed for: (1) Avenue 62, west of Madison Street; (2) Avenue 58, west of Madison Street; (3) Jefferson Street, north of Travertine; (4) Madison Street, north of Avenue 62; and (5) Avenue 60, west of Madison Street. Section 6.3 of the TIA (Page 52) indicates that the growth in raw LQTAM volumes between the year 2009 and the year 2035 was added to the existing 24-hour volumes from CVAG to obtain forecast year 2035 daily volumes. However, future traffic projections were not evaluated for some General Plan roadway segments that were included in the CVAG "Traffic Census Report". For example, CVAG provided existing daily traffic count data for three segments along Airport Boulevard (east of Madison Street, east of Monroe Street, and east of Jackson Street). Future traffic projections were not provided in the TIA for these roadway segments. It can be seen from General Plan Exhibit II-10, EIR Exhibit III-20, and Table 10 of the TIA, that numerous master planned roadway segments were not included in the CVAG "Traffic Census Report" and therefore have no future traffic projection. Without future traffic projections, the adequacy of the master planned roadway classifications for many General Plan roadway segments, particularly those in the developing areas of southeast La Quinta, cannot be verified. Future traffic projections are necessary for all of the General Plan roadway links to ensure that future traffic studies properly address General Plan buildout traffic conditions. Will year 2035 LQTAM daily traffic projections be made available to enable future traffic studies to evaluate General Plan buildout traffic volumes? As a minimum, the raw LQTAM volumes for the year 2009 and the year 2035 should be provided for those roadway links where no count data was provided in the CVAG 'Traffic Census Report". ,,A� 039 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Response G-1: Comment noted. As is evident from Exhibit II-9 of the Draft General Plan and Exhibit II-17 of the Draft EK existing traffic volumes in the southeast quadrant of the City are quite low and traffic on many of these segments have not been counted by CVAG. However, as is well understood by traffic engineers and planners, intersections are the most constrained portions of the roadway network and data were collected for 37 intersections, including those in the vicinity of the Travertine Specific Plan project. With these measured intersection volumes, including turning movements, roadway segment volumes are interpolated by the City traffic model. The traffic model will be made available to other traffic engineers for their use in conducting future project -specific traffic analysis. It should also be noted that the cited segment of Jefferson Street primarily serves development in the vicinity of Lake Cahuilla, The Quarry and the Travertine and Green (Coral Canyon) Specific Plans. Comment G-2: In Appendix H of the DEIR, page 12 of the TIA refers readers to Appendix A for the traffic count data used in the traffic study. Appendix A of the TIA was not provided on the City website and should be made available for review. Response G-2: Comment noted. An electronic copy of the subject technical appendix was provided to the commentor on September 9, 2012. Comment G-3: In Appendix H of the DEIR, page 32 of the TIA references the "Model Documentation and Validation Report" (dated February, 2011) prepared by Iteris, Inc. This report is critical and should be provided on the City website or at a minimum made available upon request. Based upon the existing CVAG counts and the portion of the land in southeast La Quinta that has been developed to date, it appears that the future traffic projections along Madison Street are substantially higher than expected. The rationale for the additional future traffic is not provided in the TIA. Consequently, the calibration of the model in this area is of particular interest and should be reviewed. Response G-3: Comment noted. An electronic copy of the subject model documentation and validation was provided to the commenter on September 9, 2012. The LQTAM is a focused version of the RivTAM regional traffic model. As is made clear in the Circulation Element and the Draft EIR and TIA, traffic data ("rationale") include current traffic, existing and planned land uses, and a variety of socio-economic data. As noted above, the LQTAM version of the RivTAM model will be available to qualified and County - approved RivTAM modelers in preparing other traffic analysis in the City and its Sphere-of=Influence, including project -specific analyses. 26 �.1 C�� Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment G-3A: Specific Comments Related to the Travertine Specific Plan The Travertine Specific Plan was originally approved in 1994 with a total trip generation of 27,300 daily trips and included the development of 2,300 dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of retail, and a 500-room hotel. Access to the Travertine Specific Plan was planned via three streets, the primary access from Madison Street, and minor access from Avenue 62 and from Jefferson Street/Avenue 58. In 2008, a proposed amendment to the Travertine Specific Plan included 1,400 dwelling units and a 500-room hotel generating 17,390 daily trips. The amended proposal represented a 39 percent decrease in dwelling nits, and a 36 percent decrease in total trip generation. From a capacity perspective, the Travertine Specific Plan area could be served by two two- lane roadways, or one 4-lane roadway. In view of the high cost of constructing off -site roadway improvements to provide access to the project site, it is critical that the access be appropriately sized. Therefore, the access streets of Madison Street, Jefferson Street, and Avenue 62 near the Travertine Specific Plan need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that a sufficient, but not excessive capacity is provided. Response G-3A: Comment noted. The City has been working with the project proponent and will continue to cooperate in the proponent's planned project revisions. Until such time as the City approves new land uses on the Travertine site, current entitlements must be used to model area traffic. As the City has consistently indicated, it will consider a revision to the City Circulation Element and Roadway Classifications concurrent with the submittal of a complete application for amendment to the approved Travertine Specific Plan. Comment G4: Madison Street In Exhibit 5 of the TIA, the existing turning movement volumes for the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 (Intersection 32) appear to be too high, unless the volumes represent primarily construction traffic. The six existing homes accessed via Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, should not generate 66 morning peak hour and 43 evening peak hour trips on this segment of Avenue 60. Furthermore, the primary traffic movement associated with these residents should be to/from the north, not to and from the east via Avenue 60. Traffic count data from 2008 that shows 18 vehicles in the moming peak hour and 6 vehicles in the evening peak hour on this leg of Avenue 60. Given the questionable existing traffic count data, the existing turning movements at this intersection should not be used as the basis to project the future turning movements. Doing so results in unrealistically high projections for Avenue 60, west of Madison Street. It also results in more northbound vehicles on Madison Street turning left into a relatively small low -density residential area via Avenue 60 than ,�.:' 0,41 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR continuing northbound through the intersection toward the commercial and employment opportunities in the more developed portions of La Quints. Response G-4: Please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. The volumes cited for Madison Street and Avenue 60 are very low and subject to misinterpretation. Rather than surprising, the travel patterns through this intersection appear reasonable given the substantial labor market in the Thermal/Mecca area that are likely to support residential and golf course developments in the vicinity and elsewhere in the City. Comment G-5: General Plan Exhibit II-2 and EIR Exhibit III-18 incorrectly identify Avenue 62 as a modified 2-lane divided secondary arterial between Madison Street and Monroe Street. However, Figure 4 of the TIA correctly shows that Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, is a 2-lane undivided Modified Collector Street. Response G-5: Comment noted. The assignment of the "Modified Secondary" classification to this road segment was determined to be more appropriate given the existing land uses and assignments. It requires an additional four feet in right-of-way compared to the "Collector" classification. It should again be noted that the City will review a request to reclassify this roadway segment concurrent with the processing of the forthcoming Travertine Specific Plan amendment. Comment G-6: General Plan Exhibit II-2 and EIR Exhibit III-18 incorrectly identify Monroe Street, between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, as a four -lane undivided Secondary Arterial. This segment of Monroe Street is currently classified as a Modified Secondary Arterial A (which is a two-lane divided roadway with a lower capacity that a four -lane undivided roadway). Response G-6: Comment noted. The higher traffic volumes projected along this segment required the provision of corresponding roadway capacity; hence the assignment of the "Secondary Arterial" classification to this segment. Please note that referenced exhibits (General Plan Exhibit II-2 and EIR III-18) incorrectly characterizes the "Secondary Arterial" as an undivided roadway. As can be seen throughout the Draft Circulation Element and Draft EIR, Figure II-3 of the Draft General Plan and Exhibit III-19 provide the correct (divided) roadway cross section for this roadway. Comment G-7: General Plan Exhibit II-2, EIR Exhibit III-18, and the TIA Figure 4 identify Madison Street, extending between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary Arterial A. However, all of the future base maps in the TIA incorrectly show a break in Madison Street where it crosses the 28 0 4 2 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR dike, south of Avenue 60. The future base maps should show that Madison Street will be connected between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. Response G-7: Comment noted. Limited portions of the subject segment have yet to be built, and the precise future alignment of Madison Street over Dike 2 is yet to be determined. Comment G-8:. TIA Figure 6 shows an existing bicycle route passing through the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62. The intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62 does not currently exist. Therefore, a bicycle route through this intersection does not currently exist. On the City's website, the "City of La Quinta Bike Map" only extends south to Avenue 60. Therefore, it does not show an existing bike route extending through the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62. Response G-8: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment G-9: General Plan Table H-12, EIR Table III-48, and Table 10 of the TIA show Madison Street (between Avenue 54 and Airport Blvd.) with a projected future traffic volume of 47,529 vehicles per day. This future projection is much higher than expected, based on development trends and trip generation studies in this area. Since the land south of this point is nearly 50 percent developed and the CVAG peak season daily traffic count for Madison Street is currently less than 10,000 vehicles per day, it appears unlikely that the General Plan buildout daily volume will exceed 30,000 ADT. The major specific plans in this area have been developing at approximately 50 percent of the densities permitted under the existing entitlements. In addition, the trip generation studies of developments such as PGA West and Trilogy have identified trip -generation rates consistent with age -restricted senior residential developments. The trip generation of residential developments in this area has been approximately 30 percent of the trip generation rates associated with traditional single-family residential dwellings. Extensive traffic counts at the access points to PGA West have identified a trip generation rate that is 35 percent of the traditional single-family residential trip generation rate, even though PGA West is not an age -restricted community. Was the trip generation assumed in the modeling for development in this area based upon the entitlements, census data, or the actual development that has occurred? How did the calibration run for existing development compare to the existing traffic volumes for Madison Street, between Avenue 54 and Airport Blvd.? The calibration run probably shows existing traffic projections much higher than the existing traffic count 29 a j 043 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR data. This would indicate that both the residential development intensities and trip -generation rates assumed for this area in the model were too high. Response G-9: Please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. In addition to the substantial vacant land in this southeast quadrant remaining to develop, the County General Plan assigns land uses to the east and south that also make major contributions to area traffic. The model also recognizes that Airport Boulevard terminates at Madison Street and westbound traffic is channeled onto Madison Street at this point. The Draft EIR and TIA, traffic data include current traffic, existing and planned land uses, and a variety of socio-economic data go into the model's trip generation. As noted above, the LQTAM version of the RivTAM model will be available to qualified and County -approved RivTAM modelers in preparing other traffic analysis in the City and its Sphere -of -Influence, including project -specific analyses. Comment G-10: Figure I I of the TIA shows year 2035 turning movement projections at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 (Intersection 32) that are not reasonable for this location. They indicate that approximately one-half of the northbound traffic on Madison Street turns west at Avenue 60. The northbound left -turn volume (from Madison Street onto Avenue 60) is projected to exceed the northbound through volume during the evening peak hours. At this intersection there should be very little traffic making a northbound left -turn movement since the west leg of Avenue 60 only serves a very small low -density residential development area. Response G-10: Please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. In addition to the largely undeveloped residential land located at the northwest comer of this intersection, an entrance to the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District regional park will be provided. As noted above, the Draft EIR and TIA, traffic data include current traffic, existing and planned land uses, and a variety of socio-economic data go into the model's trip generation. As noted -above, the LQTAM version of the RivTAM model will be available to qualified and County -approved RivTAM modelers in preparing other traffic analysis in the City and its Sphere -of -Influence, including project -specific analyses. Comment G-11: Figure 13 of the TIA shows enhanced intersection treatments at Intersection 32 required because the traffic volume assigned to Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, was unrealistically high. There is minimal development planned west of Madison Street (low -density residential uses) with access to Madison Street opposite Avenue 60. Furthermore, Avenue 60, west of Madison Street is constructed as a local street with 36 feet of pavement that would not accommodate the four lanes of through traffic and dual eastbound left -turn lanes shown in Figure 13. There is a large development planned west of the existing Andalusia development, 30 �� C44 Terre Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR but its future access to Madison Street is planned midway between Avenue 60 and Avenue 58, not at Avenue 60. Response G-11: Comment noted. Please see Response G-10, above. Comment G-12: Page 40, 41, and 50 of the TIA, describe enhanced improvements recommended for Intersection 32 (Madison Street and Avenue 60). See Comment 10 and 11. This recommendation should be revised because the assumptions in "the model for this intersection are not correct. Response G-12: Please see Response G-10, above. Comment G-13: Avenue 62 General Plan Table II-12, EIR Table III-48, and Table 10 of the TIA show a future volume of 9,624 vehicles per day for Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street. However, Figure 11 shows that very little peak hour traffic is projected on Avenue 62, immediately west of Monroe Street (only 90 evening peak hour trips or approximately 1,100 daily trips). This seems to indicate that essentially all of the 9,624 vehicles per day were assigned to Avenue 62 from adjacent future land uses located south of Avenue 62 and traveled west to Madison Street then north to Avenue 60. The Keck property is located south of Avenue 62 and west of Monroe Street. It is our understanding that future development plans for the Keck property included access primarily to Monroe Street, south of Avenue 62. Only minimal emergency access was planned from the Keck property to Avenue 62, west of Monroe Street. The location of the node connectors from the Keck Property to Avenue 62 and/or Monroe Street were not documented in the TIA or the DEIR. However, a nodal connection should not be assumed between the Keck property and Ave 62. Response G-13: Please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. The County General Plan assigns land uses to the east and south that also make major contributions to area traffic. In addition to the largely undeveloped residential land located to the northwest the existing Lake Cahuilla County Park and the future Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District regional park will draw traffic in this direction. As noted above, the Draft EIR and TIA, traffic data include current traffic, existing and planned land uses, and a variety of socio-economic data go into the model's trip generation. As noted above, the LQTAM version of the RivTAM model will be available to qualified and County -approved RivTAM modelers in preparing other traffic analysis in the City and its Sphere -of -Influence, including project -specific analyses. Comment G-14: General Plan Table II-12, EIR Table III-48, and Table 10 of the TIA incorrectly identified Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe 31 0 4 5 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Street, as a 4-lane Modified Collector with a daily capacity of 28,000 vehicles per day, rather than a 2-lane Modified Collector with a daily capacity of 14,000 vehicles per day. If the traffic network in the model incorrectly assumed the speed for a four -lane roadway for Avenue 62,between Madison Street and Monroe Street, it would attract more future traffic than the correct two-lane Modified Collector designation resulting in a future volume projection that is unrealistically high. Response G-14: Comment noted. It was determined that following the traffic analysis, the capacity of a "Modified Collector" (2 lanes divided/84-foot right-of-way) was sufficient to meet future demand and that the larger roadway was not warranted. Comment G-15: Figure I 1 of the TIA shows a morning plus evening peak hour volume for Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) of 26 in the eastbound direction, and 3 in the westbound direction. How was this traffic distribution determined? The atypical directional split seems to imply that all vehicles are going eastbound on Avenue 62 past Monroe Street in the peak hours and essentially no vehicles return in the westbound direction on Avenue 62 in the peak hours. Response G-15: As noted above, such small volumes have a higher degree of variance from existing and projected large volume flows. Please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. As noted above, the Draft EIR and TIA, traffic data include current traffic, existing and planned land uses, and a variety of socio-economic data go into the model's trip generation. As noted above, the LQTAM version of the RivTAM model will be available to qualified and County -approved RivTAM modelers in preparing other traffic analysis in the City and its Sphere -of -Influence, including project -specific analyses. Comment G-16:. Figure 12 of the TIA shows the future lane geometries for Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) with two westbound through approach lanes opposite a single westbound exit lane on Avenue 62 serving a peak hour westbound through volume of only 3 vehicles per hour. As a Modified Collector, Avenue 62 will only provide one through lane in each direction between Monroe Street and Madison Street. Response G-16: As noted, the major influences on future traffic at this intersection are County -assigned land uses to the east. It should be noted that the originally recommended improvements were modest and for the westbound traffic relied on combined through -right and combined through -left lanes, which adequately address projected General Plan 2035 buildout volumes. The final design has a limited effect on capacity, especially in light of the overall future volumes. Hence, the change to a single combined left -through lane and a dedicated right turn lane was 32 p..� 046 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR ultimately recommended for this intersection. Signalization will only occur when and if warranted. It should be noted that the Circulation Element provides the option of implementing a two lane roundabout at this intersection to meet buildout future needs. Comment G-17: Figure 12 and 13 of the TIA show that Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) will have a traffic signal in the future, but the volumes shown on Figure 11 for Intersection 37 would not meet traffic signal warrants. The westbound right -turn volume should not be included as part of the westbound approach volume because of the recommendation for an exclusive westbound light -turn lane and the right -turn movement does not conflict with the large southbound left -turn movement. Response G-17: As noted above, the final design has a limited effect on capacity, especially in light of the overall future volumes. Hence, the change to a single combined left -through lane and a dedicated right turn lane was ultimately recommended for this intersection. Signalization will only occur when and if warranted. It should be noted that the Circulation Element provides the option of implementing a two lane roundabout at this intersection to meet buildout future needs. Comment G-18: The mitigation assumed for Intersection 37 was not appropriate to mitigate the impact at this intersection. Table 8 of the TIA shows Intersection 37 operating at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Footnote 3 states that signalization of the existing lanes was assumed for this intersection. This footnote is not correct because the text referencing Table 8 states that the analysis is based upon the future lane configurations shown in Figure 11 and the future approach lanes in Figure 11 are not the same as the existing approach lanes at Intersection 37. Traffic signals would not be installed because signal warrants are not met by these volumes. Response G-18: Comment noted. Please note that the Circulation Element provides the option of implementing a two lane roundabout at this intersection to meet buildout future needs. Signalization will only occur when and if warranted. Comment G-19: Jefferson Street The TIA did not provide any future traffic projections or level of service analysis for Jefferson Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62 (at Madison Street). In order to understand how the TIA addresses future development in the Travertine Specific Plan area, it is critical to at least provide year 2035 traffic volumes and identify the trip generation assumed for Section 5 and the surrounding development areas. Response G-19: As noted above and as evident from Exhibit II-9 of the Draft General Plan and Exhibit II-11 of the Draft EIR, the cited segment of Jefferson Street ".�. C4l Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final ER between Avenues 58 and 62 will largely serve adjoining land uses and is not a part of the larger regional circulation network. The cited segment of Jefferson Street primarily serves development in the vicinity of Lake Cahuilla, The Quarry and the Travertine and Green (Coral Canyon) Specific Plans. Comment G-20: Other Comments As discussed in Comment 13, the LQTAM appears to project approximately 9,000 daily trips on Avenue 62 generated by the future development of the Keck property (located south of Avenue 62 between the dike and Monroe Street). Based upon the LQTAM projections, future traffic will access the Keck property by crossing the dike and using Madison Street to travel to/from the north. If this is the case, the future traffic generated by the development of the Keck property would comprise a sizeable portion of the traffic utilizing the future Avenue 62 crossing of the dike as well as the future bridge needed to extend Madison Street from Avenue 60 to Avenue 62. Consequently, the developers of, the Keck property would be responsible for paying their fair -share percentage of the construction of the dike crossing and the extension of Madison Street. It was our understanding that plans for the Keck property take access primarily from Monroe Street (south of Avenue 62). The last Keck property plans that we saw did not have an access designed to take advantage of future roadway improvements to Avenue 62 and Madison Street on the west side of the dike. If the Keck Property takes access primarily from Monroe Street and only takes emergency access to Avenue 62, the traffic assignment to Avenue 62 and Madison Street should be eliminated in the model. Thismay also reduce the problematic traffic volume on Madison Street, south of Avenue 54, but may increase the demand on Monroe Street, north of Avenue 62. Response G-20: The projected 9,600 average daily vehicles on this roadway segment include traffic originating from outside the General Plan planning area. It also conveys traffic destined for Travertine and future development on Keck property lands to the south. Other land uses to the north, including the Lake Cahuilla County and the future CVRP District regional parks, and access to the commercial districts of the City will also be facilitated by this segment and its eventual connection to Madison Street. Regarding fair share distribution of costs and the Keck property located in the county and outside the La Quinta General Plan planning area, the County has designated the Keck property "Agriculture" (with a "Community Development" overlay, which would limit non-agricultural uses to very low density residential. At this time, there is very limited foreseeable development potential associated with the Keck property. Neither are there any specific development (or development access) plans beyond the current high -value agriculture occurring on this site. "N_ C48 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final RrR Comment G-21: The documentation provides no way to determine the trip generation assumed for the Travertine Specific Plan or the surrounding land uses located south of Avenue 58 and west of Monroe Street. Without this information, the Travertine development cannot verify that the modeled trip generation for this area is consistent with current development plans. Response G-21: Comment noted. It should be noted that the commentor has prepared several traffic analyses for the Travertine project and has incorporated analysis of surrounding lands in these studies. There have been numerous discussions regarding circulation within and in the vicinity of the Travertine project. The trip generation potential of the Travertine project, as well as the approved Coral Canyon TTM 33444 (Green Specific Plan), have been thoroughly analysed. Also, please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. �..� C 4 9 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR H. CITY OF INDIO Comment H-1: While the Draft EIR mentions that several roadways and intersections are shared with other jurisdictions and while the Draft EIR suggests that cooperation and communication with adjacent jurisdictions is needed, there has been no meaningful communication with our City Traffic Engineer (Mr. Tom Brohard) during the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis (other than an introductory call from lteris indicating that their work on this project had begun). In fact, the list of organizations, persons, and documents consulted shown in Section IX of the Draft EIR does not list or identify any persons or documents from the City of Indio or any other municipality. Rather than preparing their Draft EIR in a vacuum, the City of La Quinta consultants for this project should have discussed various recommendations with the City of Indio and others, particularly those involving adding lanes within the City of Indio, to mitigate significant traffic impacts caused by intensified land use in the City of La Quinta and its sphere of influence. Response H-1: During the course of preparing the General Plan update and conducting associated traffic analysis, the City and project consultants conferred with and solicited input from the adjoining cities and the County of Riverside, as well as the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the Southern California Association of Governments. These consultations included direct conversations with City Indio staff, including several discussions between the City Public Works Director and the Indio Traffic Engineer. Comment H-2: 1) Existing Conditions - Regional Roadways - The discussion of State Highway I I I as a Regional Roadway beginning on Page 111-204 of the Draft EIR should be modified to indicate that the State relinquished this roadway several years ago to the local cities and the only portion of State Highway I I Ithat remains in the Coachella Valley is in the City of Palm Springs. The Highway III discussion should also be moved into the discussion of Local Major Highways beginning on Page 111-205 of the Draft EIR. Response H-2: Comment noted. Changes are hereby incorporated by reference. Comment H-3: 2) Roadway Segment Analysis for General Plan Buildout - Table 111-48 beginning on Page 111-221 of the Draft EIR contains some significant spikes in future traffic volumes from block to block. These increases do not appear to be reasonable as the adjacent properties are mostly developed at this time. The following Year 2035 ADT forecasts on roadways shared with the City of Indio require further validation: 36 C50 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final ER a. Jefferson Street from Avenue 48 to Avenue 50 - In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 7,000 higher south of Avenue 48 and 18,000 higher north of Avenue 50 than the adjacent segments. b. Highway III from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street - In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 10,000 higher east of Dune Palms Road than the adjacent segment to the west. c. Avenue 4 rom Dune Palms to Jefferson Street - In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 16,000 higher east of Dune Palms Road than the segment to the west.. d. Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street - In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 14,000 higher east of Jefferson Street than the segment to the west. Response H-3: As noted in the Draft Circulation Element, Draft EIR and General Plan traffic study, existing and future traffic volumes on analyzed streets were modeled using a focused version of the regional RivTAM traffic model. Due to the development pattern in the area, most traffic generated travels on major roadways located along section lines. Specific to the four cited routes the following should help explain the modeled traffic volumes for buildout year 2035: A. Jefferson Street from Avenue 48 to Avenue 50: The difference between volumes north and south of Avenue 48 result from the channeling of the difference east to Jefferson where sufficient roadway capacity will be available to accommodate the future north -south volumes. B. Hi way 111 from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street: The volume differences cited in the comment that occur along Highway I I I in 2035 can be attributed to the remaining lands available for development along Highway I I I and east and west of Jefferson Street. The traffic model assigns traffic based on current and long-term movement patterns and also takes advantage of those roadways with available capacities. As a result, traffic on Dune Palms Road is projected to more than double in 2035 and to nearly double along Jefferson Street in 2035, for segments both north and south of Highway I11,thereby reducing volumes on the referenced segment of Highway 111. C. Avenue 48 from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street: The difference between volumes east and west of Dune Palm Road result from the channeling of future traffic east to Jefferson where sufficient roadway capacity will be available to accommodate the future north -south volumes. As can be seen from the model results, Washington Street is expected to operate at capacity, which will encourage future traffic to take advantage of Jefferson Street where additional capacity will be available. D. Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street: As with the above response to item C., above, the difference in volumes is attributable to the N..'' C 5 1 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR model's channeling of future traffic to Jefferson Street and Madison Street where additional capacity will be available. Comment H-4: 3) Intersection Impact Analysis- Table 111-49 beginning on Page I 1I- 226 of the Draft EIR provides AM and PM Peak Intersection Analysis with 2035 buildout volumes during the peak season. The table should be expanded to indicate and more clearly disclose the additional lanes/traffic control measures that are required, particularly those additions in other jurisdictions including Indio. From Exhibit I11-21 to achieve LOS "D" or better, the following additional lanes are needed according to the Draft EIR at the intersections that are shared between La Quinta and Indio: a. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive - 50% Indio; 50% La Quinta - Add westbound right turn lane in Indio. b. Jefferson Street and Highway 111 - 75% Indio; 25% La Quinta -Add 3rd southbound left turn lane and 4th southbound thru lane in La Quinta; add 4th northbound thru lane in Indio. c. Jefferson Street and Avenue 50: 25% Indio; 75% La Quinta -Add 2nd eastbound left turn lane in La Quinta; add 2nd westbound left turn lane and 2nd westbound thru lane in Indio. d. Madison Street and Avenue 50 - 75% Indio; 25% La Quinta - The proposed lane additions in the Draft EIR have been modified by the Indio/La Quinta Project Development Team (PDT) working together on the improvement of Madison Street to eliminate the possible need for a third northbound thru lane in Indio. The Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the ultimate intersection geometry approved by the PDT on July 24, 2012. These lane additions in the City of La Quinta now include a 2nd eastbound thru lane and an eastbound right turn lane. Lane additions in the City of Indio now include a 2nd southbound left turn lane, a second southbound thru lane, and a southbound right turn lane; a 2nd northbound left turn lane, a 2nd northbound thru lane, and a northbound right turn lane; and a 2nd westbound thru lane and a westbound right turn lane. A traffic signal will also be installed at this intersection. e. Madison Street and Avenue 52 - 25% Indio; 75% La Quinta - The proposed lane additions in the Draft EIR have been modified by the Indio/La Quinta PDT working together on the improvement of Madison Street to eliminate the possible need for a third northbound thru lane in Indio. The Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the ultimate intersection geometry approved by the PDT on July 24, 2012. These lane additions in the City of La Quinta now include two southbound left turn lanes, a second southbound thru lane, an a southbound right turn lane; a 2nd northbound left turn lane and a 2nd northbound thru lane. Lane additions in the City of Indio now include a 2nd westbound thru lane. A traffic signal will also be installed at this intersection. 38 p C52 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR f. Monroe Street and Avenue 52 - 50% Indio; 25% La Quinta; 25% County - Add 2nd eastbound thin lane in La Quinta; add 2nd southbound left turn lane, 2nd southbound thru lane and southbound right turn lane in Indio; add 2nd westbound thru lane in Indio; add two northbound left turn lanes, a 2nd• northbound thru lane, and a northbound right turn lane in the County. Response H4: Required intersection improvements for buildout year 2035 are set forth in detail for each of the 37 intersections analyzed starting on page II-88 of the Draft General Plan. They are also presented graphically in Exhibit II- I 1 of the Draft General Plan and in Exhibit III-21 of the Draft EIR. Those intersections shared with other jurisdictions, where there is some question of the feasibility of recommended improvements, are discussed in both the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. Specific to the intersections raised in the City's comment letter: A. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive: Comment noted. A westbound right turn lane already exists at this intersection but will need to be shifted north to provide room for a third west bound through lane corresponding to the existing third westbound through lane on the west leg of the intersection. The above referenced figure shall be revised to reflect the need for the additional westbound through lane. B. Jefferson Street and Highway 111: Comment noted. The need for an additional southbound left turn lane, a fourth southbound through lane and a fourth northbound through lane are already properly noted ion the referenced exhibits. As discussed on page III-234 of the Draft EIR and as set forth in policies in the Draft Circulation Element, the City shall continue to coordinate with the City of Indio to implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM). and Transportation Demand management (TDM) programs to reduce traffic volumes at this intersection. C. Jefferson Street and Avenue 50: Comment noted. The need for a second eastbound left turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane are already properly noted on the referenced exhibits. The City of Indio already has paved improvements sufficient to provide the recommended combined second westbound through/right turn lane, and appears to have sufficient room for a dedicated westbound right turn and dedicated second westbound through lane when restriping for these becomes necessary. D. Madison Street and Avenue 50: The issue with this intersection is associated with clearing northbound traffic through the intersection. It does not require continuing three northbound lanes, the Draft General Plan and EIR showing adequate roadway capacity north of Avenue 50 with a four lane divided roadway. As noted in the City of Indio comment letter, the Indio/La Quinta Project Development Team comprised of city staffs .�.: C 5 3 Teem Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR have worked to avoid the need for the referenced northbound through lane. The team reportedly agrees that a dedicated eastbound right turn lane should be planned, although the General Plan traffic analysis indicates that a combined through/right turn lane would suffice at this location. This change is hereby incorporated by reference in the EIR and will be incorporated in the final General Plan. Both the Draft General Plan and EIR recommend on -going monitoring of the performance of this intersection and the application of TSM and TDM programs that may assure that it continues to operate at an acceptable level of service in 2035. E. Madison Street and Avenue 52: The recommended intersection improvement set forth in the Draft General Plan and EIR are not consistent with those cited in the City of Indio's comment letter. Consistent with the City's comments, the Draft General Plan and EIR recommend the same improvements as those reportedly establish by the Indio/La Quinta Project Development Team comprised of city staffs. The one inconsistency is the recommendation for a second northbound left turn lane, which is not required by the General Plan traffic analysis but which would help transfer future northbound traffic to the west and reduce otherwise anticipated volumes on the northbound leg at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 50. This change is hereby incorporated by reference in the EIR and will be incorporated in the final General Plan. F. Monroe Street and Avenue 50: The intersection improvements cited in the City of Indio's comment letter are consistent with those set forth in the Draft La Quinta General Plan and EIR. Comment H-5: 4) Intersections Potentially Worse Than LOS "D"- The underlying analysis in the Draft EIR is very conservative, having bumped up the October traffic counts by 10 percent to reflect higher volumes in January, February, and March. This baseline increase of 10 percent effectively translates to a drop in LOS from "D" to "E" at these intersections. Constructing costly additional improvements to maintain LOS "D" for the highest traffic volumes during three months of the year, when these intersections will operate at LOS "D" or better for the other nine months of the year, is not justified during these difficult economic conditions. Since our Circulation Plan Update in 2008, the City of Indio allows LOS "E" under certain conditions (see attached). Many other jurisdictions in California also allow LOS "E" under these or similar conditions. For intersections shared with the City of Indio, especially those where Indio has jurisdiction over 75 percent of the intersection, the City of La Quinta should reconsider its LOS "D" standard and also allow LOS "E" under certain conditions. Mitigation measures necessary to achieve LOS "E" should be identified and more clearly disclosed in separate tables and figures, together with identification of improvements that are required 40 ..w..- ' C 5 4 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR within the City of Indio. According to the Draft EIR, intersections shared between the Cities of La Quinta and Indio that may operate at worse than LOS "D" include: a. Jefferson Street and Highway I I I - Only 25% of this intersection is in the City of La Quinta, with 75% of the intersection within the City of Indio. While adding a third SB left turn lane may be feasible, adding fourth northbound and southbound thru lanes on Jefferson Street will require additional right of way in the City of Indio. Both cities have constructed what are typically considered the maximum practical improvements at Jefferson Street and Highway 111 including dual left turn lanes, three thru lanes, and separate right turn lanes with green arrow overlaps on each approach. Further widening of the intersection which necessitates purchase of right of way and could result in other environmental impacts is not acceptable to the City of Indio. In accordance with the attached policy, LOS "E" conditions will therefore be acceptable if they should occur at buildout in Year 2035 during the peak season (January thru March) at Jefferson Street and Highway 11 I in the City of Indio. b. c. Madison Street and Avenue 50 - Only 25% of this intersection is in the City of La Quinta, with 75% of the intersection within the City of Indio. The revised lane configurations approved by the Indio/La Quinta PDT will result in LOS "D" or better operating conditions in Year 2035. Further widening of the intersection which necessitates purchase of additional right of way and could result in other environmental impacts is not acceptable to the City of Indio. In accordance with the attached policy, LOS "E" conditions will therefore be acceptable if they should occur at buildout in Year 2035 during the peak season (January thru March) at Madison Street and Avenue 50 in the City of Indio. Response H-5: The use of a 10 percent weighting factor to arrive at peak season traffic volumes based on off-peak volumes is modestly conservative. Historically, growth in traffic volumes have increased beyond previously modeled predictions and therefore weighting peak season traffic seems a prudent approach since the acquisition of future rights of way will be precluded in most cases once development has occurred. Specific to two cited intersections projected to operate at worse than LOS D at 2035 buildout the following clarifications are provided: A. Jefferson Street and Highway 111: Both the Draft La Quinta General Plan and EIR note that required improvements to maintain LOS D operating conditions at this interest in 2035 are probably not feasible and that other efforts should be applied, including TSM and TDM programs, to optimize long-term operating conditions. It should be noted that the City of La Quinta; recognizing constraints to further improvements at this Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR intersection, intends to adopt findings of overriding consideration for this and other intersections and roadways segments that are projected to operate at worse than LOS D conditions at the 2035 buildout period. B. Madison Street and Avenue 50: As previously discussed above under Item D., the issue with this intersection is associated with clearing northbound traffic through the intersection. The Indio/La Quinta Project Development Team comprised of city staffs have worked to avoid the need for the referenced northbound through lane and this change is hereby incorporated by reference in the EIR and will be incorporated in the final General Plan. Both the Draft General Plan and EIR recommend on -going monitoring of the performance of this intersection and the application of TSM and TDM programs that should assure that it continues to operate at an acceptable level of service in 2035. It is recommended that the City of Indio also consider other strategies, including TSM and TDM programs to improve operating conditions at those intersections where Indio anticipated long-term LOS E operating conditions. It should also be noted that the City of La Quinta, recognizing constraints to further improvements at this intersection, intends to adopt findings of overriding consideration for this and other intersections and roadways segments that are projected to operate at worse than LOS D conditions at the 2035 buildout period. Finally, it should also be noted that the City of Indio comment letter further argues that it finds that LOS D improvements are expensive, that LOS E operating conditions at many of its intersections is acceptable and that Indio has incorporated the LOS E standard into its 2008 Circulation Plan update. Inasmuch as the peak 'season population (residents and visitors) represent an important part of the local economy, and that both the Cities of Indio and La Quinta host and are beneficiaries of major peak season events, assuring acceptable levels of service during this period is a valuable investment. u.�� C 5 6 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR I. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Comment I-1: The Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) has reviewed the Circulation Element for the City of La Quints General Plan. The County requests that any roadway designations within the City's Circulation Element that extend to the City/County boundary and the City's sphere of influence and that differ from the County's designations be coordinated with County staff. Specifically the RCT has compared the City's Circulation Element to the County's current Circulation Element and the Circulation Element the County will be proposing in its own update to the County General Plan. The RCTD is primarily concerned with potential conflicts regarding the proposed designations on Harrison Street (former SR-86) and Avenue 62 within the City's Circulation Element. Based on discussions with City staff, the County understands that Harrison Street was modeled for the City's General Plan as an 8 lane divided facility and that the City's traffic model demonstrated the need for a facility of this size. The County concurs that an 8 lane facility will need to be accommodated in the future for Harrison Street. However, as of the writing of this letter the last published version of the City's General Plan showed Harrison Street as a Major Arterial Highway (6 lanes divided within 128 feet of right- of -way). . The County requests the City incorporate a cross-section for an 8 lane divided highway into the City's General Plan and that the designation of Harrison Street would be changed to that cross-section. The County requests that the City's cross-section would generally conform to the attached cross=section. Response I-1: It is correct that General Plan buildout conditions for Harrison Street were modeled assuming an 8-lane divided roadway. The General Plan Circulation Element, including Exhibit II-2: General Plan Roadway Classifications, will be revised to reflect the 8-lane facility as an Augmented Urban Arterial as shown in the previous version of the General Plan. The City also agrees that the Augmented Urban Arterial to be incorporated in the updated General Plan Circulation Element will substantially conform to the improvement standards and overall right-of- way set forth in the County's Roadway Standard No. 87. Please note that lane widths vary somewhat from the County's standard; however, these should not significantly affect implementation of substantially consistent improvements. Comment I-2: The City is proposing that Avenue 62 be designated as a Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes undivided within 102 feet of right-of-way). The County has previously analyzed this roadway in the South Valley Parkway 43 ».� C 5 7 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Traffic Study and Roadway Phasing Plan dated April 4, 2007 prepared by Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. The conclusions of that study indicated that the portion of Avenue 62 that falls within the City's General Plan between Monroe Street and Harrison Street should be planned for four lanes within 220-feet of right-of-way. The County has done additional traffic modeling of this corridor in connection with a proposed update of the County's General Plan using the RIVTAM model. The assumptions of model for the proposed General Plan incorporated approved Specific Plans within this portion of the County, but otherwise did not use the proposed land use assumptions of the South Valley Parkway. The General Plan update model analyzed the full future build -out of all unincorporated and incorporated areas beyond the 2035 horizon, and the model has indicated that traffic volumes on Avenue 62 will warrant at least a 6 lane divided facility at full build -out. The County continues to recommend that Avenue 62 should be designated in such as way that sufficient right-of- way will be preserved for the accommodation of ultimate future growth and that at a minimum will permit the construction of a 6 lane divided facility. The County believes that a minimum of 152 feet of right -of -way should be preserved for this roadway, especially between Jackson Street and Harrison Street. Response I-2: Comment noted. As discussed with County Transportation Department staff during our August 21, 2012 teleconference, consultations between the City's traffic consultant and County Demographics staff indicated that the RivTAM model had utilized the unadopted land use designations set forth in the draft South Valley Parkway project. Regardless of whether these data were included in the modeling effort, County Transportation also indicates that RivTAM output is based upon buildout of all incorporated and unincorporated lands in the County, including those set forth in the currently proposed but not yet adopted Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan. The County's request that sufficient right-of-way be secured along Avenue 62 between Harrison Street and Monroe Street to allow for an ultimate 6- lane divided roadway is understandable. However, in previous discussions with the County, the City has expressed its concern regarding planning for such a large capacity roadway along Avenue 62 and was assured that a four -lane facility east of Harrison Street would be acceptable. Nonetheless, the City has determined that between Harrison Street and Monroe Street, Avenue 62 can be designated as a Major Arterial (128 foot right-of-way), which is sufficient to construct a 6-lane divided roadway. The General Plan shall only require the construction of a 4-lane divided facility, reserving the unused right-of-way for additional lanes in the event these are needed in the future. .�..) 058 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment I-3: The County has adopted Community Design Guidelines for an area known as Vista Santa Rosa (VSR). The boundaries of this community include the unincorporated portions of the City of La Quints's General Plan, covering the City's current sphere of influence and extend further to the south between Avenue 62 and Avenue 66 on the north and south and between Monroe Street and Harrison Street on the west and east. The County requests that the City would cooperate with the County in preserving the VSR community identity within its full boundaries. The County desires that this area remain intact through inclusion within the sphere of influence of one city and that future planning would consider all portions of this community. Response I-3: Comment noted. The City will continue to cooperate with the County in preserving the community of Vista Santa Rosa (VSR) within its full boundaries. As the County is aware, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) sets the boundaries of a city's Sphere -of -Influence. Nonetheless, when considering future planning under the City of La Quinta's jurisdiction within the Vista Santa Rosa area, the City shall give thoughtful consideration to all portions of the VSR community. �.'i . C 5 9 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan J. COACHELLA VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Comment J-1: The District is a non -enterprise independent special district accountable to the citizens of the Coachella Valley, charged with the protection of public health through the control of vectors and vector -borne diseases within its boundaries. We operate under the California Health and Safety Code Division 3, Sections 2000-2910 (known as the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Law). Our activities include the prevention and control of mosquitoes, filth flies, eye gnats, and the red imported fire ant. Response J-1: Comment noted. Comment J-2: The General Plan Update may result in increases in these vector populations and impact the ability of the District to control vectors. Specifically, the expansion of La Quinta into its Sphere of Influence to the south and east will increase the likelihood that residents encounter vector and nuisance insects in agricultural and wetland habitats. Response J-2: Comment noted. Comment J-3: Mosquitoes Within the urbanized areas of La Quinta, as well as the rest of the Coachella Valley, mosquitoes breed in storm drain systems, neglected swimming pools, poorly designed or damaged landscape irrigation systems, and other containers that hold water for at least 96 hours. The most important vector species are the encephalitis mosquito and the southern house mosquito. These species can vector (transmit) West Nile virus, western equine encephalomyelitis and St. Louis encephalitis to humans. Additionally, West Nile virus and western equine encephalomyelitis can infect horses, which is of interest to La Quinta due to its numerous equestrian trails. Response J-3: Comment noted. Comment J-4: The General Plan Update indicates that the number of dwelling units in the planning area will be increased to 53,103. The current number of dwelling units that are occupied year-round is 14,820 of the 23,489 available. If the current year-round occupation rate is kept constant at 63%, then 19,648 dwelling units could be expected to be unoccupied. If the current number of seasonal, recreational, and occasional use homes remains the same (27.5% according to the 2010 U.S. census), then 14,603 homes will be vacant for at least part of the year. Response J4: Comment noted. 46 �: rso Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Comment J-5: The District conducts aerial photography to determine if pools are neglected. In April 2012, we identified 245 pools in La Quinta as possibly being neglected, or approximately 1% of the dwelling units present. With an increase in dwelling units, we might expect this to reach 530 pools at build out. We currently see that approximately half of the pools on our possibly neglected list require treatment and follow-up inspections. Response J-5: Comment noted Comment J-6: Storm drains, catch basins, dry wells, and detention basins are also commonly used as breeding sites for mosquitoes within the urban environment. Given that 2,084.5 acres of street rights of way are proposed to be built under the Preferred Plan, we expect that more storm drains will be built. We applaud La Quinta's commitment on page V4 to be a Full Service Community. We agree that "storm drains ... [are] maintained in good working order and of adequate service level to address existing and future needs" is an important Guiding Principle and a task that ensures effective use of mosquito control products. Response J-6: Comment noted. Comment J-7: As the agricultural areas of the Sphere of Influence are built, residents are likely to encounter floodwater mosquitoes known as Psorophora. These mosquitoes are not vectors of disease; however, they are active day and night and are very painful biters. The addition of residents in the area will result in additional service requests, increasing our workload. Response J-7: Comment noted. Comment J-8:. Filth flies and eye gnats As the area within the La Quinta Sphere of Influence is developed from agricultural property into dwelling units, we expect to receive more requests for control of filth flies and eye gnats. Most flies lay eggs in decaying plant or animal matter as can be found in agricultural practices. We have seen the development of homes in traditionally agriculture areas result in unhappy homeowners who are not pleased with the presence of adult flies. We can and do recommend methods of preventing breeding sources of flies, but properties that are zoned for agriculture do have potential for fly breeding even when practicing standard and acceptable agricultural practices as defined by the California Health and Safety code. Response J-8: Comment noted. x� C 61 Terra Nova/La Quints General Plan Final EiR Comment J-9: Red imported fire ants (RIFA) While the red imported fire ant (RIFA) is not a vector of disease, it is an invasive species within the Coachella Valley that produces a very painful sting. People may experience localized pain or swelling and in some cases, anaphylactic shock. In urban areas, they build mounds close to buildings, in school yards, athletic fields, golf courses, and parks. In agricultural areas, they can build mounds near water sources and drip irrigation systems, feed on seeds and budding fruits, and sting livestock. La Quinta already has several golf courses that are infested with RIFA, and further creation of green spaces will likely result in the spread of the insect into the currently less urbanized Sphere of Influence. Response J-9: Comment noted. Comment J-10: We applaud the City of La Quinta's commitment to using desert landscaping techniques as well as the development of educational programs and demonstration gardens to inform the public and businesses of water efficient techniques and sustainable practices. Reducing water use, particularly wasted water that flows into storm drains, will result in decreases in vector populations. We encourage the city to work with us and future developers to use vector prevention strategies when building storm drains and choosing landscape options. Response J-10: Comment noted. i .�.:_ C 6 2 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR K. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Comment K-1: The Vista Santa Rosa Design Guidelines were adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in January 2009, after completion of this collaborative effort and are available at the following link: http://www.rctlma.orgiplanning/content/devnroc/guidelines/vistasantarosa/ vistasantarosalogousageeuides.ndf. The County of Riverside requests that continued consideration of the comprehensive identity for the Vista SantaRosa community, as referenced and detailed within the Design Guidelines, is incorporated into the City's updated General Plan and any other associated planning documents. Response K-I: Comment noted. As stated in the General Plan and the DEIR, a Master Plan is required for the City's eastern sphere of influence prior to annexation. The purpose of the Master Plan is, in part, to incorporate the character of the area in future development efforts. The City is familiar with the Design Guidelines, and the process that led to their completion, and will continue to include the Vista Santa Rosa community's vision in its planning efforts in the future. 49 C63 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR L. HOFFMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Note: The Hoffman Land Development Company comment letter was submitted with and is associated with a separate letter provided by Endo Engineering, whose comments are addressed separately in Comment Letter G, above. Comment L-1: We have made numerous requests to staff to work with us to review and analyze the modification and/or the possible deletion or conversion to emergency access of one or more of these roads as part of this General Plan Update. Staff has advised that such review and analysis is not timely and should be undertaken later as part of a Specific Plan review of the Travertine property. We have respected this requested, as it has been our understanding that the City intends to review and apply the circulation element flexibly in this area of the City understanding that among other things, it is not in the public interest to construct roads that are unnecessary or oversized. The Endo Engineering analysis of the report reveals that this southerly area of the City was not extensively studied and much detailed information is lacking when compared to the analysis performed in other areas. For the above reasons we request that a written statement be included in the policy document confirming that circulation will be flexibly interpreted in the Southerly Jefferson/Avenue 58/Madison/Avenue 62 area and further that an acknowledgement of this be included in the EIR Circulation analysis. Response L-1: Comment noted. The City has been working with the Travertine project proponent and will continue to cooperate in the proponents planned project revisions. Until such time as the City approves new land uses on the Travertine site, current entitlements must be used to model area traffic. As the City has consistently indicated, it will consider a revision to the City Circulation Element and Roadway Classifications concurrent with the submittal of a complete amendment to the approved Travertine Specific Plan. Again, it is noted that the commentor's traffic engineer (Endo Engineering) has prepared several traffic analyses for the Travertine project and has incorporated analysis of surrounding lands in these studies. These data have been shared with the General Plan traffic consultant. There have been numerous discussions regarding circulation, and multiple land use scenarios were modeled for this area, including the vicinity of the Travertine project. The trip generation potential of the Travertine project, as well as the approved Coral Canyon TTM 33444 (Green Specific Plan), have been thoroughly analyzed as well. Also, please see the TIA technical appendices, which have been provided to the commentor. 50 .p.., G 6 4 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EIR Also note that the Policies in the Draft General Plan Circulation Element provide the City with flexibility in responding to changing conditions and the need for or appropriateness of adjusting rights of way and improvements to meet long-term capacity needs along segments and at City intersections. 51 M C65 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final EiR M. AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAMILLA INDUNS Note: This letter was mailed to the City on September 6 s, one week after the close of the comment period. Although the City is not obligated to respond under CEQA, it has been included in this response to comments. Comment M-1: According to our records on Cahuilla landscapes, there are traditional cultural properties exist within the General Plan area that have not been documented Dr. Lowell Bean's book The Cahuilla Landscape (1991) and Frank Patencio's book, Stories and Legends of the Palm Springs Indians (1943) describe two Cahuilla place name locations. Cow on vah al ham ah is a settlement area for the Cahuilla located east of Happy Point. The area is associated with the Cahuilla culture hero Eagle Flower who made impressions into the surrounding landscape. Another Cahuilla place name location is located near the historic La Quinta Hotel on Eisenhower. Oral traditions suggest Eagle Flower resided in a village known as Kotevewit along the foothills. Archaeological sites and cultural resources mentioned in the DEIR may be associated with these important Cahuilla place names locations. Response M-1: Comment noted. Comment M-2: We request a thorough background research in traditional Cahuilla landscapes and oral history to better understand the cultural significance and potential impacts to the Cahuilla traditional places. This research shall be added to the historic and prehistoric sections of the plan under Cultural Resources Response M-2: The General Plan is a policy document, and as such provides a broad overview of the importance of cultural resources, including Native American resources, in the community. It is not appropriate for the General Plan to include a comprehensive inventory of cultural landscapes and oral history. Because of the rich cultural history in the City, the City requires the preparation of cultural resource reports for individual development projects, and has specific standards for the research for and preparation of these reports. These standards include Native American consultation. This is the appropriate time for any Tribal official to provide comments and concerns on any resource issue, including cultural landscapes and oral history. In the case of the preparation of the General Plan, the commentor was contacted in writing by the archaeologist preparing the General Plan Cultural Resources study in April 2010. No response was received. css Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final OR Comment M-3: Under Section 11 I-66 3.1 Mitigation Measures regarding consultations with tribes, we would like to emphasize the need for consultation on every project Response M-3: Comment noted. The City does include the Tribe in all project consultations. In addition, the Tribe is included in the Native American Heritage Commission listings for all projects. Comment M4: Section 111-66 3.2 Mitigation Measures, we request the following be added: 100% survey and cultural resource inventory is required prior to the approval of projects Response M4: Comment noted. The stated mitigation measure #2 on page II1-66 requires surveys for cultural resources on vacant sites prior to project approval as written. No change is necessary. Comment M-5: Section 111-66 3.2 Mitigation Measures, we request copies of any associated cultural resource reports and site records that might be generated in connection with these efforts for review and comment Response M-5: Comment noted. The Tribe has the opportunity to request copies of cultural resource reports when CEQA documentation is transmitted to the Tribe for comment. Comment M-6: Section 111-66 3.2 Mitigation Measures, we request a review period of 45 days to review the associated cultural resource reports and site records and will provide additional comments, such as proposed mitigation measures or conditions of approval, at that time. Response M-6: Comment noted. There is no statutory requirement for a 45 day review period for cultural resource studies. The Tribe has the opportunity to comment on all CEQA documents as provided in Public Resources Code 21091. Comment M-7: Page I1167 Section A. Mitigation Monitoring and reporting we request an Approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) must be present during any ground disturbing activities by developers. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. Response M-7: The City requires that qualified monitors be present during all earth moving activities on any property on which the potential for cultural C67 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan Final ETR resources is identified. The monitors are empowered to stop or redirect construction activities. This requirement has been and will continue to be a standard condition of the Historic Preservation Commission, and a standard mitigation measure in the Planning Department's CEQA documents. Comment M-8: We request specification (sic) if human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5. Response M-8: The commentor's request is a requirement of California law with which the City complies. No change is required in the EIR. p_C� C 6 8 AUG 3 0 2012 STATE OP MIPOENIA GOVERNOR'S OMCE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH SPATE CI.EU=GHOUSE AND PIANNINO UNIT �a4�ID0.8xovvltax. GOMMOa August 28, 2012 Andrew Mogeaac C1ty of le Qwft P.O. Dort 1604 La Quints, CA 92253 Subject General PlanUpdae SCHA 2DI0111094 Door Andrew Mogeneat YMArNX oaucroa MID SM the eneload 1 m*bo d Deana fire above named, Draftl3RtM seloaod etsU agmdm foreeviaq On Repent Please new that &e Cteadnghoiru mra lisad fie sate egeoda fiat mvlewod your docemeet 720 review period closed on Augaa 27, 2012, and the oommante from fire A. h respmding agmoy (ioo) is (ace) encored If this oommcnt padrep is not in mdw, plwe no* &e Bute CearlaghM= ie�- Ploose f4f to dwPROWS tao•digit Sate ©eat m nbw in fam concern dmoo so that we msyrespond pr=Vdy. Please note *At Section 21104(c) of the California Pul io Eeaomces Code passfirs- "A raponaNe at odw public agency shall Daly make mbdmdve comments regarding fear sedv&*s involved m a PrOcct e'" am within semen of expert(ae of the agmey or whichmc ruOmd to be carried oat or appmved by the agency. Those oohs d mfl be sappomd by rpec9Ao docomemmdon." Thaw comrnama aro forwarded ibr ace In preparing yore final eavuonmeaal document Should yonmied mom informaioo or elarili0aflon oftha 0010aed comments, coo reoomrnaed that you Cornea fha Ong egenoy diraaly. M letter acknowledges that you lave complied with the SaM Clesdaghowo review tequccmma for dta8 eavirmumal doour ams, Persumrt to the Califomia Bavirenmeat5l t U8* Act Please covmct the San G9emia WM at (916) 445-0613 ifyoa have coy qua dm mgu" she enviroennerial review PMOVIRL 9l aerely, / �� W4 Dirmt. ate Clearinghouse EWIO sea cc Rewumea Agency 140010tb Street PA. 8oz 3044 Summeato, ( Ubrnts 95811-1044 (916) 44W13 PAX (916) 323.3018 amw.opr a qw C 69 800•d SMMMI1ITM 111ViS 19191 SIOZ-oc-oSV Document DetaUa Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHN 2010111094 Prolloof Tide General Plan Update Lead Agency I.a Qulnte. City Of type EBt Draft EIR Desodfpdon Update of the La Quits General Pion, to encompass all mandated Elements, and add a Sustainable Community and an Economic Development Element The Update will include modifications to the Land Use Map, but will not siOnMowfly change land use patterns In the City. The Update also Includes planning and land use designations forthe Civs Sphere of Influence. A Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan is also being proposed, In coniuneft vAth theGeneralPlan. Lead Agency Contact Name Andrew Moo~ AVWW CIO of La Quints Phone (760)777.7125 Fez emeg Addmss P.O. Box 1504 City La Quirts swo CA Zip am Project Location County Rfver" . QW La Quints Region LaULang SIT SOT N /'116- 3T 0' W CroasSheets C"de P~ Na lfbirmbip Range Soction Base Proximity to; HwAvaya Hwy 111 Aaporb Jacqueline Cochran Raffiva s Kttaraaga Coachella valley Stormwater Channel Sehoofe Lendthe ProJectlesues Agricultural rand; Air Quality; Arch000looio•FOotodc; Bbbgical Resources; Dralnaga/Absorptlon; Flood PlainlFlooding; Forest LandiFire Harard; Geekgid9aismie; Minerals; Nciae; PopuladonMouft Balance; Public Services; ReaeadonlParke; SchWo/UnWOMWe: SePIC System; Sewer Capedy: Soll Eroslon/Compact on/Gradbro; Solid Waste; TO)WHazardous; TrafficOrculation; Vegatallon; Water Quality, Water SupW WedarMlRipatten; Growth Me": Landues ' RevfeNfng Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Come, Region 6; Cal Fire; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Perks and Recreation: Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Management Agency, Coftrr a; Cellfomle Highway Patrol; Callrens, omit 6; Department of Housing and Community Development; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projectr Regional WaterQusldy Control BOOM. Region 7: Native American Hedloge Commisson: Public Utilities Commission; Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy Dab Racahmed 071112=2 Shaftof0t vow 07/1=012 Enda/Ravfsw 0=7/2012 a 010 Note: Blanks In data gelds result from Insulfldent Information provided by lead agency. 000111 HS00HON11I113M RIVIS TBraT Z10E-oc-D0y AZ ICOFLAItliM61Y CEmuM 9row�.tr Hs NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION CROh.WIL ROOM 7M SAAM (G�tagMlBw0, Gl90fp ,IOa�ea.1MIQ.t6aCI e poor July 17, 2012 REI-'�I^F~i►`iel Mr. Andrew Mogansen, AICP, City Planner Oft of La awnta P.O. Box 15" La Quints, CA 0=3 Dear Mr. Mogensen: ruj.,2 0 ZojZ The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California Trustee Agency for the protection and preservation of Native Amadcan cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code 121070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court In the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1M:170 Cal App. P W4). This letter includes state and federal statutes misting to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American Individuals as 'oonsutiing parties' under both skate and federal law. Stale law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. This project Is also subject to California Governmeint Code Section 0535213, et seq. The CaUfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments etfactIve 3H 812010) requlres that any project that causes a substantial adverse change In the significance of an hlstodeai resource, that includes archaeological resources, Is a'algnifleant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant Impact on the environment as's substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project including ...objects of historic or aesthetic signillcancs.' In order to comply with this provision. the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential affect (APE), and If so, to midgets that effeol. The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project The NAHC 'Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and. the California Legislature In Calffomla Public Resources Code W097.94(a) and 5097.9s. Items in Me NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to Califomis Government Code Iti254 (r ). Early consultation with NaWe American tribes In your area Is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial ekes once a project Is underway. CndWr* affiliated tribes and IndhAdusb may have knowledge of the religious and cukural signifita cei of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you n 071 too'd BSAORNIli M BLUE! zz:9t ztoz-oe-env make contact with the Usti of Native American Contacts on #0 atadad slat of Nerve A 11MMR to see if your proposed project might Impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommencidons amosming the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NANO requeete cooperation from other public agencies In order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent proVhfornhation Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Governmerd code §65040.12(a). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §50971951 the NAHC requests that per anent project Information be provided consulting tribal pares, The NANO recommends evoldanee as defined.by CEQA Guldeunea §15370(a) to pursuing a projed that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 brat requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Furthermore, the NANO if the proposed project Is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e g• NEPA; 42 U.S.C.4321-43351). Consultation with Gibes and Interested Native American consulting parties. on the NAHC tat, should be conducted in compl'hanee with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 40of federal NHPA (16 US.C. 470 et ssq), 36 CFR Pan 800.5 Cis (2) & .5, the President's Council on ErrAironmeMal Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 at seq. and NAGPRA (26 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropflate• The 1092 Secretery of fie Interiors Standards for the Treah"Ont of Higwt pmpwtfw were revised so that they eoM be applied tu ati hatcric resource types induded in the National Register of Hi9taic Places and imductng cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos.11593 (preservation of cultural emhonmerd),13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Use) are helpful, suPPOM" gudes for Sodion 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Into W& $tendards Include reommandallons for a n � �COMILt of l� and toareseard' the gj le4�Include 0 of PotentiaMe Confidentiality of 'historic properties of religious and cultural slgnlficenoe" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6264(r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, The Seastary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (ud. 42 (i.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural sipiticancs identified In or near the APES and possibility threatened by proposed project activity Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section $097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.6 provide for provisions for inadvensnt discovery reremains inhuman remains a p jet locamandate oththe erttTan a'dedicated metuocesses to be followed In fhe evert of a discoveN To be effective, consultation on speaf c projects must be the result of an ongoing relatiortship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation. a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement With 1001 tribes wifi lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Finaay, when Native American adlurai sites and/or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends'avoidanOe' of the site as referenced by CEQA Guldefines Section 16370(a). 900'd .. 07) WAOHaaIMM Elvis ZZr9T ztoz-oe-env S00'd 'IYLOL If You have me at (910 Cc: State Attachment questions about this response to your request please do not hesitate to American Contact List 900'd !^(�j77n BSOONONIHVM SLVLS 62:9I onoc-O6 `J10 TRANSACTION REPORT P.OI X AUG-30-2012 THU 02:48 PM X X X X FOR: X z z z RECEIVE z X X X DATE START SENDER RR TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP x X X X AUG-30 02:45 PM 3118" 8 RECEIVE OK X X X xXXXXXXXXXxXXXXxxxxxxxXXXXxXXXxXxxXXxXXXxXXXxXXxXxxXXXxxXXXxXXXXXXXxxxxXXxXX�XxXXXXXXXXXxxXXXXXXXXXX ,b.. 014 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION MCAPFFMWW ,MWssr "CRUV ro,eAsesr4 (we16534M PON (me) W4 wo WW 8ft msmttees aev assxop July 17, 2012 Mr. Andrew Mogensen, AICP, City Planner City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1604 La Quints, CA 92253 { i) YE.: ! I ' JUL z o 2012 i 1 ornroPuawwA I Plgppape DEPAgrwt�yr _ I Re: SCH#2010111094; CEQA Notice of Completion: draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIRI for the Citv of La Quints General Plan Update: located in the City of La Quints: Coachella Vallev: Riverside County, California. Dear Mr. Mogensen: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. and 604). This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested B-f Native American individuals as'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. This project is also subject to Caldbmia Government Code Section 65352/3, at seq. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3(18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within 8'2 an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance.* In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project: The NAHC "Sacred Sites; as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. items in B-3 the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ). Early consultation with Native American tubes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural 84 significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you 075 make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American coda, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as B4 defined by California Government Code §65040.12(s). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a).to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Ad (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(1) of federal NHPA 66 U.S.C. 470 at seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ. 42 U.S.0 4371 at seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of B5 HWorfo ProperOies were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos.11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to °research' the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect.' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance' should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for . B$ listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C.,1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APES and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent B_7 discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery'. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built B-8 around regular meetings and'mformal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Finally, when Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends 'avoidance' of the site as referenced by B-9 CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a). 7 u..a- 06 If you have any quq6tons about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to co t me at (916) 53- 5 Since ly, i gleto ogram Anal st Cc: State C a nghouse Attachment: ativ American Contact List p.N 077 Native American Contact Riverside County July 17, 2012 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians David Roosevelt, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Cahuilla Indio . CA 92203.34I10 (760) 342-2593 (760) 347-7880 Fax Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians Shane Chapparosa, Chairman P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla Warner . CA 92086 (760) 782-0711 (760) 782-2701 - FAX Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Joseph Hamilton, Chairman P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Anza . CA 92539 admin@ramonat(ibe.com (951)763-4105 (951) 763-4325 Fax Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson PO Box 1160 Cahuilla Thermal , CA 92274 mresvaloso@torresmartinez. (760) 397-0300. (760) 397-8146 Fax This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians John Marcus, Chairman P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla Anza I CA 92539 (951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 Fax Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Mary Ann Green, Chairperson P.O. Box 849 Cahuilla Coachella CA 92236 (760)398-4722 760-369-7161 - FAX . Morongo Band of Mission Indians Michael Contreras, Cultural Heritage Prog. 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Banning . CA 92220 Serrano (951) 201-1866 - cell moontreras @ morongo-nsn. gov (951) 922-0105 Fax Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Diana L. Chihuahua, Vice Chairperson, Cultural P.O. Boxt 1160 Cahuilla Thermal , CA 92274 760) 397-0300, Ext. 1209 (760) 272-9039 - cell (Lisa) (760) 397-8146 Fax Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7060.E of the Health and Safety Code, Section 6097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section $097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCHN201077f 094; CEQA Notice of Completion; draft Environments! Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quinta General Plan update; City of La Qulnta; Riverside County, California. �.:: 078 Native American Contact Riverside County July 17, 2012 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians THPO Patricia Tuck, Tribal Historic Perservation Officer 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla Palm Springs, CA 92264 ptuck @augacaliente-nsn.gov (760) 699-6907 (760) 699-6924- Fax Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Karen Kupcha P.O. Box 849 Cahuilla Coachella , CA 92236 (760) 398-4722 916-369-7161 - FAX Cahuilla Band of Indians Chairperson PO Box 391760 Cahuilla Anza . CA 92539 tribalcouncil @cahuilia.net 915-763-5549 This Oat Is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not reOeve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7060.E of the Health and Safety Code, Section 6097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH02010111094; CEQA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Le Quints General Plan Update; City of La Quints; Riverside County, CallfomhL . .:: C 79 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY 15, 2012 Andrew Mogensen, Principal Planner y of La Quints Planning Department D. Box 1504 495 Calls Tampico Quints CA 92253 pUG 1. CTf'l Of IA�UINr E t .PLAN�—r3DEPAR'R'h- Amar aoder RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quints General Plan Rhadds Update (SCH # 2010111094) 0Hernet Dear Mr. Mogensen: Jol Thank you for providing the Riverside County Airport land Use Commission (ALUC) with a CD Rivelsift copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quinta General Plan 01110wo Update. We have reviewed the document and offer the following comments. &q P" On page III-99 of the Draft EIR, Bermuda Dunes Airport is variously referred to as a 'private We" city airfield' or a'pfirate airstrip.' This is an incorrect classification. Bermuda Dunes Airport should be described as a °privateN owed public use airport.' As a public use airport, Bermuda Dunes Airport is subject to permitting requirements of the State of California Department of STAFF Transportation Division of Aeronautics. Another distinction between a public use airport and a private airstrip is that Airport Land Use Commissions are required to prepare Airport Land Use Dtaem. Compatibility Plans for the environs of public use airports. A handwritten annotated copy of page Edcoopar III-99 is attached hereto, and we would recommend that the Final EIR incorporate the John Guerin recommended changes. Ruud Brady Barbara Series A portion of the City of La Quinta located northerly of Fred Waring Drive and westerly of cas *mart aria Jefferson Street is within Compatibility Zone D and is proposed for a land use designation of Low aa,wnro�_ Density Residential (0 to 4 dwelling units per acre). This land use designation is not consistent "h>z with Countywide compatibility criteria for Compatibility Zone D; however, as this designation reflects an existing land use (a recorded tract map), a finding of consistency could still be made by the Airport Land Use Commission. ww.rtaUcuu The current boundaries of the City of La Quints lie outside the Airport Influence Area for Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, but the sphere of influence extends into this area and is included primarily in Compatibility Zones D and E. Small portions of Compatibility Zones C and B1 extend into the area directly southwesterly of the Airport Boulevard/Harrison Street Intersection. This area is within the community of Vista Santa Rosa, where the Commission has indicateda willingness to consider special policies if large expanses of open area can be preserved in perpetuity. (Please seethe attached letter from the Airport Land Use Commission to the Riverside County Planning Department regarding this issue.) C C-1 C-2 lei Ito Section 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code,'priorto the amendment of a plan ... the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to [ALUC].' At the ate time prior to action (ideally before Planning Commission consideration, but definitely C4 ity Council action), the new General Plan should be submitted to the Airport Land Use rion for a consistency review. (A copy of the 'Application for Major Land Use Action HE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION August 15, 2012 Review farm is attached, for your convenience.) C-4 We urge yaur consideration of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the 2004 Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and the 2005 Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in proposing land use designations for properties within the Airport Influence Areas of these two airports. C-5 Additionally. the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, is an excellent resource that should be consulted in your efforts to provide for a General Plan that furthers the objectives of airport land use compatibility planning. We recommend that the chapter addressing 'Responsibilities of Local Agencies' be reviewed. In situations where a jurisdiction's General Plan has not been determined by ALUC to be consistentwith applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, ALUC is empowered to require submittal of all actions, regulations, and permits (such as land divisions and development of structureswilh a cumulative floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater) involving land within an Airport Irdluenos Area for individual determinations of consistency or inconsistency. All major land use actions, with or without legislative actions such as general plan amendments, specific plans and specific plan amendments, and zoning changes, affecting land within the Airport C-6 Influence Areas of Bermuda Dunes Airport and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport are presently subject to ALUC review. ALUC reviews for conformance with ALUCP compatibility criteria, including land use intensity, noise, and height (Once ALUC has determined a jurisdiction's General Plan to be consistent, only those projects invoking general plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, ordinance amendments, or zoning changes are subject to ALUC review.) The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachments is vital to California's economicfuture. ALUCs were created by the State of California to work with local jurisdictions in a joint effort to provide for compatible land uses in the vicinity of public use airports. ALUC staff C-7 is available to assist the City in this effort in order to provide for a General Plan that is consistent with adopted Compatibility Plans, and would be happy to meet with you and City staff to discuss the General Plan and the ALUC review process at your convenience. If you have any questions, please contact John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955- 0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE (3): Page III-99 with recommended corrections Letter to Riverside County Planning re: Vista Santa Rosa Application for Major Land Use Action Review cc: Mode S. Cristo, Terra Nova Planning & Research Mike Smith, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport Daryl Shippy, Riverside County EDA — Aviation (Indio) 081 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section 1D. Existing Environmental Concerns, Project Impacts, and Mitigation Measures and Navy uses. 43 No new development throughout the Planning Area will be located on hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, there will be no impact related to new populations being located on hazardous materials sites. Airports and Associated Hazards Impacts a pw tl'CA� �ofrip , &dni�q A w fs bcdfed in zone C1 Irr! t11 tt t�yspla{�tvea The Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is imm iately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Sphere of Influence. As a result, aircraft using the at ort may fly over the Planning Area. Riverside CotJd Airpori'I.ali�d Ose Co ' Jssion- mosf opW The Ee�ef—I-fivers" has Prepared the Riverside ounty A' oR Land Use Compatibility Plan, which provides policies for Airport Influence Are s forall airports in the County. Eastern portions of the La Quinta Planning Area are located ithin the Jacqueline Cochran Airport Influence Area Zone D and E of the Compatibility PI . New development within the eastern boundary of the Sphere of Influence will need to abide by Compatibility Plan polipes and land use regulations. Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes are discouraged in Airport Compatibility Land Use Zone D, and the number of residential dwelling units is regulated in this zone. Within Zone E, there are no residential or commercial restrictions' however, prohibited uses include those that create hazards to tlightA, including tall objects, visual and electronic forms of interference, and developments that attract birds, such as landfills 44 The General Plan Update proposes non-residential land uses, including both industrial and commercial uses)within Zone D, and residential uses are proposed in Zone E. These uses are allowed according to the Compatibility Plan. Therefore, hazards related to the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport will have a less than significant effect on development within the J Planning Area. t .pglnPA Aiwrti The General Plan Update Planning Area is 4alsnearthe Bermuda Dunesaieskip, Thisair=freld is located approximately 1.5 miles nthe northern Sphere of Influence and City limit, along Interstate 10 west of Jefferson S5,000-foot runway is oriented in an east - west direction, and approaches and takeoff patterns generally do not affect any portion of the Planning Area.45 According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the far northern portions of La Quints, including the northern Sphere of Influence, are locatedo Compatibility Land Use Zone E. As previously mentioned, there are no residential,, esidential or commercial restrictions in Zone Ej weverrprohsbited uses include those that create haz to flight!;, including tall objects, visua and electronic forms of interference, and developmen that attract birds, such as landfrlls.46 roposed land uses within Zone E are compatible wi the Bermuda Dunes Compatibil' Ian. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Upda a will have a less than signifi impact within the vicinity of ;s Pub �y P/HAan? "Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List", www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov, accessed January 14, 2011. 44 "Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; Volume I", prepared by Mead & Hunt, October 14, 2004. 45 Bermuda Dunes Airport, hupWbermudadunesairport com/, accessed December 17, 2010. 46 "Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; Volume I", prepared by Mead & Hunt, October 14, 2004.. *Q, (4 prfon 6f Ca'>pA'ht'# y ZW8 p;s iv!>W C� AttQvii1'fu, ho/ #71s a 082 CHAIR Simon Housman Rands Mirage VICE CHAIRMAN Rod Ballanee Riverside comm6 ums Arthur Butler Riverside Robin Lowe Hemet John Lyon Riverside Glen Holmes Hemet Melanie Fesmire Indio AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY 14,2008 Jerry Jolliffe, Deputy Planning Director my of Riverside Planning Department ) Lemon Street, 91h Floor :rside CA 92501 JD DELIVERY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW File No.: Not Applicable Related File No.: Vista Santa Rosa Concept Plan Mr. Jolliffe: April 10, 2008, the Vista Santa Rosa Concept Plan was brought before the Riverside County port Land Use Commission (ALUC) on an informal (non -vote) basis. As proposed on that the Commission expressed its conceptual support for the Plan, provided that the following -ndments are made so as to allow the Plan to be eligible for a finding of consistency with the 15 Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, pursuant to Section 6 of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility STAFF I Plan: Director Ed Cooper RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS: John Guerin Brenda Ramirez The Airport Land Use Commission recommends that the County of Riverside incorporate the Sophia Nolasco rP ty rP Barbara Santos amendments specified herein (or substantively similar text as acceptable to the ALUC Director) OnatiAMinerzk Cater into the Vista Santa Rosa Concept Plan and submit the revised text to ALUC staff for tMLean" k9-11 . concurrence prior to final adoption by the County. prersda G9L5d1 (951) 955 sin 1. The Concept Plan shall be amended to add the boundaries of Airport Zones Bl, C, D, and E. waa.n;au.ae 2. Table 2A of the Countywide Policies of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan shall be incorporated into the Vista Santa Rosa Concept Plan as an Appendix. 3. A statement shall be added in the discussion of Policy Area 1 stating that residential densities in the portion of Planning Area 1 in Airport Zone D shall be not less than five dwelling units per acre. 4. Policy Areas 3 and 4 shall include policies.that require new residential units (other than individual dwelling units on existing legal lots and second units) in Airport Zone D to either comply with the density criteria of Table 2A (which allows clustered development 0.83. Airport Land Use Commission Page 2 envelopes of five or more dwelling units per acre, but otherwise restricts density to a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres, in accordance with Option A below), or with the specifications of Option B or Option C, as stated below. 5. The Plan shall include a statement that all legislative actions in the Airport Influence Area shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for mandatory review and that all major land use actions as defined in the Riverside County 'Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan within that area shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for advisory review. 6. The Plan shall include a statement that all projects ten acres or larger within Airport Zone D shall set aside ten percent of land area in qualified open areas not less than 300 feet in length and 75 feet in width and free from obstructions, unless the project is located in a development area within which a 50-acre contiguous open space area has been established or is being concurrently established. The qualified open areas may include pastures, polo and soccer fields, golf course fairways, drainage easements, and roadways. Trees, light poles exceeding four feet in height, and trash enclosures are not permitted in such open areas. At the time of the adoption of the Vista Santa Rosa Concept Plan or sooner, the County must agree to amend the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan to incorporate current compatibility criteria for Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport in its Policy Areas text and tables. 8. The discussion of Lifestyle Corridors should include a statement that schools, lakes, streams, and water features (other than existing water features) will not be located in the portion of the east -west corridor located in Airport Zone D, and that commercial and public -use structures and uses therein would be required to comply with person intensity limits. 9. A statement shall be added in the discussion of Other Land Use Types stating that, if the property at the northwest comer of 6e Avenue and Harrison Street is developed pursuant to the Community Center Overlay, residential densities in that area shall not be less than five dwelling units per acre. 10. The section addressing "Compatibility with Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport" shall be rewritten to delete the reference to "the portions of the parcels proposed for designation as High Density Residential along Harrison Street," since the Plan no longer proposes any residential designations for land in Airport Zones B 1 and C. The reference to "the portion of the parcel proposed as Commercial Tourist that is located at the southwest corner of Harrison Street and Airport Boulevard" should be replaced with a reference to "Commercial Tourist and Business Park uses," and should simply state that the intensity of uses shall comply with the person intensity limits of the applicable Airport Zone, as specified in Table 2A. 11. Section D should include a separate paragraph describing "qualified open areas in Airport Zones," as defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2 084 Airport Land Use Commission Page 3 The designations of the portions of Policy Areas 3 and 4 within Airport Zone D for residential development at densities of 0.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per acre is inconsistent with the 2005 Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, in that Airport Zone D prohibits intermediate residential densities greater than 0.2 dwelling units per acre and less than 5.0 dwelling units per net acre, unless special findings are made pursuant to Section 3.3.6 of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan However, the community's overall vision of open space, agriculture, and roadways with wide setbacks to preserve vistas is compatible with appropriate design for residential communities in the vicinity of airports. There are several factors that are unique to the Vista Santa Rosa community as it relates to the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport: a. The Vista Santa Rosa Concept Plan is built around the concept of "open space - oriented community amenities" and requires minimum proportions of project average that must be allocated to such amenities in order for a project with a density greater than one dwelling unit per acre to be approved. b. The Plan was initiated in response to citizen action by residents of Vista Santa Rosa interested in maintaining the rural atmosphere of the community. C. The entire Vista Santa Rosa area lies outside the 55 dB(A) CNEL contour on maps depicting noise contours based on the ultimate activity levels for Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. d. The inclusion of Vista Santa Rosa in Airport Zone D (with the exception of the easterly 500 feet) is attributable to Runway 12-30. The standard lateral distance from Runway 17-35 used in demarcating Zones D and E at this airport is 8,000 feet, and only the easterly 500 feet is located within this 8,000-foot lateral distance. e. According to the Airport Activity Data Summary of the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Runway 12-30 is expected to account for not more than 10% of annual activity by single engine and twin -engine piston aircraft and not more than 4% of annual activity by twin -engine turboprop aircraft, helicopters, and small business jets. f. The maximum pavement strength of Runway 12-30 is 20,000 pounds, compared with a maximum pavement strength of 174,000 pounds for Runway 17-35. Therefore, it is unlikely that Runway 12-30 would be utilized for air cargo service in the future. g. The Concept Plan offers an opportunity for the community to be designed in a manner that improves safety in the long term by assuring that, as the community transitions from agricultural to suburban estate residential uses, provision will be made for either a larger proportion of land area available for emergency landing or one large emergency landing area that would be clearly visible to aircraft pilots. Airport Land Use Commission Page 4 In light of all of these factors, the Airport Land Use Commission agreed that there is reasonable justification for consideration of special criteria to be applied when evaluating the proposed intermediate densities within the Vista Santa Rosa community. These special criteria would allow for development at an overall density of 0.2 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre provided that an avigation easement is conveyed to the County Economic Development Agency as owner -operator of Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport and that a substantially larger proportion or area of open space is provided. The alternatives for residential development in the Airport Zone D area are as follows: OPTION A Development at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres, development at an overall density of five or more dwelling units per acre within residential areas, or development within clustered pods of five or more dwelling units per acre (net density of residential planning areas including roads less than 74 feet in width). Such development is subject to recordation of a deed notice and, if the project is 10 acres or larger in area, the required 10% of project acreage in qualified ALUC open area. (Option A is consistent with Table 2A density criteria.) OPTION B Development at an overall density of 0.2 to 1.5 dwelling units per acre may be found consistent pursuant to Section 3.3.6, provided that an avigation easement is recorded and that not less than 15% of project acreage is dedicated to qualified open areas not less than 75 feet in width and not less than 600 feet in length. Development at an overall density of 1.5 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre may be found consistent pursuant to Section 3.3.6, provided that an avigation easement is recorded and that not less than 20% of project acreage is dedicated to qualified open areas not less.than 75 feet in width and not less than 600 feet in length. OPTION C Development at an overall density of 0.2 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre may be found consistent pursuant to Section 3.3.6, provided that an avigation easement is recorded. In lieu of dedicating the percentages of open areas specified in OPTION B above, the development may choose to set aside an area of 50 contiguous acres of qualified open area with no linear dimension less than 600 feet, with such qualified open area to be dedicated as open area in perpetuity. Once such an area is set aside for this purpose, this area will meet the open area requirement for up to 450 acres of development area (excluding that open area) within the portion of Airport Zone D located northerly of W Avenue. If you have any questions, please contact John Guerin, Airport Land Use Commission Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. 4 ,0 8 6 Airport Land Use Commission Page 5 Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Edwwaz�C. Cooper, Director JGG:bks cc: ALUC Staff Michael Gialdini, Office of Fourth District Supervisor Roy Wilson Y:UALUCUCRA\VistaSantaRosaCommentsALUCAprO&doc • •- •- r •EVIEW ALUC Identification No. • • • • • • PROJECT PROPONENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Date of Application Property Owner Phone Number Mailing Address Agent (if any) Phone Number Mailing Address PROJECTLOCATION (TO BE COMPLETED BYAPPUCANT Attach an accurstalyscalad mapshowfng the relationship or the project site to the airport boundary and runways Street Address Assessor's Parcel No. Parcel Size Subdivision Name Zoning Lot Number Classification PROJECT DESCRIPTION (TO BE COMPLETED BYAPPLICANT) If applicable, attach a detazed site plan showing ground elevations the location ofshucMm. open spaces and waterbodies, and Me haghts ofstrudures and hares Include additional Med descni,ban data as needed Existing Land Use (describe) . Proposed Land Use (describe) For Residential Uses Number of Parcels or Units on Site (exclude secondary units) For Other Land Uses Hours of Use (See Appendix C) Number of People on Site Maximum Number Method of Calculation Height Data Height above Ground or Tallest Object (including antennas and trees) ft. Highest Elevation (above sea level) of Any Object or Terrain on Site ft. Flight Hazards Does the project involve any characteristics which could create electrical interference, 0 Yes confusing lights, glare, smoke, or other electrical or visual hazards to aircraft flight? No If yes, describe REFERRING AGENCY (TO BE COMPLETED BY AGENCY STAFF) Date Received Type of Project Agency Name ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Zoning Amendment or Variance Staff Contact ❑ Subdivision Approval Phone Number ❑ Use Permit Agency's Project No. ❑ Public Facility ❑ Other ALUC REVIEW (TO BE COMPLETED BYALUC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) Application Date Received By Receipt Is Application Complete? ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, Cite reasons Airport(s) Nearby Primary Criteria Review Compatibility Zone(s) ❑ A Allowable (not prohibited) Use? ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Bt No ❑ B2 ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E ❑ Ht. DensityAntensity Acceptable? ❑ Yes ❑ No Open Land Requirement Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Height Acceptable? ❑ Yes ❑ No EasemenhDeed Notice Provided? ❑ Yes ❑ No Special Conditions Describe: Supplemental Noise Criteria Review Safety Airspace Protection Overflight ACTIONS TAKEN (TO BE COMPLETED BY ALUC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) ALUC Executive ❑ Approve Dale Director's Action ❑ Refer to ALUC ALUC ❑ Consistent Date Action ❑ Consistent with Conditions (fist canditionslattach additional pages if needed) ❑ Inconsistent (list masons/attach additional pages if needed) Au ust 2007 6 0, 1 Set 4 Sets. 1 Set. NOTICE: Failure of an applicant to submit complete or adequate information pursuant to Sec- tions 65940 to 65948 inclusive, of the California Government Code, MAY constitute grounds for disapproval of actions, regulations, or permits. SUBMISSION PACKAGE: ALUC REVIEW Completed Application Form Project Site Plan — Folded (8-112 x 14 max.) Elevations of Buildings - Folded 8 % x 11 reduced copy of the above 8 % x 11 reduced copy showing project in relationship to airport. Floor plans for non-residential projects Gummed address labels of the Owner and representative (see Proponenti. Gummed address labels of all property owners within a 300' radius of the project site. If more than 100 property owners are involved, please provide pre -stamped envelopes (size #10), with ALUC return address. 4 Sets.. Gummed address labels of the referring agency (City or County). 1...... Check for Fee (See Item "Co below) STAFF REVIEW (Consult with ALUC staff Planner as to whether oroiect qualifies) 1 ..... Completed Application Form 1 ..... Project Site Plans — Folded 18-1rz x 14 max.) 1 ..... Elevations of Buildings - Folded 1 ..... 8'/2 x 11 Vicinity Map 1 Set. Gummed address labels of the Owner and representative (seaProponano. 1 Set . Gummed address labels of the referring agency. 1 .....Check for review —See Below C. FEE SCHEDULE (Effective August 14,2007 ): Approved by Resolution 2007-03: ALUC REVIEW Change of zone; Conditional Use Permit; Gen- Specific Plan Review eral Plan Amendment; Parcel Map or Plot/Site Initial Project Review $2,911.00 Plan Review and Variance Amended Project Review $1,947.00 Initial Project Review $ 1,188.00 Amended Project Review $ 792.00 Tract Map Review Community Plan Review Initial Project Review $1,353.00 Initial Project Review $3,300.00 Amended Project Review $ 908.00 Amended Project Review $2,145.00 General Plan Element Review Initial Project Review $3.300.00 Amended Project Review $2,195.00 Other Environmental Assessments Review Initial Project Review $1,492.00 Amended Project Review $ 990.00 Environmental Impact Report Review Initial Project Review $2,723.00 Amended Project Review $1,815.00 Building Permit Review Initial Project Review $ 512.00 Amended Project Review $ 347.00 Please make out check payable to: County of Riverside, Airport Land Use Commission A South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 917654182 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov E-Mailed: August 24, 2012 August 24, 2012 planning@la-quinta.org Mr. Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the City of La Ouinta General Plan Update Proiect The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The following comments are intended to provide guidance to the lead agency and should be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) as appropriate. Based on a review of the Draft EIR the AQMD staff is concerned about the project's regional construction and operational air quality impacts. Specifically, the lead agency has determined that the project's construction and operational emissions will exceed the AQMD's CEQA significance thresholds for NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts. Therefore, the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional mitigation measures to minimize the project's significant air quality impacts. Further, the AQMD staff request that the lead agency provide additional information and clarification in the Final EIR on the project's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Plan and GHG significance detemunation presented in the Draft EIR. Details regarding these comments are attached to this letter. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any 091 Mr. Andrew Mogensen August 24, 2012 other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. Attachment IM:DG RVC 120713-03 Control Number Sincerely, v. A Aa Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter -Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources �. 092 Mr. Andrew Mogensen August 24, 2012 1. Based on a review of the Draft EIR the lead agency has determined that the proposed project will achieve its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 10% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 28% below 2005 levels by 2035. Based on information presented on page IV-7 of the GHG Reduction Plan the lead agency established BAU using historical growth rates (2005 baseline data) within city limits. As a result, the lead agency applied this same growth rate to land area outside of city limits and in the project's sphere of influence (SOI). However, it does not appear that the land outside of the lead agency's jurisdiction and in the SOI (see Figure I-5 of Draft EIR) has a D-1 growth potential that is consistent with the growth rates assumed in the BAU analysis. Specifically, it does not seem appropriate to allocate the same growth rate to land in the city limits boundary and land in the SOI boundary given the existing lower density rural designation within the SOI. Therefore, the AQMD staff requests that in light of a recent court ruling regarding BAU analysis[ the lead agency demonstrate that the BAU analysis properly captures the growth potential in the city's sphere of influence and provide clarification about the use of this rate to establish the project's BAU emissions value. Regional Plan Consistency 2. The lead agency indicates that the population, housing and employment growth rates in the GHG Reduction Plan were provided by the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG). However, the lead agency does not provide any quantitative D-2 analyses or measures to demonstrate that the project is consistent with the recent Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) adopted by the SCAG. Therefore, the final CEQA document should provide a quantified analysis demonstrating consistency with the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/SCS. Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Ouality Ira acts 3. The lead agency's operational air quality analysis demonstrates significant air quality impacts from all criteria pollutant emissions including NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts. These impacts are primarily from mobile source emissions related to vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. However, the lead agency fails to adequately address this large source of emissions. Specifically, the lead agency requires nominal mitigation measures in the Draft EIR that lack D-3 emission reduction targets and specificity relative to the mobile source emissions. Therefore, the lead agency should reduce the project's significant air quality impacts by reviewing and incorporating additional transportation mitigation measures from the greenhouse gas quantification report2 published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association and by revising mitigation measures I through 6 on Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley et al., v. County of Riverside et al. (Villages of Lakeview, April 2012) z California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association. August 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Accessed at: httv://www.cancoa.ore/wo-content/unloads/2010/1 I/CAPCOA- Ouanti fication-Report-9-14-Final.pdf +t.� 093 Mr. Andrew Mogensen 4 August 24, 2012 page III-35 of the Draft EIR to provide specific emission reduction targets in the Final EIR. Further, the lead agency should be mindful of significant mobile source reductions that are needed in the near future for the South Coast Air Basin to achieve Federal Clean Air Standards by 2023 and 20303. Construction Eauioment Mitigation Measures 4. The lead agency determined that the proposed project will exceed the CEQA regional construction significance thresholds; therefore, AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide the following additional mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. D4 • Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx and PM emissions requirements. 3 See page six (6) of the Powering the Future Document accessed at: httv://www.acimd.izov/i)ubinfo/images/cover-spread-ipm " 094 E CITY OF COACHELLA 1515 SIxH'H STREE7, COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 PHONE (7(0) 398-3502 • FAX (760) 399-8117 • WWW,COACHF.LLA.ORG August 27, 2012 Mr. Andy Mogensen, AICP City of La Quinta Planning Department P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta CA 92253 Subject: La Quinta General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Andy: The City of Coachella would like to thank your staff and consultants for including the City of Coachella, throughout your process, in the La Quinta General Plan Update. We had the privilege of meeting with you during the early planning stages and discussed items of mutual concern. We are excited to see the latest documents that are now approaching the public hearing process. Upon closer review of the documents, the City of Coachella would like to register the following comments regarding the draft documents. 1) The Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan (Exhibit i-5) shows the entire geographic area bounded by Jackson Street, Airport Boulevard, Harrison Street and the Coachella City boundary as "Low Density Residential' except for.two areas of "Community Commercial' at SW comer of Van Buren and Avenue 53, and on the west side of Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 60. (north of Avenue 54). The City is concerned about this blanket designation for the following reasons. a) The preferred land use plan deviates from the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Concept Plan (VSRLUCP) with respect to the clustering of densities at the Village Center near Coachella Valley High School. The City of Coachella believes that "Medium High Density Residential', "High Density. Residential", "Village Center" and "Community Center' uses identified in the VSRLUCP at Calhoun Street and Airport Boulevard are beneficial to the long term quality of life E-1 in the area. The City of Coachella would encourage the creation of a neighborhood center similar to what is envisioned in the VSRLUCP in order to reduce vehicular trips for the commercial needs of nearby residents, and to have a cluster of density near the existing High School to promote walking routes to school. b) The intersection of Van Buren Street and Avenue 52 in Coachella has approximately 160 acres of undeveloped land designated for General Commercial uses. Commercial land developers have studied this intersection as a future node for regional commercial and medical office uses. This area has the potential to become a significant employment center. The City of Coachella is in favor or designating the land north of Avenue 53 and east of Calhoun Street to include "Medium Density" and "High Density" Residential uses to cluster homes near this future employment center. An Affirtnalive Arrion/Equal Opportunity F.mplover „-1 095 Letter to City of La Quinta August 27, 2012 Page 2 2) The proposed roadway diagram for Harrison Street south of Airport Boulevard is shown as a Major Arterial consisting of six lanes with a raised median. Please note that the City of Coachella has approved a policy document for Harrison Street between Avenue 54 and Highway 111 ("Harrison Street Corridor Study") that calls for a de-emphasized roadway with four lanes of travel and parallel parking on the street. It is our desire to shift regional traffic onto Van Buren Street and Calhoun Street as future north -south arterial streets within Coachella. In addition to anticipated future E-2 commercial uses and possible expansion of the Augustine Casino, the Van Buren and Calhoun Street corridors will provide connectivity between planned community parks at Van Buren and Avenue 49 (Rancho Las Flores) and at Avenue 50 and Calhoun Street (La Colonia Park). The City of Coachella would encourage policies that would require a transitioning section of Harrison Street between Avenue 58 and Airport Boulevard to reduce the number of lanes for north -bound traffic into Coachella. 3) The draft Circulation Element diagram as shown in Exhibit III-18 identifies the major roadway arterials on the traditional section lines throughout La Quinta's sphere of influence (i.e., Avenue 54, Airport Boulevard, Jackson Street, Van Buren Street, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60, etc.). While a majority of Coachella's arterials have not been developed, we see this as an opportunity to enhance connectivity by including the %rmile connecting roadways as much as possible into the General Plan network. Accordingly, the City of Coachella will be including Avenue 53, Avenue 55, Avenue 57, Avenue 59, and Avenue 61 into the Circulation Element. Similarly, we will be including Calhoun Street, Frederick Street and Shady Lane as north -south arterial streets to distribute the traffic in a E-3 manner that would allow all arterial streets to be no larger than a four -lane roadway. The City of Coachella would encourage smaller block distances between arterial streets to discourage highway - type arterials and encourage pedestrian -friendly streets that provide access to local commercial and public uses within identifiable neighborhood centers. The City has an over -arching goal to improve the health of our residents through the built environment by promoting walkable communities, improving opportunities for short distance non -motorized travel, and improve access to parks and recreational uses. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment and we look forward to sharing our draft General Plan documents with you and your staff as they become available. Please contact me at (760)398-3102 if ,you have further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely. Luis Lopez Development Services Director Xc: David Garcia, Jonathan Hoy " r96 C,fit�C�i F Established in 1918 as a public agency u I Valley WateCITY z AUG L7 20j2Coachella OF LA DUINTA "TANNING DFvAR IWFNT i Directors: ama�rs: Peter Nelson, President - Div. 4 Steven B. Robbins, General Monager-Chlet Engineer John P. Powell, X vice President - Div. 3 Julia Fernandez, Board Secretary PaIncla A Larson - Div. 2 Debi Uvesay - Div. 5 Redwine and Sherrill, Attorneys Franz W De Matz - Div.1 August 22, 2012 File: 1150.14 Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planncr City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Mogensen: Subject: Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of La Ouinta General Plan Update Thank you for affording the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) the opportunity to review the Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the La Quinta General Plan Update. CVWD provides domestic water, wastewater, recycled water, irrigation/drainagc, regional stormwater protection and groundwater management services to a population of almost 300,000 throughout the Coachella Valley in Southern California. At this time, CVWD submits the following comments regarding the DEIR: 1. Where applicable throughout the DEIR, references should be made to the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (approved in January 2012), the F-1 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Recharge Facility. 2. Page M-9- Environmental Summary Matrix: Under the "Existing Conditions" heading, "Hydrology" is misspelled. F-2 Please revise first sentence under "Hydrology" to state: "Analysis and design of F-3 regionalJlood control structures is the responsibility ofCVWD ". Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Hydrology" to state "... the F 4 Bear Creek System, the East La Quinta Channel System, Dike No. 2,Guadelupe Dike, and Dike No. 4. " In reference to the second paragraph under the "Project Impacts" heading, please note F-5 that the portion of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel within the Planning Area is not a "levee", and most of this section has slope protection. Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta 2 August 22, 2012 3. Page M-10, Environmental Summary Matrix: In the last sentence of the third paragraph under the headings "Existing Conditions" and "Water Resources/Quality", F-8 please revise to read: "CVWD estimates the annual overdraft for 2010 to be 7, 457 acre-feet. " 4. Page II-12: Please revise the third paragraph to read "...which drains an approximate F-7 1, 069-square-mile watershed at Indio... " or "... which drains an approximate 1,525- square-mile watershed at the Salton Sea... ". In the last paragraph, please replace "Whitewater River" with "Whitewater River F-8 .Stormwater Channel". 5. Page II-13: Under the heading "Domestic Water Resources", please revise the second sentence to the following: "It uses wells to extract groundwater which naturally recharges from mountain runoff. Natural recharge is supplemented by replenishment F-g programs supplying supplemental water to the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Recharge Facility near Dike No. 4 and at the Martinez Canyon Pilot Groundwater Recharge Facility near Martinez Canyon. " Under the heading "Whitewater River Subbasin", please revise the last sentence of F-10 the first paragraph to state "...Lower Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. " In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please revise to read "...groundwater use F 11 in the Whitewater River Suhbasin has been .steadily increasing to apoint where demand has exceeded natural supplies. " 6. Page II-20: In the third sentence of the first paragraph under "Domestic Water", please revise to read "...and south and east of the Planning Area at the Thomas E. Levy F-12 Groundwater Recharge Facility near Dike No. 4 and at the Martinez Canyon Pilot Groundwater Recharge Facility near Martinez Canyon. " In the last two sentences of the paragraph under "Wastewater Services", please replace "Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant" with "Water Reclamation Plant No.4 ". F-13 Page III-104: In the first sentence of the paragraph under "Regional Stormwater Management', please revise to read: "Analysis and design of regional flood control F-14 Structures is the responsibility of CVWD ". Please revise the second to last sentence to read "... include the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the Bear Creek System, the F-15 East La Quinta Channel System, Dike No. 2, Guadalupe Dike, and Dike No. 4. " Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta August 22, 2012 Please revise the first four sentences in the fast paragraph under "Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel" to read: "The Whitewater River, which flows into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel in the Planning Area, is the principal drainage course in the City, extending through the Coachella Valley for 50 F-16 miles, with an average cross-section of 350 feet. The Channel is generally dry, but may be inundated during storm events. Most of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel sections within the City have reinforced slope protection; the remaining portions are protected by unreinforced earthen berms. " Please revise the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: "The aforementioned reinforced slopes and remaining unreinforced earthen banks are classified by FEMA F-17 as "Provisionally Accredited Levees ", indicating that they provide protection from the 100-year flood. " 8. Page 11I-105: Please revise the last sentence under `Bear Creek System" to read: "CVWD has applied for FEMA accreditation of the Bear Creek Channel System F-18 including the training dike, and is awaiting receipt of the.formal accreditation letter. " In reference to the last sentence of the paragraph under "Oleander Reservoir", the Standard Project Flood elevation is projected to be 54 feet at the reservoir; please F-19 verify 44-foot elevation associated with the 100-year flood. 9. Palle III-106: In reference to the first two sentences of the first paragraph under F-20 "Dikes", please note that the dikes were constructed to protect agricultural lands. Also, the F.astside Dike is not located within an area covered by the City's General Plan F 21 Update. 10. Paee III- 110: Please revise the first two sentences of the first paragraph under "Levee Failure and Seiching " to read: "There are several major stormwater or irrigation F-22 facilities located in the Planning Area including the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Coachella Canal, and Lake Cahuilla. " In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please replace "sand levees" with F-23 "banks" or "levees". 11. Page III-238: Please revise the second sentence of the third paragraph under "Existing Conditions" to read: "Although Colorado River water is one of the Coachella Valley's F-24 main sources of water, it has elevated levels of salinity. This water has been cited as contributing to the elevated salinity levels found in the Valley. " 12. Page III-239: Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Thermal Subarea" to read: "... increased pumpyge has lowered groundwater levels in the lower F-25 portion of the Whitewater River subbasin. " Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta 4 August 22, 2012 Please revise the first sentence of the third paragraph to read: "The upper and lower F-26 aquifer zones of the Thermal subarea... " Please revise the first sentence under "Regional Water Supply and Demand" to read: F-27 "The Coachella Valley's principal domestic water source is groundwater. " 13. Page III-240: Please revise the first and second sentences under "Regional Water Supply" to read: "Domestic water is provided in the City and most of the sphere by F-28 CVWD. Groundwater is the primary source for this water supply." In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please add "Area of Benefit" after F-Y9 "Subbasin ". Please revise the last sentence of the third paragraph to read: "...the annual balance in the Area of Benefit for 2010 was estimated to be -7, 457 acre-feet. 109. And please F-30 add this sentence: "The cumulative overdraft for the Area of Benefit through 2010 is estimated to be 4,497,609 acre-feet. 109 Under "Historic and Current Consumption", please add "Area of Benefit" after F-31 "Subbasin ". 14. Page 1II-241: Please revise the title of Table III-50 to "Coachella Valley Water District Annual Water Production Within the Lower Whitewater River Subbasin Area F-32 of Benefit " Under "Domestic Water Facilities", please update data to include the following: "CVWD has 102 active wells, 59 reservoirs, and in 2011 delivered IOZ805 acre-feet F-33 of water to a population of 286, 240. " 15. Page 111-243: Please replace "... and the Mission Creek subbasins... " with "... and the Mission Creek Subbasin Areas of Benefit" in the second and third paragraphs on F-34 this page." 16. Page 1II-244: Please revise the heading "Reclaimed Water/Tertiary Treated Water" F-35 to "Recycled Water/Tertiary Treated Water". In the second sentence under this heading, please revise to state "...of which two have facilities to treat wastewater... " and add this sentence after the second sentence: "A third CVWD water reclamation F-36 plant produces secondary treated water suitable for irrigation where uses are restricted " 17. Page III-245: In the next to last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, please F 37 replace "turn" with "turf'. Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta August 22, 2012 18. Page III-246: Please revise the fourth and fifth sentences of the second paragraph under "Water Quality" to read: "In some areas, low levels ofnaturally-occurring arsenic F-38 have been found. CVWD has three ion exchange treatment facilities for arsenic removal; these are located in the Mecca and Thermal areas. " 19. Page III-247: Please revise the second and third sentences under "Total Dissolved Solids" to read: "The secondary MCL for TDS includes an upper level of I, 000 milligrams per liter (mg1L) and a short-term level of 1,500 mg1L. Based on CVWD F-39 domestic well monitoring data for 2009, TDS levels ranged from 150 to 980 mg/L. " Under "Nitrates", please remove the "s" from "commons" in the second sentence of F40 the first paragraph. 20. Page 11I-248: Please revise the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on the page to ,read: "The primary water quality issues in the Coachella Valley are salinity and F41 nitrates. " Please add "River" after "Whitewater" in the second sentence. 21. Page III-252: Please replace "reclaimed" with "recycled" in the last sentence of the F42 first paragraph under "Impacts to Water Supply Resources ". 22. Pape 1II- 254: In the third sentence of the first paragraph, revise to read "...established F43 thresholds for domestic water... " and place a comma after "chromium-6" in the last sentence. In the third sentence under "Nitrates", please revise to read "...nitrate concentrations F44 in domestic water provided by CVWD range from "not detected" to a maximum of 40 mg/L. ' 23. Page I11-255: Please remove the "s" from "impacts" in the first sentence of the first F45 full paragraph. 24. Exhibit III-10: The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel is mislabeled as the F-46 "Whitewater River ". If you have any questions, please call Luke Stowe, Senior Environmental Specialist, extension 2545. W truly, Mark L.Johnson Director of Engineering L Air Qttdlity Scathes Noise Assessenaets August27,2012 Mr. David Lennon Hofmann Land Development Co. P.O. Box 758 Concord, CA 94522 SUBJECT: Comments on the La Quinta 2035 General Plan Circulation Element Update Trgrw Impact Analysis and DEIR Related to the Travertine Specific Plan Dear Mr. Lennon; Endo Engineering has reviewed the "City of La Quints. General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis"(TIA), dated May 14, 2012, by Iteris, Inc and DEIR. The traffic analysis reviewed was downloaded from the City of La Quinta 2035 General Plan Update website as Appendix H of the "Draft EIR for the City of La Quinta General Plan" (dated July 2012) prepared by Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. The 45-day DEIR review period ends on August 27, 2012. Our review focuses on those aspects of the traffic impact analysis that may affect the Travertine Specific Plan. The three potential access routes to the Travertine Specific Plan are Madison Street, Avenue 62, and Jefferson Street. The future traffic volumes and levels of service along these routes upon General Plan buildout must be provided to determine if they are consistent with current development plans. For example, the travel demand for Madison Street, between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, is important to identify so that the roadway can be appropriately sized. Given the cost of the bridge required to construct this roadway connection, a realistic future traffic projection is needed for this roadway segment. Without this projection, it is difficult to appropriately size the other access roadways that will serve the Travertine Specific Plan. The classification of Jefferson Street, north of the Travertine site, will need to be considered when the Travertine Specific Plan is amended in the future. In view of the topographic constraints to be overcome to construct this roadway, an appropriate classification must be identified to provide sufficient but not excess capacity. However, this roadway was not evaluated in the TIA and no future traffic projection was provided for Jefferson Street, between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62. Another critical issue the City has been struggling with for many years is the magnitude of future regional travel demands on Avenue 62, Monroe Street, and Madison Street associated with the South Valley Parkway Implementation Program. The TIA does not provide volumes on many of these streets that would be necessary to identify the future regional through -traffic volumes in this area. Based upon the projected peak hour traffic volumes at Intersection 37, regional through traffic utilizing Avenue 62 appears to be minimal. 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330 Phone: (949) 362-0020 E-Mail:endoengr@coxnet an 102 Genera! Comments on the General Plan Update and DEIR 1. As shown in General Plan Exhibit II-10, EB2 Exhibit III-20, and Table 10 of the TIA, future traffic projections are not provided for several General Plan roadway segments that are critical to the development of the Travertine Specific Plan. Future traffic projections are needed for: (1) Avenue 62, west of Madison Street; (2) Avenue 58, west of Madison Street; (3) Jefferson Street, north of Travertine; (4) Madison Street, north of Avenue 62; and (5) Avenue 60, west of Madison Street. Section 6.3 of the TIA (Page 52) indicates that the growth in raw LQTAM volumes between the year 2009 and the year 2035 was added to the existing 24-hour volumes from CVAG to obtain forecast year 2035 daily volumes. However, future traffic projections were not evaluated for some General Plan roadway segments that were included in the CVAG "Traffic Census Report". For example, CVAG provided existing daily traffic count data for three segments along Airport Boulevard (east of Madison Street, east of Monroe Street, and east of Jackson Street). Future traffic projections were not provided in the TIA for these roadway segments. G-1 It can be seen from General Plan Exhibit II-10, EIR Exhibit III-20, and Table 10 of the TIA, that numerous master planned roadway segments were not included in the CVAG "Traffic Census Report" and therefore have no future traffic projection. Without future traffic projections, the adequacy of the master planned roadway classifications for many General Plan roadway segments, particularly those in the developing areas of southeast La Quints, cannot be verified. Future traffic projections are necessary for all of the General Plan roadway links to ensure that future traffic studies properly address General Plan buildout traffic conditions. Will year 2035 LQTAM daily traffic projections be made available to enable future traffic studies to evaluate General Plan buildout traffic volumes? As a minimum, the raw LQTAM volumes for the year 2009 and the year 2035 should be provided for those roadway links where no count data was provided in the CVAG "Traffic Census Report". 2. In Appendix H of the DEIR, page 12 of the TIA refers readers to Appendix A for the traffic G2 count data used in the traffic study. Appendix A of the TIA was not provided on the City website and should be made available for review. 3. In Appendix H of the DEIR, page 32 of the TIA references the "LQTAM Model Documentation and Validation Report" (dated February, 2011) prepared by Iteris, Inc. This report is critical and should be provided on the City website or at a minimum made available upon request. Based upon the existing CVAG counts and the portion of the land in southeast La Quinta that has been developed to date, it appears that the future traffic projections along G-3 Madison Street are substantially higher than expected. The rationale for the additional future traffic is not provided in the TIA. Consequently, the calibration of the model in this area is of particular interest and should be reviewed. Specific Comments Related to the Travertine Specirk Plan The Travertine Specific Plan was originally approved in 1994 with a total trip generation of 27,3W daily trips and included the development of 2,300 dwelling units,100A00 square feet of retail, and a 500-room hotel. Access to the Travertine Specific Plan was planned via three streets, the primary access from Madison Street, and minor access from Avenue 62 and from Jefferson Street(Avenue 58. G 3A In 2008, a proposed amendment to the Travertine Specific Plan included 1 AM dwelling units and a 500-room hotel generating 17,390, daily trips. The amended proposal represented a 39 percent 2 p r` 103 decrease in dwelling units, and a 36 percent decrease in total trip generation. From a capacity perspective, the Travertine Specific Plan area could be served by two two-lane roadways, or one 4- lane roadway. In view of the high cost of constructing off -site roadway improvements to provide access to the project site, it is critical that the access be appropriately sized. Therefore, the access streets of Madison Street, Jefferson Street, and Avenue 62 near the Travertine Specific Plan need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that a sufficient, but not excessive capacity is provided. Madison Street 4. In Exhibit 5 of the TIA, the existing turning movement volumes for the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 (Intersection 32) appear to be too high, unless the volumes represent primarily construction traffic. The six existing homes accessed via Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, should not generate 66 morning peak hour and 43 evening peak hour trips on this segment of Avenue 60. Furthermore, the primary traffic movement associated with these residents should be to/from the north, not to and from the east via Avenue 60. Traffic count data from 2008 that shows 18 vehicles in the morning peak hour and 6 vehicles in the evening G4 peak hour on this leg of Avenue 60. Given the questionable existing traffic count data, the existing turning movements at this intersection should not be used as the basis to project the future turning movements. Doing so results in unrealistically high projections for Avenue 60, west of Madison Street. It also results in more northbound vehicles on Madison Street turning left into a relatively small low -density residential area via Avenue 60 than continuing northbound through the intersection toward the commercial and employment opportunities in the more developed portions of La Quints. 5. General Plan Exhibit li 2 and EIR Exhibit III-18 incorrectly identify Avenue 62 as a modified 2-lane divided secondary arterial between Madison Street and Monroe Street. However, G-5 Figure 4 of the TIA correctly shows that Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, is a 2-lane undivided Modified Collector Street. 6. General Plan Exhibit II-2 and EIR Exhibit IB-18 incorrectly identify Monroe Street, between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, as a four -lane undivided Secondary Arterial. This segment of G-6 Monroe Street is currently classified as a Modified Secondary Arterial A (which is a two-lane divided roadway with a lower capacity that a four -lane undivided roadway). 7. General Plan Exhibit 11-2, EIR Exhibit III-18, and the TIA Figure 4 identify Madison Street, extending between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary Arterial A. However, all of the future base maps in the TIA incorrectly show a break in. Madison Street where rt G-7 crosses the dike, south of Avenue 60. The future base maps should show that Madison Street will be connected between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. 8. TIA Figure 6 shows an existing bicycle route passing through the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62. The intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62 does not currently exist. Therefore, a bicycle route through this intersection does not currently exist. On the G-8 City's website, the "City of La Quints Bike Map" only extends south to Avenue 60. Therefore, it does not show an existing bike route extending through the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62. 9. General Plan Table 11-12, EIR Table 111-48, and Table 10 of the TIA show Madison Street (between Avenue 54 and Airport Blvd.) with a projected future traffic volume of 47,529 vehicles per day. This future projection is much higher than expected, based on development trends and G 9 trip generation studies in this area. Since the land south of this point is nearly 50 percent developed and the CVAG peak season daily traffic count for Madison Street is currently less than 10A00 vehicles per day, it appear; unlikely that the General Plan buildout daily volume will exceed 30p00 ADT. .p 104 The major specific plans in this area have been developing at approximately 50 percent of the densities permitted under the existing entitlements. In addition, the trip generation studies of developments such as PGA West and Trilogy have identified ft*generation rates consistent with age -restricted senior residential developments. The trip generation of residential developments in this area has been approximately 30 percent of the trip generation rates associated with traditional single-family residential dwellings. Extensive traffic counts at the access points to PGA West have identified a trip generation rate that is 35 percent of the traditional single-family residential trip generation rate, even though PGA West is not an age - restricted community. Was the trip generation assumed in the modeling for development in this area based upon the entitlements, census data, or the actual development that has occurred? How did the calibration run for existing development compare to the existing traffic volumes for Madison Street, between Avenue 54 and Airport Blvd.? The calibration run probably shows existing traffic projections much higher than the existing traffic count data. This would indicate that both the residential development intensities and trip -generation rates assumed for this area in the model were too high. 10. Figure 11 of the TIA shows year 2035 turning movement projections at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 (Intersection 32) that are not reasonable for this location. They indicate that approximately one-half of the northbound traffic on Madison Street turns west at Avenue 60. The northbound left -turn volume (from Madison Street onto Avenue 60) is G-10 projected to exceed the northbound through volume during the evening peak hours. At this intersection there should be very little traffic making a northbound left -turn movement since the west leg of Avenue 60 only serves a very small low -density residential development area. I L Figure 13 of the TIA shows enhanced intersection treatments at Intersection 32 required because the traffic volume assigned to Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, was unrealistically high. There is minimal development planned west of Madison Street (low -density residential uses) with access to Madison Street opposite Avenue 60. Furthermore, Avenue 60, west of Madison Street is constructed as a local street with 36 feet of pavement that would not G-11 accommodate the four lanes of through traffic and dual eastbound left-tum lanes shown in Figure 13. There is a large development planned west of the existing Andalusia development, but its future access to Madison Street is planned midway between Avenue 60 and Avenue 58, not at Avenue 60. 12. Page 40, 41, and 50 of the TIA, describe enhanced improvements recommended for Intersection 32 (Madison Street and Avenue 60). See Comment 10 and 11. This recommendation should G-12 be revised because the assumptions in the model for this intersection are not correct. Avenue 62 13. General Plan Table II-12, EIR Table III-48, and Table 10 of the TIA show a future volume of 9,624 vehicles per day for Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street. However, Figure 1 I shows that very little peak hour traffic is projected on Avenue 62, immediately west of Monroe Street (only 90 evening peak hour trips or approximately 1,100 daily trips). This seems to indicate that essentially all of the 9,624 vehicles per day were assigned to Avenue 62 from adjacent future land uses located south of Avenue 62 and traveled west to Madison Street then north to Avenue 60. The Keck property is located south of Avenue 62 and west of G-13 Monroe Street. It is our understanding that future development plans for the Keck property included access primarily to Monroe Street, south of Avenue 62. Only minimal emergency access was planned from the Keck property to Avenue 62, west of Monroe Street. The location of the node connectors from the Keck Property to Avenue 62 and/or Monroe Street were not 4 �;? 105 documented in the TIA or DEIR. However, a nodal connection should not be assumed between the Keck property and Avenue 62. 14. General Plan Table H-12, EIR Table 11148, and Table 10 of the TIA incorrectly identified Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, as a 4-lane Modified Collector with a daily capacity of 28,000 vehicles per day, rather than a 2-lane Modified Collector with a daily G-14 capacity of 14DW vehicles per day. If the traffic network in the model incorrectly assumed the speed for a four -lane roadway for Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, it would attract more future traffic than the correct two-lane Modified Collector designation resulting in a future volume projection that is unrealistically high. 15. Figure 11 of the TIA shows a morning plus evening peak hour volume for Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) of 26 in the eastbound direction, and 3 in the westbound direction. How was this traffic distribution determined? The atypical directional split seems to G-15 imply that all vehicles are going eastbound on Avenue 62 past Monroe Street in the peak hours and essentially no vehicles return in the westbound direction on Avenue 62 in the peak hours. 16. Figure 12 of the TIA shows the future lane geometrics for Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) with two westbound through approach lanes opposite a single westbound exit lane G-16 on Avenue 62 serving a peak hour westbound through volume of only 3 vehicles per hour. As a Modified Collector, Avenue 62 will only provide one through lane in each direction between Monroe Street and Madison Street. 17. Figure 12 and 13 of the TIA show that Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) will have a traffic signal in the future, but the volumes shown on Figure 11 for Intersection 37 would not meet traffic signal warrants. The westbound right -tun volume should not be included as part of G-1 7 the westbound approach volume because of the recommendation for an exclusive westbound right -turn lane and the right -turn movement does not conflict with the large southbound left -turn movement. 18. The mitigation assumed for Intersection 37 was not appropriate to mitigate the impact at this intersection. Table 8 of the TIA shows Intersection 37 operating at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Footnote 3 states that signalization of the existing lanes was assumed for this intersection. This footnote is not correct because the text referencing Table 8 states that the G-18 analysis is based upon the future lane configurations shown in Figure 11 and the future approach lanes in Figure 11 are not the same as the existing approach lanes at Intersection 37. Traffic signals would not be installed because signal warrants are not met by these volumes. Jefferson Street 19. The TIA did not provide any future traffic projections or level of service analysis for Jefferson Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62 (at Madison Street). In order to understand how the G 19 TIA addresses future development in the Travertine Specific Plan area, it is critical to at least provide year 2035 traffic volumes and identify the trip generation assumed for Section 5 and the surrounding development areas. Other Comments 20. As discussed in Comment 13, the LQTAM appears to project approximately 9,000 daily trips on Avenue 62 generated by the future development of the Keck property (located south of Avenue 62 between the dike and Monroe Street). Based upon the LQTAM projections, future traffic will access the Keck property by crossing the dike and using Madison Street to travel G-20 to/from the north. If this is the case, the future traffic generated by the development of the Keck property would comprise a sizeable portion of the traffic utilizing the future Avenue 62 crossing _�_ 106 of the dike as well as the future bridge needed to extend Madison Street from Avenue 60 to Avenue 62. Consequently, the developers of the Keck property would be responsible for paying their fair -share percentage of the construction of the dike crossing and the extension of Madison Street. It was our understanding that plans for the Keck property take access primarily from Monroe Street (south of Avenue 62). The last Keck property plans that we saw did not have an access designed to take advantage of future roadway improvements to Avenue 62 and Madison Street on the west side of the dike. If the Keck Property takes access primarily from Monroe Street and only takes emergency access to Avenue 62, the traffic assignment to Avenue 62 and Madison Street should be eliminated in the model. This may also reduce the problematic traffic volume on Madison Street, south of Avenue 54, but may increase the demand on Monroe Street, north of Avenue 62. 21. The documentation provides no way to determine the trip generation assumed for the Travertine Specific Plan or the surrounding land uses located south of Avenue 58 and west of Monroe' G 21 Street. Without this information, the Travertine development cannot verify that the modeled trip generation for this area is consistent with current development plans. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the La Quinta General Plan Update TIA and DEIR. Since these documents will be critical in properly evaluating the future traffic impacts associated with the Travertine Specific Plan, it is vital that the information presented in the General Plan be correct and accurately reflect the future developments. Obtaining a clear understanding of the LQTAM will enable us to accurately identify the circulation needs of the Travertine Specific Plan as well as the needs of cumulative developments and regional through traffic. 0 H CITY OF INDIO 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL • INDIO, CA 92201 760.391.4000 • FAX 760.391.4008 • WWW.INDIO.ORG August 24, 2012 Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta P.O.Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 }; r tl i'j AUU 2 7 &2 CIl y OF LA OUINTA _ PLANNING DFoeq-rrylFrp• I RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. Mr. Mogensen, As requested by you we have reviewed the July 2012 City of La Quinta General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), including the Transportation/Traffic portions prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research as well as Appendix H to the Draft EIR, the May 14, 2012 of the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Iteris. While the Draft EIR mentions that several roadways and intersections are shared with other jurisdictions and while the Draft EIR suggests that cooperation and communication with adjacent jurisdictions is needed, there has been no meaningful communication with our City Traffic Engineer (Mr. Tom Brohard) during the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis (other than an introductory call from Iteris indicating that their work on this project had begun). In fact, the list H_1 of organizations, persons, and documents consulted shown in Section IX of the Draft EIR does not list or identify any persons or documents from the City of Indio or any other municipality. Rather than preparing their Draft EIR in a vacuum, the City of La Quinta consultants for this project should have discussed various recommendations with the City of Indio and others, particularly those involving Page 2 of 5 adding lanes within the City of Indio, to mitigate significant traffic impacts caused by intensified land use in the City of La Quinta and its sphere of influence. The following comments pertaining to streets and intersections shared with La Quinta are submitted to you for consideration and for inclusion in the City of Indio comment letter on the La Quinta General Plan Draft EIR: 1) Existing Conditions — Regional Roadways — The discussion of State Highway 111 as a Regional Roadway beginning on Page III-204 of the Draft EIR should be modified to indicate that the State relinquished this roadway several years ago to the local cities and the only portion of State Highway 111 H-2 that remains in the Coachella Valley is in the City of Palm Springs. The Highway 111 discussion should also be moved into the discussion of Local Major Highways beginning on Page III-205 of the Draft EIR. 2) Roadway Segment Analysis for General Plan Buildout — Table III-48 beginning on Page III-221 of the Draft EIR contains some significant spikes in future traffic volumes from block to block. These increases do not appear to be reasonable as the adjacent properties are mostly developed at this time. The following Year 2035 ADT forecasts on roadways shared with the City of Indio require further validation: a. Jefferson Street from Avenue 48 to Avenue 50 — In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 7,000 higher south of Avenue 48 and 18,000 higher north of Avenue 50 than the adjacent segments. b. Highway 111 from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street - In this H-3 segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 10,000 higher east of Dune Palms Road than the adjacent segment to the west. c. Avenue 48 from Dune Palms to Jefferson Street - In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 16,000 higher east of Dune Palms Road than the segment to the west. d. Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street - In this segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 14,000 higher east of Jefferson Street than the segment to the west. 3) Intersection Impact Analysis — Table 11149 beginning on Page 111-226 of the Draft EIR provides AM and PM Peak Intersection Analysis with 2035 buildout volumes during the peak season. The table should be expanded to indicate and more clearly disclose the additional lanesttraffic control measures that are required, particularly those additions in other jurisdictions including Indio. H4 From Exhibit III-21 to achieve LOS "D" or better, the following additional lanes are needed according to the Draft EIR at the intersections that are shared between La Quinta and Indio: a. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive — 50% Indio; 50% La Quinta — Add westbound right turn lane in Indio. Page 3 of 5 b. Jefferson Street and Hiahwav 111 — 75% Indio; 25% La Quints —Add 3 southbound left turn lane and 4 southbound thru lane in La Quinta; add 4w northbound thru lane in Indio. c. Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 — 25% Indio; 75% La Quinta — Add 2nd eastbound left turn lane in La Quinta; add 2nd westbound left turn lane and 2"d westbound thru lane in Indio. d. Madison Street and Avenue 50 — 75% Indio; 25% La Quinta — The proposed lane additions in the Draft EIR have been modified by the Indio/La Quinta Project Development Team (PDT) working together on the improvement of Madison Street to eliminate the possible need for a third northbound thru lane in Indio. The Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the ultimate intersection geometry approved by the PDT on July 24, 2012. These lane additions in the City of La Quinta now include a 2nd eastbound thru lane and an eastbound right turn lane. Lane additions in the City of Indio now include a 24d southbound left turn lane, a second southbound thru lane, and a southbound right turn lane; a 2nd northbound left turn lane, a 2nd northbound thru lane, and a northbound right turn lane; and a 2nd westbound thru lane and a westbound right turn lane. A traffic signal will also be installed at this intersection. e. Madison Street and Avenue 52 — 25% Indio; 75% La Quinta - The H 4 proposed lane additions in the Draft EIR have been modified by the Indio/La Quinta PDT working together on the improvement of Madison Street to eliminate the possible need for a third northbound thru lane in Indio. The Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the ultimate intersection geometry approved by the PDT on July 24, 2012. These lane additions in the City of La Quinta now include two southbound left turn lanes, a second southbound thru lane, and a southbound right turn lane; a 2nd northbound left turn lane and a 2nd northbound thru lane. Lane additions in the City of Indio now include a 2nd westbound thru lane. A traffic signal will also be installed at this intersection. f. Monroe Street and Avenue 52 — 50% Indio; 25% La Quinta; 25% County — Add 2na eastbound thru lane in La Quinta; add 2nd southbound left turn lane, 2nd southbound thru lane and southbound right turn lane in Indio; add 20 westbound thru lane in Indio; add two northbound left turn lanes, a 2nd northbound thru lane, and a northbound right turn lane in the County. 4) Intersections Potentially Worse Than LOS "D" - The underlying analysis in the Draft EIR is very conservative, having bumped up the October traffic counts. by 10 percent to reflect higher volumes in January, February, and March. This baseline increase of 10 percent effectively translates to a drop in LOS from . H-5 "D" to "E" at these intersections. Constructing costly additional improvements to maintain LOS "D" for the highest traffic volumes during three months of the year, when these intersections will operate at LOS "D" or better for the other "u.. 110 Page 4 of 5 nine months of the year, is not justified during these difficult economic conditions. Since our Circulation Plan Update in 2008, the City of Indio allows LOS "E" under certain conditions (see attached). Many other jurisdictions in California also allow LOS "E" under these or similar conditions. For intersections shared with the City of Indio, especially those where Indio has jurisdiction over 75 percent of the intersection, the City of La Quinta should reconsider its LOS "D" standard and also allow LOS "E" under certain conditions. Mitigation measures necessary to achieve LOS "E" should be identified and more clearly disclosed in separate tables and figures, together with identification of improvements that are required within the City of Indio. According to the Draft EIR, intersections shared between the Cities of La Quinta and Indio that may operate at worse than LOS "D" include: H-5 a. Jefferson Street and Hiohwav 111 — Only 25% of this intersection is in the City of La Quinta, with 75% of the intersection within the City of Indio. While adding a third SB left turn lane may be feasible, adding fourth northbound and southbound thru lanes on Jefferson Street will require additional right of way in the City of Indio. Both cities have constructed what are typically considered the maximum practical improvements at Jefferson Street and Highway 111 including dual left turn lanes, three thru lanes, and separate right turn lanes with green arrow overlaps on each approach. Further widening of the intersection which necessitates purchase of right of way and could result in other environmental impacts is not acceptable to the City of Indio. In accordance with the attached policy, LOS "E" conditions will therefore be acceptable if they should occur at buildout in Year 2035 during the peak season (January thru March) at Jefferson Street and Highway 111 in the City of Indio. b. c. Madison Street and Avenue 50 - Only 25% of this intersection is in the City of La Quints, with 75% of the intersection within the City of Indio. The revised lane configurations approved by the Indio/La Quinta PDT will result in LOS "D" or better operating conditions in Year 2035. Further widening of the intersection which necessitates purchase of additional right of way and could result in other environmental impacts is not acceptable to the City of Indio. In accordance with the attached policy, LOS "E" conditions will therefore be acceptable H they should occur at buildout in Year 2035 during the peak season (January thru March) at Madison Street and Avenue 50 in the City of Indio. Pale 5 of 8 Please feel free to contact us at 7W391-4120 with any question you may have. eilaNa ar Assistant Planner City of Indio Community Development Department Planning Division COUNTY OF EIVEESEDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department August 27, 2012 Les Johnson, Planning Director City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and City of La Quinta General Plan City of La Quinta Dear Mr. Johnson: r^yy OFF All, P gfyrron 06F Juan C Perm P.E.. T.E. Dirrctor of Transportation Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of La Quinta General Plan. We offer the following comments. The Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) has reviewed the Circulation Element for the City of La Quinta General Plan. The County requests that any roadway designations within the City's Circulation Element that extend to the City/County boundary and the City's sphere of influence and that differ from the County's designations be coordinated with County staff. Specifically the RCTD has compared the Citys Circulation Element to the County's current Circulation Element and the Circulation Element the County will be proposing in its own update to the County General Plan. The RCTD is primarily concerned with potential conflicts regarding the proposed designations on Harrison Street (former SR-86) and Avenue 62 within the City's Circulation Element. I-1 Based on discussions with City staff, the County understands that Harrison Street was modeled for the City's General Plan as an 8 lane divided facility and that the City's traffic model demonstrated the need for a facility of this size. The County concurs that an 8 lane facility will need to be accommodated in the future for Harrison Street However, as of the writing of this letter the last published version of the City's General Plan showed Harrison Street as a Major Arterial Highway (6 lanes divided within 128 feet of right- of-way). The County requests the City incorporate a cross-section for an 8 lane divided highway into the City's General Plan and that the designation of Harrison Street would be changed to that cross-section. The County requests that the City's cross-section would generally conform to the attached cross-section. The City is proposing that Avenue 62 be designated as a Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes undivided within 102 feet of right-of-way). The County has previously analyzed this roadway in the South Valley Parkway Traffic Study and Roadway Phasing Plan dated April 4, 2007 prepared by Kimley-Hom and 1-2 Associates, Inc. The conclusions of that study indicated that the portion of Avenue 62 that falls within the City's General Plan between Monroe Street and Harrison Street should be planned for four lanes within 4080 Lemon Slrect. 81h Floor • Rivn:+idc. California 92501 • (951) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Rivenide. California 92502-10911 • FAX 4951) 955-3198 �,.� 113 Les Johnson, Planning Director Page 2 August 27, 2012 220-feet of right-of-way. The County has done additional traffic modeling of this corridor in connection with a proposed update of the County's General Plan using the RMAM model. The assumptions of model for the proposed General Plan incorporated approved Specific Plans within this portion of the County, but otherwise did not use the proposed land use assumptions of the South Valley Parkway. The General Plan update model analyzed the full future build -out of all unincorporated and incorporated areas beyond the 2035 horizon, and the model has indicated that traffic volumes on Avenue 62 will warrant at least a 6 lane divided facility at full build -out. The County continues to recommend that Avenue 62 should be designated in such as way that sufficient right-of-way will be preserved for the accommodation of ultimate future growth and that at a minimum will permit the construction of a 6 lane divided facility. The County believes that a minimum of 152 feet of right-of-way should be preserved for, this roadway, especially between Jackson Street and Harrison Street. The County has adopted Community Design Guidelines for an area known as Vista Santa Rosa (VSR). The boundaries of this community include the unincorporated portions of the City of La Quinta's General Plan, covering the City's current sphere of influence and extend further to the south between Avenue 62 and Avenue 66 on the north and south and between Monroe Street and Harrison Street on the west and east. 13 The County requests that the City would cooperate with the County in preserving the VSR community identity within its full boundaries. The County desires that this area remain intact through inclusion within the sphere of influence of one city and that future planning would consider all portions of this community. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the La Quinta General Plan and EIR. We appreciate your consideration of these comments: Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 8"' Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Sincerely, ✓a��i �'�D�str�i�cri� Farah Khorashadi, P.E. Engineering Division Manager RF:FK:rg Attachment— Standard No. 87 "8-Lane Expressway" cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Romo, Deputy Director �_� 114 n3 APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION JUAN C. PEREZ, RCE 49M8 0 Am E PR'D DATE JP Q7IIN72 Ni a � m z $ �:3 �H — a ��� w miy9 j v! 4 m U H� w G4' U m m S'O wsrvG, 4, a APR'D DATE i i� O �o- LLLL < 28 aozi �?egjg $ z OZ HIM. �r�.00 8a Kati H!!Iy OZS ri3�w 01 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 8-LANE EXPRESSWAY (184' " NO SCALE STANDARD No. 87 (1 OF Z) N_�? 115 IT MEDIAN X4MU( TC V CURB RETURN CURB RETURN RAD RADIUS SEE RADIUS SEE STD 805 STO WS am 26 2Z 12 12 IC 12 12 17 2Z 26 0 0 12 ......... 1w or z .0'11 --------- 3W j--------- -4w 2F 2Z IIj ei H J Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District 43-420 Trader Place • Indio, CA 92201 • (760) 342-8287 • Fax (760) 342.8110 • Toll Free 1-888-343-9399 E-mail: CVmosquito®cvmvcd.org • Website: www.cvmvcd.org hoard of Trustees August 21, 2012 President To: Andrew Mogensen, AICP SHARON LDCK Principal Planner Pala Springs City of La Quinta VIM President P.O. Box 1504 GARY HOWELL 78-495 Celle Tampico Cad'ed'al CRY La Quinta, CA 92253 rLI�VL �AUU 2 7 2Di2 CITY_OFLAWINTA Secretary DOUGLAS WAS Subject: Comments regarding Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Palm Desert Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quinta General Plan Update, State Treasurer Clearinghouse No. 2010111094 ROBERT COX Le Qum Dear Mr. Mogensen, STEVEN HERNANDEZ Coachella Thank you for the opportunity to express the position and concern of the ALBERTKECK Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (hereafter, the District) county at Large regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of La Quinta General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2010111094). HARL RAKER JR Desert Nat Springs The District is a non -enterprise independent special district accountable to the SRUCE LINDERwoos, Or. P.H. citizens of the Coachella Valley, charged with the protection of public health Indian Wells through the control of vectors and vector -borne diseases within its boundaries. We SAM TORRES operate under the California Health and Safety Code Division 3, Sections 2000- J-1 Indio 2910 (known as the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Law). Our CHARLES RICH activities include the prevention and control of mosquitoes, filth flies, eye gnats, Rancho Mirage and the red imported fire ant. The General Plan Update may result in increases in SRANKA B. LDTHROP, Ph. D. these vector populations and impact the ability of the District to control vectors. General Manager Specifically, the expansion of La Quinta into its Sphere of Influence to the south J-2 and east will increase the likelihood that residents encounter vector and nuisance insects in agricultural and wetland habitats. Mosquitoes Within the urbanized areas of La Quinta, as well as the rest of the Coachella Valley, mosquitoes breed in storm drain systems, neglected swimming pools, poorly designed or damaged landscape irrigation systems, and other containers that hold water for at least 96 hours. The most important vector species are the J-3 encephalitis mosquito and the southern house mosquito. These species can vector (transmit) West Nile virus, western equine encephalomyelitis and St. Louis encephalitis to humans. Additionally, West Nile virus and western equine N_'' 117 encephalomyelitis can infect horses, which is of interest to La Quinta due to its numerous equestrian trails. The General Plan Update indicates that the number of dwelling units in the planning area will be increased to 53,103. The current number of dwelling units that are occupied year-round is 14,820 of the 23,489 available. If the current year-round occupation rate is kept constant at 63%, then J-4 19,648 dwelling units could be expected to be unoccupied. if the current number of seasonal, recreational, and occasional use homes remains the same (27.5% according to the 2010 U.S. census), then 14,603 homes will be vacant for at least part of the year. The District conducts aerial photography to determine if pools are neglected. In April 2012, we identified 245 pools in La Quints as possibly being neglected, or approximately i % of the J-5 dwelling units present. With an increase in dwelling units, we might expect this to reach 530 pools at build out. We currently see that approximately half of the pools on our possibly neglected list require treatment and follow-up inspections. Storm drains, catch basins, dry wells, and detention basins are also commonly used as breeding sites for mosquitoes within the urban environment. Given that 2,084.5 acres of street rights of way are proposed to be built under the Preferred Plan, we expect that more storm drains will be built. We applaud La Quints's commitment on page V-4 to be a Full Service Community. We J-6 agree that "storm drains ... [are) maintained in good working order and of adequate service level to address existing and future needs" is an important Guiding Principle and a task that ensures effective use of mosquito control products. As the agricultural areas of the Sphere of Influence are built, residents are likely to encounter floodwater mosquitoes known as Psorophora. These mosquitoes are not vectors of disease; J-7 however, they are active day and night and are very painful biters. The addition of residents in the area will result in additional service requests, increasing our workload. Filth flies and eye gnats As the area within the La Quinta Sphere of Influence is developed from agricultural property into dwelling units, we expect to receive more requests for control of filth flies and eye gnats. Most flies lay eggs in decaying plant or animal matter as can be found in agricultural practices. We have seen the development of homes in traditionally agriculture areas result in unhappy J-8 homeowners who are not pleased with the presence of adult flies. We can and do recommend methods of preventing breeding sources of flies, but properties that are zoned for agriculture do have potential for fly breeding even when practicing standard and acceptable agricultural practices as defined by the California Health and Safety code. Red imported fire ants (RIFA) While the red imported fire ant (RIFA) is not a vector of disease, it is an invasive species within the Coachella Valley that produces a very painful sting. People may experience localized pain or swelling and in some cases, anaphylactic shock. In urban areas, they build mounds close to buildings, in school yards, athletic fields, golf courses, and parks. In agricultural areas, they can J-9 build mounds near water sources and drip irrigation systems, feed on seeds and budding fruits, and sting livestock. La Quinta already has several golf courses that are infested with RIFA, and further creation of green spaces will likely result in the spread of the insect into the currently less urbanized Sphere of Influence. We applaud the City of La Quinta's commitment to using desert landscaping techniques as well as the development of educational programs and demonstration gardens to inform the public and businesses of water efficient techniques and sustainable practices. Reducing water use, Ill particularly wasted water that flows into storm drains, will result in decreases in vector populations. We encourage the city to work with us and future developers to use vector prevention strategies when building storm drains and choosing landscape options. Sincerely, Jennifer Henke, M.S. Environmental Biologist jhenke@cvmvcd.org cc: Branka B. Lothrop, Ph.D., General Manager Jcremy Wittie, M.S., Scientific Operations Manager p.. 119 Co of Riverside EPD Fax:951-955-1811 Aus 27 2012 16:42 ' ' I V F& Ri t.Q ld I Demme LA tC P A R Coobm$amlmm Dbhaaor R A— WE 27, 2012 TO: City 01I Le QuIrm Pis nning Deps FROM: Rare�Ida Cotahty PI nieeg Dept RE: City aT La QWnta G meral Phu Dear City of Le Q Aft Thahh you for the oQportunity review the The County of Ril mrside, has to notice 1 Is i nduded wtih6i the Sphere Infltmna Community to I east of the of Le Qul The vlsEa serkda Rom comet has beer initiated by staff, the I mmunity t within the The Vlski Santa dose Design IdeNnes v in JanudrY 2bbO, tdter'comple - n of this The Cciarty of iR requi 9W that 4 Meta Santa Rosa eeppmmunity, g arefevel into the City's updated General Plan and Please feel free to contact m & with or Skicandy. reee4 OhwEaMw4tn7 afuOYl XC: t.ardyn Luna, DFrank Coylea Deputy Di REA I 4080 Lentos 12th P.0.8ert 1 Rhiarr�s, ' 92502 um es General Plan Update and associate a significant potion of unincorporated the City of Le Quints. namely the 1 subject of an Intensive and wile As wittin this area, and other adopted by the Riverside County Sc hborative effort and are available at P. 02 ENT raids County Sarrta Rolm effort link K-1 I consideration of the comprehensive �dentiy for the dete8ed witdn the Design Guldellino, iricorporated hr associated planning documents, i one or concerns at (951) 955.8t4ii f via eina0 at Dowd Oebe • 38ee9 0 Cstnto Patin ueeert, Celtionda 9921 (reoi eemm • Fax (mo 1163-1fe56 .h f Im'/tB.. P/BeetVhha bra PfhwY .1i pay: .`jJ�, yyyhr",h*yt�' ^4. •'1 � T ':1iiF"ia�'�V'@N�'ih ni 14 H O F M A N N LANE) DEVELOPMEIN-F C O M P A N Y City of La Quinta Planning Department Attention: Andrew Mogensen 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 Gentlemen, August 27, 2012 Re: Comments on General Plan Update -Draft E.I.R. Attached is a commentary and a number of questions and concerns about the Circulation element portion of the Draft E.I.R. 'which was prepared by Endo Engineering the Traffic Engineering consultant for the Travertine project. Hofmann Land Development Co is representing Travertine Corporation in its effort to entitle and eventually develop the Travertine property in South La Quinta. A variety of constraints have been identified in analyses performed by Travertine which are likely to modify the scope and type of development of the subject property from that which is shown on the General Plan Update and the previously approved Specific Plan and other entitlements. Of particular concern to the property owners is the planned road network and the ability to deliver all of the road segments identified in this E.I.R. and prior City circulation documents given these constraints. Madison Street Extension, Jefferson Street extension and Ave 62 Extension all serve and extend through the project under current General Plan scenarios. We have made numerous requests to staff to work with us to review and analyze the modification and/or the possible deletion or conversion to emergency access of one or more of these roads as part of this General Plan Update. Staff has advised that such review and analysis Is not timely and should be undertaken later as part of a Specific Plan review of the Travertine property. We have respected this requested, as it has been our understanding that the City intends to review and apply the circulation element flexibly in this area of the City L-11 understanding that among other things, it is not in the public interest to construct roads that are unnecessary or oversized. The Endo Engineering analysis of the report reveals that this southerly area of the City was not extensively studied and much detailed information is lacking when compared to the analysis performed in other areas. For the above reasons we request that a written statement be included in the policy document confirming that circulation will be flexibly interpreted in the Southerly Jefferson/Avenue OFFICE: 3000 OAK ROAD• SUITE 360 • WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 • PNONa 925/479-2020. FAX 9251977-1699 MAIL: P.O. BOX 907• CONCORD, CA94522 w. 121 58/Madison/Avenue 62 area and further that an acknowledgement of this be included in the EIR Circulation analysis. We also seek clarification of a related statement in the General Plan Update regarding all weather crossings as found on II-53 of the Update. Jefferson and Madison streets are correctly identified as all —weather crossing where they extend over Dikes 4 and 2. The further southerly extension of Jefferson, if constructed, may not be an all weather facility. Although this may not be a direct Draft EIR comment, but we note that financial modeling referenced in the Draft General Plan Update notes that the City has relied upon an assumption of 500 Hotel units in the Travertine project. It remains Travertine's desire to accommodate an element of Transit occupancy tax generating land use in the project. The 500 hotel unit assumption used for the property is a gross overstatement of the potential for this property and should not be used in the City's financial projections, land use or other assumptions. The City's own experience in successfully integrating Hotel uses in its central location is a credible citation for decreasing this assumption. We recommend and request that a more reasonable 125 to 150 room maximum Hotel- like facility located in the Travertine development be used in this document and in other financial assumptions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents. Hofmann Land Development Company u- David T. Lennon 122 M AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION I L SEP 10 2012 September 5, 2012 I CITY OF LA QUINTA Andrew Mogenson, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calls Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Transmittal of Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quinta General Update State Clearinghouse No. 2010111094, La Quinta, CA Dear Mr. Mogenson: The Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to invite the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the providing comments on the City of La Quints General Update DEIR. The General Plan Update is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation however it is within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area (TUA). The THPO has the following comments: According to our records on Cahuilla landscapes, there are traditional cultural properties ebst within the General Plan area that have not been documented Dr. Lowell Bean's book The CahuDle Landscape (1991) and Frank Patencio's book, Stories and Legends of the Palm Springs Indians (1943) describe two Cahuilla place name locations. Cow on vah al hem ah is a settlement area for the Cahuilla located east of Happy Point. The area is associated with the M-1 Cahuilla culture hero Eagle Flowerwho made impressions into the surrounding landscape. Another Cahuilla place name location is located near the historic la Quinta Hotel on Eisenhower. Oral traditions suggest Eagle Flower resided in a village known as KBtevewit along the foothills. Archaeological sites and cultural resources mentioned in the DEIR may be associated with these important Cahuilla place names locations. Because of the documented traditional landscapes and cultural resources located within the planned area and sensitivity of these places the ACBCI THPO requests the following to be considered and incorporated into the General Plan: 1. We request a thorough background research in traditional Cahuilla landscapes and oral history to better understand the cultural significance and potential impacts to the M-2 Cahuilla traditional places. This research shall be added to the historic and prehistoric sections of the plan under Cultural Resources 2. Under Section III-85 3.1 Mitigation Measures regarding consultations with tribes, we M-3 would like to emphasize the need for consultation on every project 5 4 0 1 DINAH SHORE DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 T 760/699/6800 F 760/699/6924 WWW.AGUACALIENTE-NSN._Cx X 123 3. Section III-66 3.2 Mitigation Measures, we request the following be added:100% M-4 survey and cultural resource inventory is required prior to the approval of projects 4. Section 111-66 3.2 Mitigation Measures, we request copies of any associated cultural resource reports and site records that might be generated in connection with these M-5 efforts for review and comment 5. Section 111-66 3.2 Mitigation Measures, we request a review period of 45 days to review the associated cultural resource reports and site records and will provide M-6 additional comments, such as proposed mitigation measures or conditions of approval, at that time. 6. Page III 67 Section A. Mitigation Monitoring and reporting we request an Approved Cultural Resource Monitors) must be present during any ground disturbing activities by developers. Should burled cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction haft and the Monitor shall notify a Qualifies M-7 (Secretary of the Anterior's Standards and Guidelines) Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the Ague Callente Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. 7. We request specification If human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, work in the immediate vicinity shall cases and the County M-8 Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5. The Ague Caliente Tribe appreciates your Interest In our cultural heritage. H you have questions or require addrtWW information, please call me at (760) 699-6907. You may also email me at ptuck(a)aouacaliente-nsnyov. Cordially, .per �- Patricia Garcia -Tuck, Director Tribal Historic Preservation Office AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS C: Ague Caliente Cultural Register XICONSULTATIONS UftsWM121 TUA % aOuIr4-DERZGwftMUpdds 09_05_12.doat AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIW W W W. A G U A C A L 1 E N T E- N S N GOV u 124 r -I L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH INC® COij",)C:[L TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM Jlk 17 2012 611 y 1 d) NOTICE OF COMPLETION r Rct.'=1vEi. Date: July 10, 2012 n To: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties From: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Planning Consultant, City of La Quinta Subject: Transmittal of Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quints General Plan Update State Clearinghouse No. 2010111094 Enclosed please find the above referenced Draft EIR for the City of La Quinta General Plan Update. The project involves the assignment of land use designations on incorporated City lands, and its Sphere of Influence. The document is being provided to you for review as a responsible agency or interested party. The comment period runs from July 12, 2012 to August 27, 2012. If you have comments, please submit them prior to August 27, 2012. You may FAX comments to the attention of Andrew Mogensen, AICP, Principal Planner, at FAX No. (760) 777-1233 within this time frame. Please also send hard copies to the City, attention Andrew Mogensen, via mail to the address below to assure legible and reproducible originals. Mr. Andrew Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 If you have any questions regarding the enclosed or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 341-4800 or Mr. Mogensen at (760) 777-7125. 42635 MELANIE PLACE, SUITE 101 ❑ PALM DESERT, CA 92211 ❑ (760) 341-4800 ❑ FAX (760) 341-4455 „fir 12 Andrew J. Mogensen Principal Planner City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92247 August 23, 2012 Dear Mr. Mogensem cc AUG 272012 I ercr or: LA outdrA ^[ ONNINR n�CNTI(FH• I am writing to voice my opposition to the General Plan Update that has been proposed for the City of La Quinta. I have owned a home in La Quinta since 1988 when City Hall was no more than a temporary building and La Quints itself, other than the La Quints Country Club, La Quints. Hotel and PGA West, was merely a smattering of temporary homes, lots with trailers parked on them and only a scattering of well maintained residences. However, new construction was in progress throughout the City and new projects like Lake La Quinta, Rancho La Quinta, and Traditions as well as other residential and commercial developments were on the drawing boards. Combined, they promised to increase property values and transform La Quints into a, desirable community for all. In other words, the saying, The Gem Of The Desert was truly the goal of the Planning Commission back then. After reading La Quinta's newly proposed General Plan, it didn't take me long to won- der why there has been such a shift in goals. It sounds like we are striving to be an extension of Indio. I suggest you look to the communities to the west of La Quinta and mimic their develop- ment rather than what appears to be no more'than a rubber stamp of the UN Agenda 21. Terms such as sustainable development and smart growth are socialist temps and lead to paths that have turned most European Capitols into the decayed disasters they are today. I'm sure you . aware that Agenda 21 is not a law. It is merely a series of suggestions that do not have to be adopted. Many cities throughout California and the country who desire legitimate improvement and elevated property values for their communities have opted ou£, It is not too late to add the City of La Quinta to that growing list and I urge, you to do so. La Quinta has become the envy of the other desert communities. Let's put together a plan that will keep it La Quinta The Gem Of The Desert for generations to come. I will be Happy to provide further input and/or answer any questions you may have re- garding my. concerns. I can be contacted at the phone number printed at the bottom of the page. Thank you for your time and consideration.. Sincerely: Michael L. Bailardo P.O: BOX 1392 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1392 - (760) 564-6730 -p�':. 126 Mrs. Neeta Quinn La Quints, CA 92263 (760) 7723630 cnquinn(aaol.com August 27, 2012 Andrew J. Mogensen, AICP Principle Planner City of La Quints P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 RE: 2035 LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Mr. Mogensen: $ i X4 cuy 0. 'iia ZUAf 9 Mc mning Npatftnt My husband and I wish to present to you our written opposition to the recently announced 2035 La Quints General Plan update. We are aware that this 'sustainable" plan is part and parcel of the United Nations Agenda 21, which President George H.W. Bush signed in 1992, at the Earth Summit, on behalf of the United States. Since Agenda 21 was "soft law' and not a treaty, Congress had no role to perform. in 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order #12852, creating, and advancing, the Presidents -Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The federal government gave more than $5 million to the "American Planning Association to write °Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook," aka "Sustainable America," in order to bring UN Agenda 21 to the United States. The cabinet agencies of the Executive Branch of government were charged with implementing this "global to local program; advancing Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policy in the U.S. Smart Growth was the result, taking root and now exerting increasing influence in communities across America. In 2011, President Obama implemented Executive Order #13575, which established the White, House Rural Council, initiating Sustainable Development for the rural areas. Were you aware of this? Because other cities are opting out, I presume we are not required by any law to enact or follow this Agenda. We do not need our city council, public servants, to plan our lives; planning whether we live in stacked or packed housing, or deciding whether we drive a car or ride a bike. It is our choice, not the city council or planning departments "plan° deciding what type of °healthy" lifestyle we shall have. We do not want to conform to the views and dictates of Planners. We, as individuals, do not want to take a back seat to the Cgllecuyl, In the process of implementing Sustainable Development. u 12 PAGE TWO La Quinta General Plan Agenda 21 La Quints can opt -out of this. As stated before, other cities have ... to name a few in California: Alameda, Cancan, Danville, Eureka, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lake Elsinore, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Palos. Verdes Estates, Rancho Cucamonga, Sacramento, San Rafael, Stockton, and Temecula. Other cities across this country from Alaska to the M'id-West to Tennessee, to Washington, are saying no to this insidious infiltration into the American way of life. We cannot allow the govemment to take control of all land use, to lower our standard of living, or allow our cities to be remade by redevelopment. We cannot allow our freedom of choice to be taken from us, nor our right to own private properly. We shall decide where we live. We shall decide what, where, and when we drive. We shall decide when we want to ride a bike. We do not need the council or unelected planners engineering or planning a'healthy lifestyle! Sustainable Development. Is restructuring our lives and is targeting. our children through an educational regime. It calls for the need to 'enlist and empower children and youth in reaching for sustainability. It expressly calls for the elimination of private property and the freedom that private property supports. We are afraid it could cause irreparable harm to our economy and our society by the 'unpleme *f= of your economic growth for social stability presenting a dimming future for us and our posterity, taking away our individual freedom of choke. Please understand your role in the community, as a public servant, is to administer government in a manner that protects individual liberty. We are Americans first, and the government ?—it is 'of the Peoplel' People who can say yes or no --who can be Americans first, and choose to do the right thing. It has long been known that liberty is fled to the institution of private property. `Private property and freedom are inseparable "--George.Washington You cannot allow the United Nations, or ICLEI, to instruct you on how to control our growth and development. It is none of their business. This General Plan must not be implemented, and the City of La Quints must opt -out of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development .You can choose to do the right thing. Do your own homework and research and you will see the truth. p 128 PAGE THREE La Quinta General Plan Agenda 21 Attadhad is a flyer that we will be distributing to our local residents and businesses. We, the ddwnry, have been asleep, unaware of the damage that is being done to our country and our cities, by our elected representatives who were entrusted to protect our rights. We are awake now, and will take an active role in our community to stop this Agenda that violates our constitutional rights. We will also inform our neighboring cities and towns as well. Most Sincerely, �` J Neeta Quinn End. Cc: City of La Quinta Mayor Don; Adolph Council Members: Kristy Franklin, Terry Henderson, Linda Evans, Lee Osborne Briannestande.com gMgftAton@tmdeswtsun.com gseversonQm.Com Nioole.brembila@hedesertsun.com devineboedo@yahoo.com. Uhoolndubcv.com Palm Springs Patriots Coafidon East.Valley Republican Women Concerned Citizens of La Quinta CV Young Republicans henraport@verizon.net LawrencePonoe84fgmail.can Robert@integraladv.com RSytk77@aol.00m . Fspevaoek@la-quinta.org 'diarteadolph@aol.com David Wilson/ 943knews.com +r_ 129 IMPORTANT INFORMATION YOU DID NOT KNOW LA QUINTA'S 2036 GENERAL PLAN FOLLOWS THE GUIDELINES OF THE UNITED .NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN— (NOWN AS U.N. AGENDA FOR THE 218' CENTURY. NOTE: THIS IS NOT STATEaIIANDATED. " On page 11434 of the La Quints 2036 General Plan, "Sustainable Community," the planners/writers quota the United Nations definklon of sustainabillty as... "development that meets the meals of the present w1flnotn eommomisino the ability of hdure noneratfions to meet their own needs." However, they did not tell you that quote Is from a 1987 UN report entitled "Our Common Future," by Chairman Gro Harlem Brunddand, former Director -General of the Wald Health Organization, and Vice President at the World Socialist Party. Using the framework provided by the Smaddand Commission, the United Nations is seeking to have implemented in your local town or city Its agenda —Agenda 21. (Reference Link, See page 3 at www.w tentgedghtcandarchlevelaredeWI I OOconanonlsm.hhn) • Continuing on page 11434, Rotates... "Thera are three primary contributor; to sustainable development. Me economy, the. emnlronmerK and the /e." Actually "equlty" is the term used In the text, not people. "Equity" means to restructure human nature and to enforce that restnctiom by shifting our system of justice from one that adheres to the principle of equal justice and unalienable rights to one that implements the concept of "soda) lusfk e." Harvey Ruvin, Vie Chair of ICLEI, has said that "Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective" In the process of implementing Sustainable De1/eiOpmerlf. lase wew.fnedomadvoa0e wg -Understanding Sustainable Development Agenda 21) e Quoting Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit... "Current lifestyles. and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class. involving high meat Intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are "NOT SUSTAINABLE." At this Summit, Agenda 21 was signed by then President George H.W. Bush, along with ITS other world leaden., " Sustainable Development Is the UN's Agenda 21 program for global control and restriction over your daily W% including your private property, Individual rights, and civil liberties. For detailed documentation regarding the "rear General Plan for La Quints and other cities and towns across America, refer to the below websites. Please do your own homework and research. www.froadomadvocates.org www.DenwarateAgai=WNAgenda.com www.lightonthedeserLarg... __. Because Agenda 21 represented soft law and not an actual binding treaty (i.e. hard low), it did not require the ratification of the U.S. Senate or approval from Congress, Instead it was implemented by President Bill Clinton in 1183, wherein he signed Executive Order #I2852, creating and advancing the Presldent's. Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The federal government gave more.than $5 million to the American Planning Association to write "Growing Smart: Leglsladve.Guidebook" aka "Sustainable America 7 to bring UN Agenda 21 to the United Shales. Smart Growth was the result, now taking root and exerting Increasing influence in our towns and titles across America .�.. 130 Unsigned Letter Received on 10/24/12 from Robert Righetti La Quints General Plan - A Model of Freedom or Redistribution "The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln Words have meaning. To most people that would seem obvious. We communicate with other on a level to be understood, and to be clear about our intent. However, words can also be used like seeds in a field, spread out on the ground, waiting for the rain and tilting to work them into the soil for future sprouting. Words can be pregnant with meaning, and when words are placed on a page, they are there for future users to expand upon as they may choose. For this reason, it is important that every one who is worldng on a document that will be used by others in the future must provide sufficient context to. explain, define and set in place the original intent of the person crafting the text. The General Plan, although properly titled as "general" plan, is frequently divined by later user: as the gospel, and, as is stated several times in the text, "the General Plan is the foundation upon which all land use decisions are based .... All development proposals must be analyzed and tested for the consistency with the goals, policies, and programs in . every applicable element of the General Plan." (LQGP 1-5,6) So, it is wise to assume that the principals, goals and policies espoused in the General Plan must be clear enough to provide guidance to future users so -that -a-finding-for "consistency" can be made. However, rarely does a community prepare it's own general plan language in its entirety. In normal "modern planning" practice, the General Plan is prepared by a consultant who follows a defined practice specified by either state or federal regulations, and by the current vogues or trends in planning. It is then left up to the community to review it and revise it as they deem necessary, but usually that is simply a matter of resolving arguments over land use designations, etc. one of the concerns raised by local citizens about the new La Quinta General Plan (LQGP) is the direction that it appears to be going with the inclusion of terms and language that may lead to an increasing role of government over broader and smaller elements of our everyday life, most especially is modifying, changing and shaping our future behavior, whether that was intended or not. Although it is true that government needs to provide a certain level of protection to the community it serves, the bigger . question is how far government should go toward providing "the protection of people and property from environmental and man-made hazards, as well as the preservation of city assets." (LQGP I-4) And, in the course of establishing those powers, how are the word choices used within our governing documents to empower that protection. As we all ]mow, words within the law of contracts and in the regulatory element can have far reaching consequences when interpreted by those who follow behind us to enforce them, There are an abundance of examples of how those word choices can empower the people to retain their freedom, or empower then govemment to bind them, or in this case, change them. A classic example is the "Kelo decision" by the U.S. Supreme Court. 1 Although the LQGP states that the changes proposed in this new plan are not significant (LQGP 11-4), and that the City has "considerable latitude in how it presents and enforces it's lend use designations, there is significant change in the direction that the planning community understands the role of planning, and how it uses land use to effect change. Moreover, this document sets the stage for fin= changes to achieve the desired goals of "Sustainable Development." For example, the City's circulation element, although nothing more than the overall to move people and commerce, is now viewed as a tool for environmental change, "behavior modification," and "improved social and economic sustainability." Although they are nice sounding words, these words can be pregnant with meaning to future users. So, what has really changed about the LQGP is the broader scope of the mission for planning as a tool for social engineering and redistribution. Although the City says they have flexibility, California's SB-375 has changed the game. "This relatively new law creates `Sustainable Community Strategies' being developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCA% that are designed to intensify development, encourage mixed use development in close proximity to employment centers, bus routes and commercial services." (LQGP 11-14) And, ultimately, where does SCAG get their model? "The United Nations defines sustainability as `development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.'" LQGP H-134. The paragraph goes on to quote from the source document (noted in the footnote at the bottom of the page as '"Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development"', United Nations, December 11, l9g7" This report is also known as the Brundfland Report, or in more common terns today as "Agenda 21." By its approach, the City is committed to this purpose, as"noted on page II-15 of the LQGP. In addition, as "modem planning principles" are more heavily influenced by the three components, or "pillars^ of sustainable Communities, sometimes called the 3E's: Equity (pia sty) Environment 13 In the case of the LQGP, the writers have used a variation on the description of "sustainable development" that softens the usual associations made from the "3E's" as set out in the Bnmdtland Report. (See page II-134 of the LQGP) The paternity of these concepts cannot be ignored, nor should they be shoved aside or waved off by assuming that these things mean something different to us. There can be no doubt that the inclusion of these concepts, and the weaving of them into the principals, goals and policies of the general plan has occurred because the authors of the text have been educated and programmed to include them, and are being directed to infuse them into the text under the guidelines of AB32 and SB375. On top of this is the current agenda of many international planning groups to rectify the drainage of wealth away from the cities an into the urban areas. One of the obvious efforts to impose this agenda is reflected in the following key point from the General Plan: • "A historic example of this relationship has been seen in the loss of populations from urban centers to smaller towns or suburbs." This is what is currently called "Regionalism," and is the "modem planning" device being used to redistribute community wealth, modify the behavior of people, and force people away from the freedom of an automobile and into mess or alternative transit. One would have to ask, what relevance does this issue have to the city of La Quints Is that really a concern of its citizens? Or is this central planning at its best attempting to rectify what has been deemed a social correction that needs to occur? A simple read through of the LQGP section entitled "Sustainable Community" results in a cache of "pregnant' language dud. leads the city in the direction of social engineering. And the circulation element is the primary tool to achieve it's implementation. We offer the following representative sections as examples of what the city should seriously consider reviewing before deciding to head down this road: Guiding Principals (LQGP I-1,) The entire list of guiding principals speaks to the. . traditional ideals of planning, but no where does it mention that the pages that follow are about "behavior modification." Nor does it discuss the private property rights of each property owner that the city should be protecting and defending while they are doing all the rest, except where it states "the protection of people and property from environmental and man-made hazards, as well as the preservation of the City's assets." (LQGP I-4) ,the raised awareness of energy efficiency and sustainable, healthy living will change the, residential market, and by extension the types of residential projects that are built in the f rture....that include new concepts such as transit oriented developments,...." (LQGP II- 13,14) What this does not state is that the intent of the GP, and the city's land use decisions, is to force these changes on the community by behavior modification Yes, the state has pushed this issue, as noted on page I-14, with SB375, but is that the direction the city really wants to go? There can be no doubt that the push is for "intensification of land uses envisioned in SB 375, and allows the City to consider the potential of mixed use development for the long term." (LQGP II-15) And, "This General Plan establishes the 3 A. 133 concept of mixed use development, and as provided in Policy LU-7.1 and Program LU7.1 a., requires the creation of a Mixed Use Overlay in the Zoning Ordinance." (LQGP II-16). So, the course is being set for "limiting urban sprawl,..." (LQGP II-19) To do this, the city has incorporated subsidies or "incentives" to achieve the goal (Policy LU7.4 and 4a) and many other sections throughout the elements. The reason that the city is pursuing this course is that they have hooked their wagon to the premise that all of these mitigation elements and changes in land use will somehow lower the temperature of the earth or stop global warming. (See LQGP II-32, 33) And, if Prop 31 is passed, the city will have to give up their planning to the regional planning units that it creates (LQGP II-34). The question to ask is, if SB375 were not in place, would the city pursue this course. The use, of mass transit in the past (I century) was. because there were not cars. It was horse and buggy, trains and boats. (LQGP II-35, 143). The automobile was a liberating invention, but now the city wants to liberate us from the car (LQGP II-143, 144, 147). And now the city wants to go back to the limiting, anti - freedom of mass transit, bikes and carts. And it can only be done through the force of police power by the city. (LQGP 11-36). The other unfortunate part of this whole scheme is that to do it, the city must pursue outside funding, such as through the "complete streets" program. (LQGP 1I-50) (Also see the HUD website.) Everything about this whole plan requires enormous subsidies and puts a bigger burden on the tax payer and the businesses, and creates an ever,larger government that has to plan and manage this program. (LQGP U-64) And this is in spite of the overall layout of the entire Coachella Valley, as the city acknowledges, "our communities are more spread out. We are also highly dependent upon the automobile and with low rates of occupancy." (LQGP II-71). It is all about behavior modification through subsidy. (LQGP II-113, 114, 115, 127, 128,129, 140,153). It almost approaches utopian visioning (LQGP II-117). Once you get to the "sustainable community" section, the collective practice of rationing and redistribution through regionalism becomes the primary goal of the plan. (LQGP II- 133, 134, 141). Although the state `requires that they City consider all forms oftiansportation in its street design, to assure that alternative transportation routes are available and interconnect in the community," (LQGP II-148, 152) they also acknowledge that they are only "encouraging" it, and yet it is assumed' that future technology "will evolve" to free us from the car. But is that a fact, and must the city shape their whole city around that assumption? It would be assumed that this is their intent since they joined the "Healthy City" movement and HEAL. (LQGP 11-153, 154). These are just a few of the areas in the plan where the implementation of the so-called "Agenda 2 1 " is occurring. We would ask that the city really review the word choices they'''' have used and confirm that this is where they really want to go. 4 134 P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA. CALIFORNIA 92247.1504 78-495 CALLe TANPICb (760) 777-7000 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101 September 11, 2012 Mrs. Neeta Quinn La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Response to Letter of August 27, 2012 — 2035 La Quints General Plan Update Dear Mrs. Quinn: Thank you very much for your recent letter of August 27"', in which you provided oomments on the City's Draft General Plan. We greatly appreciate and have considered the comments you have provided: In response, I wanted to take a moment to address the concerns you raised in your letter. Your letter focuses entirety upon the addition of a Sustainable Community element to the Draft General Plan and opposes the update as a result, namely due to the belief that this element is 'part and parcel of the United Nations Agenda 21." A'Sustainable Community element was added to the Draft General Plan primarily due to the need for the City to meet certain minimum requirements of California Law, and was not in any way directed by the United Nations' Agenda 21. The flyer included with your letter focuses upon a. definition provided to the first paragraph of the background section of the Sustainable Community element (page 11-134). We chose to use the UN's definition of sustainabiiity, which was published long before Agenda 21, because it has been used extensively to the development of California State legislation In recent years, and because it stressed the importance of economic growth andstabilily as fell as quality of the environment. Economic growth and the environment are Issues the Cityttbs worked hard to preserve and improve since Its incorporation In .1982. This is evident in the high quality of.development, the growth In commercial development, and the quality of life enjoyed by the City's residents in the last 20 years. The text accurately reflects the Cltys belief that the Citys future must provide Its people, whether they are residents, visitors or businesspeople, with the best location in which to live and work. You will note that we did not use the. term "equity," as described in your letter. 'We specifically used the term 'people" to reflect the City's commitment to its residents, visitors and businesspeople. Since.the adoption of the current General Plan in 2002, the State has enacted a number of laws that La Quints must comply with. This is the "hard law" you refer to in your letter, and Includes: �,;,. 13 5 AB 1493: Requires that, regulations be created by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) for required improvements in vehicle emissions for ears and non-commercial trucks. These requirements are now being implemented In vehicles made since 2009. Executive Order S-3-05: This Executive Order was signed by the Governor in 2005. It requires that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced State-wide to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% lower than 1990 levels by 2050. SB 376: SB 375 (Section 14522.1, ,Section 65080 of California Government Code), which was passed in, 2008,. was designed to reduce air emissions, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, for cars and light trucks. It also requires'all cities and counties In California to adopt Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) to meet this reduction requirement. The SCS age to Identify population growth in the area, determine how to house these new residents, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Finally, SB 375 provides for reduced review under ;the California Environmental QuIsilly Act (CEQA) for certain projectsthathelp a City meet Its requirements under the law. 881368: SB 1368 requires all power companies to increase clean energy production, and reduce traditional carbon -intensive energy production. All utilities, including Imperial Irrlgatlon District, must comply with these mandates, and ere currently increasing their renewable energy portfolios. AS 32: AB 32 was passed by the California legislature in 2006. It is the most comprehensive State legislation, and established a clear process by.which all cities and counties in California must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AS 1368: AB 1368 was also passed in 2008, and requires all cities to include all types of transportation, Including automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles in street design. SB 7: Requires that domestic water use be reduced by 20% by the year 2020: This law Is being implemented both through efficiency improvements by water districts, Including the Coachella Valley Water District, and by the Implementation of water conserving landscaping regulations by odes and counties. SB 226: SB 226, passed In 2011, allows cities and counties to exempt lnfill projects, transit - oriented development and similar projects from CEQA, thereby reducing processing time for these projects. These laws, and others passed by the State in recent years, have required that the City include discussion and policy in the General Plan to meet these mandates. In La Quints, we chose to include these discussions and policies in the Sustainable Community Element In that Element, we have focused on addressing the requirements of these laws to reduce air emissions and to conserve energy and water. This Element does not require any change in the City's development pattern, and will not Impact the high quality of development that has already occurred in the City, and that will be built in the future. ir.., 136 The City must commit to meeting the requirements of State law, or potentially face consequences Included In these laws, including onerous requirements for the implementation of its Housing Element, potential loss of funding sources for roadwayimprovements, and other losses of funding that could be imposed on the City. The Draft General Plan contains policies and programs that will meet the requirements of the law, without mandating significant changes in the City's current character. We have worked hard to preserve existing neighborhoods in the Draft General Plan, and have purposely avokled including any policy, program or other implementation measure that would Impact the City's "character as it Is today. The Land Use Map, which regulates what kind of development (residential, commercial or open space) occurs where in the City, is not changing significantly. We have made mirror changes to identify golf courses and golf course communities built since the current General Plan was adopted; changed three parcels to make the Map consistent with the Housing Element the City adopted earlier this year, and corrected several public facilities errors (parcels used for substations, wells and similar facilities) that have been built since 2002. With the exception of the aforementioned adjustments there will be nb change in how existing property and property owners can develop their land as a result of the Draft General Plan. To meet the requirements for reducing vehicle trips and Increasing residential density near workplaces,. the Draft General Plan iriblu des the creation of a Mixed Use zoning overlay, which will apply only to commercial areas in the City. It is not a requirement that any Mixed Use project be built Rather, it will allow this type of development, if the development community feels that there Is a market for -this type of developmeft If the free market does not create a demand for Mixed Use projects, we would not expect that any will be built in the City. As you may be aware, the City's Planninj Commission will consider the Draft GenerefPlan of its meeting this evening (September 11 ); and the City Council is expected to consider the Draft General Plan at its meeting of October 2n0. I encourage you to attend these meetings and participate in the public hearings. I hope that I have been able to address your concerns. I will be glad to' speak to you further if you have questions; or would like to discuss other Issues. I can. be reached at 760-777-7126, or by email at Ljohnson0laauinta.oro. C: Mayor Adolph and City Council Members City Manager °" 137 •ice � � �/ P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLc TANFIco (760) 777-7000 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101 September 11, 2012 Mr. Michael L. Bailardo P: O. Box 1392 La Quints, CA 92247-1392' . RE: Response to Letter of August 23, 2012 Dear Mr. Bailardo: Thank you very much for your recent letter of August 23rd, in which you provided comments on and exp' ssed opposition to the City's Draft General Plan We greatly appreciate and have considered your oomments. In response, I . wanted to take a moment to address the concerns you raised in your letter. In your letter, you indicated there is a shift in goals when comparing the Draft General Plan with the existing General Plan. Please note that the goals of the Draft General Plan do not vary from the current General Plan in any significant way. in fact; 16 of the 25 goals in the. draft document are exactly the same as those in the CWs current General Plan. Of those remaining, eight have been revised, and only one is new. I also wanted to point out for your oonslderationthat the Land Use Map, which guides development in the City, remains almost the same"as the current General Plan. We have made three minor changes that 1) mole dearly Identify golf oourses and golf course communities built since the current General Plan was adopted, 2) change three parcels to make the Map consistent with the Housing Element the City adopted.. earlier this year, -and 3) correct several public facilities errors (parcels used for substations, wells and similar facilities) that have been built since 2002. The goals and Intent of the General Plan remain consistent with the vision and direction the City has been implementing for 10 years now. In response to your commentsregarding sustainable development, the General Plan added a Sustainable Community element as a means to respond to several new requirements established by California Law. Please note that our effort was not in any way directed by the United Nations' Agenda 21. Since the adoption of the current General Plan In 2002. the State has enacted a number of laws that La Quinta must comply with, Including: Is ♦40 or 138 AB 1493: Requires that regulations be created by the California. Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish Improvements in vehicle emissions for cars and non-commercial trucks. These requirements are now being Implemented In vehides.made since 2009. Executive Order S-3-05: This Executive Order was. signed by the Governor in 2005. it requires that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced State-wide to 1990. levels by 2020, and 80% lower than 1990 levels by 2050. SB 376: SB 375 (Section 14522.1, Section 65080 of California Government Code), which was passed in 2008, was designed to reduce air emissions, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, for cars and light trucks. It also requires all cities and counties in California to adopt Sustainable Community Strategies (SOS) to meet this reduction requirement. The SCS are to identify population growth in the area, determine how to house these new residents, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1900 levels by the year 2020. Finally, SB 375 provides for reduced review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for certain projects that help a City meet its requirements under the law. MUM SB 1368 requires all power companies to Increase clean energy production, and reduce traditional carbon -intensive energy production.. AM utilities, including Imperial Irrigation District, must, comply with these mandates, and are currently Increasing their renewable energy portfolios. AS 32: AB 32 was passed by the California Legislature in 2006. It is .the most comprehensive State legislation, and established.a dear process by which all cities and counties in California must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 1368: AB 1358 was passed in 2008, and requires all titles to include all types of transportation, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit • and Neighborhood. Electric Vehicles in street design. SB 7: Requires that domestic water use be reduced by 20% by the year, 2020. This law is being implemented both through eftidency Impro4ements by water districts, Including the. Coachella Valley Water District,and by the implementation of water conserving landscaping regulations by cities and counties.. SB 226: SB 226, passed In 2011, allows cities and counties to exempt infill projects, transit -oriented development and similar projects .from CEQA, thereby reducing processing time for these projects. These laws, and others passed by the State In recent years, have required that the City Include discussion and policy in the General Plan to meet;these mandates. In La Quints, we chose to consolidate these discussions and policies in a Sustainable Community Element. In that element, we have focused on addressing the requirements of these laws to reduce air emissions and to conserve energy and water. q .• 139 This Element does not require any change in the City's development pattern, and will not impact the high quality of development that has already occurred in the City, and that will be bulk in the future. The City must commit to meeting the'requiremerds of State law, or face consequences included In these laws, including onerous requirements for the implementation of its Housing Element, potential loss of funding sources for roadway improvements, and other losses of funding that could be imposed on the City. The Draft General Plan contains policies and programs that will meet the requirements of the law, without mandating significant changes in the City's current character. I would also like to point out that we have worked hard to preserve existing neighborhoods in the Draft General Plan, and have purposely avoided including any policy, program or other implementation measure that would impact the City's character as it is today. To meet the requirements for reducing vehicle trips and increasing residential density near workplaces, the Draft General Plan includes the creation of a Mixed Use zoning overlay, which will apply only to commercial areas in the City. It is not a requirement that any Mixed Use project be built. Rather, It will allow consideration of this type of development, If the development community feels that there is a market for this type of development. If the free market does not create a demand for Mixed Use projects, we would not expect that any will be bulk in the City. As you may be aware, the City's Planning Commission will consider the Draft General Plan at its meeting this evening (September 11"), and the City Council Is expected to consider the Draft General Plan at its meeting of October 2nd. 1 encourage you to attend these meetings and participate in the public hearings. Please note that a copy of your letter will be provided to the Planning Commissioners and City Council members for their consideration. In dosing, l want to assure you that one of the paramount objectives of all of the City staff and the consultant team that have been working on this effort to update the Clty s General Plan is directly in line and consistent with a statement you made — to establish a plan that will keep La Quinta the Gem of the Desert for generations to come. I hope that this letter provides clarification and possibly addresses the concerns you have raised. Please feel free to contact me directly as I will be glad to speak to you further If you have questions, or would like to discuss other issues. I can be reached at 760-777-7125, or by email at tj. ohnsonftla-auinta.om. Planning Director .� 140 . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 11, 2012 IV V CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m. A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairwoman Barrows. PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright and Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson,—Princ pat -Engineer--Ed Wimme►—Planning . Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. PUBLIC COMMENT: None CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed CONSENT CALENDAR: . There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to approve the minutes of July 24, 2012, as submitted. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. General Plan Amendment 2010-121, and Environmental Assessment 2012-622: a request by the City of La Quinta to consider a recommendation to the City Council Regarding the Following; Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2010111094), Approval of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan, and Adoption of the General Plan Update for use City-wide. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. He then introduced Nicole Criste of Terra Nova Planning and Research, the lead consultant on the project who provided further information on the Circulation Element. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff Commissioner Wilkinson commented on: • Population calculations • The minimum of one acre lots for low density and equestrian areas • Traffic circles, their costs, fuel efficiency and safety Principal Engineer Wimmer expanded upon the value of roundabouts and if they could not be utilized in a certain location then a traffic signal would be considered. General discussion followed regarding lifestyle and healthy living comments. Commissioner Alderson commented on: • The safety element of roundabouts • The location of the roundabouts currently constructed Commissioner Wright commented on: • Mixed use as a large part of the plan and its effects on the City • Roundabouts being a good idea but should probably be looked at individually Commissioner Weber commented on: • How the traffic element addresses the southern La Quinta areas • A more detailed explanation of the Harrison Street eight -lane versus four -lane debate • La. Quinta's interaction with neighboring communities on the traffic element 2_ ,r 142 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 • Potential impact of various streets; i.e., Madison Street, Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 • Potential impact of the traffic element on the Travertine Specific Plan • Letter from the Ague Caliente Sand Ms. Criste explained the process for the traffic modeling as well as responding to Commissioner Weber's comments. She also pointed out there was one correction for a model in the EIR that was not accurately reflected in the exhibit; regarding Harrison Street currently being proposed by the County as an eight -lane roadway to handle East Valley traffic. She went into detail on the City of Coachella's General Plan and the letter from Endo Engineering. General discussion followed regarding: • Traffic volume and projections reflective of the land use designations . Madison street model peak hour trip volume - - • Avenues 60, 62 and Jefferson Street future traffic projection Chairwoman Barrows commented on: • The clarification of, whether the air quality was mitigatable and SCAQMD's comment on mitigation of air quality • Stating that City is doing everything possible to reduce impacts on air quality • AQMD proposed air quality measures and the City's efforts to address them Ms. Criste explained the types of air quality analysis and why each was utilized, as well as conclusions in the staff report and EIR. She further discussed future emission :reductions and directed the Commissioners to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. General discussion followed on: • Mitigation of potential impacts and proposed development Improvements in technology and reduction of emissions • The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 3 143 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 There being no applicant, as this is a City project, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Ulrich Sauerbrey, 74-948 Live Oak; Indian Wells, representing Travertine Corporation, introduced himself and read a statement which covered: • Background on his work with the Travertine project • The submittal of a revised specific plan for the project • The engineering challenges and:analysis of the infrastructure to serve that area • Two roads, on the former Specific Plan, versus three on the General Plan • The applicant's views on access and circulation being shared with staff and the suggestion of waiting for submittal of their specific plan to address these issues • Advising the .Commission that Travertine is actively studying these matters and are engaged with the City, Riverside Fire and other agency staff to evaluate and resolve the challenges of their property. General comments, from Mr. Sauerbrey, included: • The two streets previously mentioned; including the Jefferson to Avenue 62 connection .: • General description.of the previous specific plan • Current status of the project • Hydrology challenges • Ingress/Egress • Submittal of written comments to staff Reference to an e-mail and response noting a policy, identified in the Circulation Element, allowing for some modifications to be considered by the Public Works Director • Staff.'s participation in the background and review of this project • Requirements for future changes in the General Plan documents City Attorney Jenson made a point of clarification on comments made, at this meeting, by Mr. Sauerbrey and the public. She stated they would not be included in the Final EIR as the comment period had already closed. The comments could be responded to in staff reports. -4- .N`_ 14 �: Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Mrs. Neeta Quinn - 78-440 Via Sevilla, introduced herself and referred to her letter (in the Commission packet) and asked if the Commissioners had received a copy of her response. Planning Director Johnson stated there were two letters received from residents to which staff responded and were distributed electronically, several hours before the meeting. He then distributed copies of Mrs. Quinn's response to the Commissioners. Mrs: Quinn said she received the response at 5:06 p.m. and did not have adequate time to research and prepare a thorough response. She then commented on her concerns of some of the items in the e-mail: • Opposition to the General Plan and concern with the Sustainable Community section • She read the statement that "the Sustainable Community Element is not a State -mandated element, but is an element that La Quinta believes is important" • She stated she was concerned with its inclusion and reference to the United Nations Agenda 21 and the definition of sustainability from their report of the World Commission on Environment and Development • She asked whose decision was it to have this become a part of the General Plan as the sustainable community element was part of Agenda 21. She read several statements from the United Nations Agenda 21 document • She commented on who had adopted Agenda 21 • She read portions of the United Nations Biodiversity Assessment Report and referenced comments on Page 143 of the Sustainability Community Element • She requested the decision'be tabled to allow time for the City to learn about the history of sustainability, where it came from and its association to the United-Nattorss Agen-da-21 -- - • She pointed out that Temecula and Rancho Cucamonga had opted out • She was concerned about government intrusion • She noted there was a flyer included in her letter and she would be distributing it throughout the community • She said she would be addressing the Concerned Citizens of La Quinta meeting on September 17, 2012 and the City Council on September 18, 2012. 5 ...„ " 145 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Commissioner Barrows thanked Mrs. Quinn for her comments and said she had never heard of Agenda 21. However, she said what the City Was trying to do was make this a more livable community, as well as manage our resources in an intelligent, efficient and cost-effective and economically viable way. She added that approach made sense for the community and had nothing to do with what the United Nations was doing. It was to make La Quinta a better community. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. General discussion followed on: • Concerns of the Planning Commission and Council having to follow government regulations in California • Having a plan for the future • Planning for the basic needs for the community • Education of the public and participation in the updating of the General Plan. • Equestrian areas • Air quality There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012-015 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2010- 121, and Environmental Assessment 2012-622 as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Village Use Permit 2012-046: a request by Michel Despras — Lavender Bistro - for consideration of a Village Use Permit for the expansion of an existing storage building at Lavender Bistro, located at 78-073 Calle.Barcelona. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning pepartment. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. a 148 -6- Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Commissioner Alderson commented on: • Any concerns from neighbors. • Addition possibly effecting parking Staff responded there were no responses from the neighbors and the addition had no effect on the parking requirements. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Michel Despras, 78-073 Calle Barcelona, introduced himself and said most of the addition was for storage and should have no impact on parking. He then explained why the addition was needed. General discussion followed on: • Landscaping update and additions • The roofline and transition • Compatibility to the current building Chairwoman Barrows asked the applicant if, he was satisfied with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Despras said he was. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any public comment. There being none, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wright to adopt Resolution 2012- 016 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2012-046 as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Conditional Use Permit 2012-144: a request by LMLQ Properties, LLC for consideration of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to expand restaurant operations and additional seating at the restaurant 7- .0 : 147 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 .located at 47-474 Caleo Bay Drive - northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber commented on: • Hours of operation and evening restrictions The parking agreement • Outdoor dining Commissioner Wilkinson commented on: Distance to the nearest residents. Commissioner Alderson commented on: • Location of additional parking Pedestrian crosswalks and the possiblerisk of crossing at night • Any comments from the neighbors Staff responded there were no comments from theneighboring residents. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr.. Lee Morcus, owner, 47-474 Washington Street, introduced himself, expressed his pleasure in working with City staff, and commented on the improvement of the building. He explained the type of restaurant this was intended to be; primarily dinner but he Would like the flexibility of serving lunch if,the market demanded it. He explained the Parking Agreement and stated it was planned to be for staff first and valet second; with female staffbeing escorted at night. He preferred the guests to be parking closest to the restaurant and not across -the street,--= - _ _ - - --------- - — 8 148 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 General discussion followed on: • The use of the outdoor patio • The restaurant name • Landscaping improvements •` Exterior improvements - Commissioner Wright reiterated the concerns about the safety of crossing to the additional parking. Planning Director Johnson responded by explaining the low volume of traffic and the criteria for establishment of crosswalks. Mr. Morcus stated they were considering constructing a small walkway that extended from their parking lot down towards a handicap ramp; which was proposed to go right on to Lake La Quints -Drive (in 2002). They plan to put a small walkway from that ramp to the La Quints Medical Center property. He will then ask his employees to use the walkway to free up the nearby restaurant parking area. Staff responded they had . not seen a plan for the walkway, but the applicant could certainly address this with the Public Works staff. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to adopt Resolution 2012-017 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2012- 144 as .submitted with the recommendation that the applicant work with staff to address any issues on a mid -block crossing to the adjacent parking area. Unanimously approved. D. Conditional Use Permit 2012-142: a request by Crown Castle - Susan Malrinson - for -considers tion--ofCenditional-Use-PerTrii for -a -Singh- Pole Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at the southeast corner of the Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 Roundabout. 149 -9- .n_: Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff Commissioner Weber asked about the prioritization for co -location on existing poles. Staff explained about the telecommunications ordinance update and how it affected this application. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman. Barrows asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Susan Makinson, representative of Crown Castle, 5350 N. 48' Street, Ste. 308, Chandler, AZ 85226 introduced herself and said staff originally directed them -,to look for existing verticality and in this location they found several options which were presented in the report. She then offered to answer any questions.. .. General discussion followed on: • Replacement of the current street light and light levels. • Replacement of the street light pole. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant if they had any problems with the Conditions of Approval and the applicant. responded they did not. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any public comment. . Shaine Rider - 52205 Desert Spoon Court, in Codorniz - had a question as to why they picked the developed corner as it would have been better,from an aesthetic point of view, to choose an undeveloped corner. Chairwoman Barrows asked for verification of public notification of the meeting -and -staff -responded -it had heen_done-and thay_-_had rec.&ved_a number of counter visits and phone calls on this site; primarily from Codorniz property owners. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Ms. Makinson then expanded on the location, and the cost of locating on that particular site. She explained there were existing underground facilities, and available verticality to utilize on that corner. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012-018 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2012- 142 as submitted. Unanimously approved. E. Conditional Use Permit 2012-143: a request by Crown Castle - Susan Makinson - for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Single Distributed Antenna System (DAS) within the public right-of-way near the intersection of Avenue 50 and Heatherglen. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. He noted there was a correction of the pole location which was on the west side of Heatherglen; not the east side. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioners Wright and Wilkinson:commented on: • Comments from neighbors in Painted Cove and the Estancias. • Aesthetic impacts of pole location. General discussion followed on: • Improving the appearance of this cell tower. • Verticality on Avenue 50 and the inability to locate on IID equipment. • Camouflaging by landscaping. • Reduction of the pole height. • Search for alternate sites. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Susan Makinson, representative of Crown Castle, 5350 N. 48' Street, Ste. 308, Chandler, AZ 85226 introduced herself and commented on the difficulties with this site. She then explained what was necessary in locating a specific site. She said the anchor tenant was Metro PCS and they were proposing a multi -tenant network, on one pole, for many providers. She said they did .consider a flag pole or alternate sites but were restricted to a specific area. She then explained some of the alternate sites and the problems with each. General discussion followed on: • The 22-foot height limitation • Remaining in the right-of-way • Future applications • Equipment cannot be placed on street lights or signals due to risk and liability. • Preferred sites. Ms. Makinson explained they recently did a small attachment which would fit on the top of the traffic pole that.might work. Planning Director Johnson suggested the Commission might consider continuing the matter to allow staff to work further with the applicant. He suggested they keep this option in mind after they complete their discussion. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Grace Palock - on behalf of the Estancias - 50-001 Orchard Lane read comments submitted by their Homeowners Association Board. She pointed out the notice showed the map in the wrong location and asked why it could not be placed in another location as this site was directly behind their homeowners. Their recommendation was the Commission request additional sites be looked at and suggested the Boys and Girls Club, Jefferson Street, or Avenue 50 where there were street lights. The current site would negatively impact their development. Mr. John Mercer - 79-360 Briarwood said he listened to the applicant talk about what they could do at the roundabout at Avenue 52 and it seemed there were better locations to put this cell tower. He 12 . , 11 r 15. ) Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 suggested the lights at the Boys and Girls Club and suggested there were plenty of places with light poles, such as baseball fields, and soccer fields available nearby which could be utilized; especially with today's technology. He said it did not seem that one cell phone company should have priority versus multiple people who are homeowners since there were better alternatives. Dan Schweizer, Government Relations Counsel for Crown Castle, 2125 Wright Avenue, Suite C-9, LaVerne CA 91750 said he wanted to make sure the Commission understood how the DAS system worked; which he then explained. He clarified why this cell tower could not be put on private property. General discussion followed on: The feasibility of locating the pole on private property • Crown Castle is considered an infrastructure and they have the right to be in the right-of-way • The unit is designed to work with a network • Frequencies Chairwoman Barrows left the public hearing portion of the meeting open to allow the matter to be continued. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wright to continue the Conditional Use Permit 2012-12 to the October 9, 2012 meeting to allow time for the applicant to work with staff on alternate locations, construction and installation. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. Vill, COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council Meeting of August 7, 2012. -13_ ir.' 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 B. Commissioner Alderson is scheduled to report back on the September 18, 2012, City Council meeting. C. Follow-up regarding Conditional Use Permit 2003-075,.Amendment 2, Milan Institute Expansion. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. APA Planning Conference in October.. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on September 25, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 10.09 p.m. on September 11, 2012. Respectfully submitted, carmynWilker, Exacutive:0moury City of La Quinia, California -14- 154 COMMUNITY VISION La Quinta is a great place to live, work and play. La Quinta was originally established and has developed with the objective of providing well planned and desirable neighborhoods, a diversified economic base, excellent schools, exceptional recreational and cultural opportunities, and a variety of community services and facilities. As our community continues to mature, we will strive to preserve and adapt these desirable qualities by 'maintaining and, where necessary, improving upon a safe and convenient circulation system that includes alternative transportation opportunities as well as bikelpedestrian trails and golf cart routes; by providing additional recreational opportunities and cultural facilities for the health and well-being of our residents; by preserving our natural and historic resources, focusing on sustainable existing and future use of water and energy resources; and, by ensuring that La Quinta remainsa safe and desirable place for both residents_ and visitors. J, will continue to emphasize the importance of community participation and the i reeegr�iNertrecognize of the commitment property owners have and continue to make �thei -FA, through r Investment of time, and resources. We will work with regional and other local government entities to solve common problems and coordinate our shared interests. La Quinta's future depends on maintaining a balanced budget and the conservative management of our financial resources, and continuing efforts to promote our community as a premier place to live; work and play. GUIDING PRINCIPLES In order to achieve and support our Community Vision, the following eight guiding principles will shape the La Quinta General Plan: • A Neighborhood Oriented Community c r'71=ml Strive to ensure that existing and future e housing for all residents continues to be ',8► r diverse in type and of high quality. - Establish and maintain connections ADMINISTRATION I-t BACKGROUND City of La Quinta has grown for a number of reasons, including ! range of housing stock, its varied economic base, and its nam ng. As the City continues to grow, it Is important that its assets erved and enhanced, and that future residents, visitors c ness people experience the same quality of life as past and curn An important tool available to the City in maintaining and enhancb quality of life is its ability to provide choices to residents, visitors businesses. These choices include whether a family wants to live in home, an apartment or a condominium; whether a resident drive walks, bicycles or takes the bus to work; or whether he shops for foe at a supermarket or a farmers' market f This Element addresses ways in which the City can support and enhan, the natural and built environment to assure that these choices a] vailable in the future, and ultimately improve the quality of life f everyone in La Quinta. The quality of our air and water, the ability 1 I i 3—=Aep I llaiEe�-watieF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY I I-132 156 ce energy use and save money, high quality development optl the improvement of all types of transportation systems are issed below to provide the broadest menu of options for the Ci Conservation of Natural Resources The conservation of natural resources is a major component of sustainability. Each new development creates demands for water, energy, and contributes to air pollution in the City and region. Implementing conservation measures will not only help the environment, but will also provide cost savings to residents and business owners, and reduce the City's own operational costs. Water Resources The City of La Quinta is located in a desert, and averages only 3.31 inches of rain per year.3 As a result, La Quinta and all communities in the Coachella Valley rely on groundwater as the primary source of potable drinking water and irrigation. Continued growth in the Valley has increased demand for groundwater, and has led to a decline in groundwater levels. When more water is pumped out of the aquifer than can be replenished, the resulting loss is called "overdraft." In zoog, the CVWD reported that a total of 16o,000 acre-feet of water, resulting in an overdraft of 23,912 acre-feet, in the Lower Whitewater Subbasin, which serves the City and other communities in the eastern Coachella Valley. 4 Imported water from the Colorado River and new replenishment programs implemented by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) have helped alleviate declines, but both rely on outside sources of water. In zoto, approximately 300,00o acre-feet of water per year have been allocated from the Colorado River to the eastern Coachella Valley, primarily for agricultural irrigation. Although continued importation of water will help to replenish the aquifer, a more sustainable alternative is to reduce the amount of water pumped by the CVWD, which will have a direct impact on overdraft. Conservation techniques have already been implemented, and new measures are being developed to lower the amount of water used by each household and business in the City. Some of the existing programs include: 3 "Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of La Quinta 2035 General Plan Update", prepared by Earth Consultants International, Inc., June zoio. 4 "Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment: Lower Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit", CVWD, April zoto. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY II-F33- 1S7 remember, however, that trends may change during the life of this General Plan, and may require change in the policy direction in this document. Periodic review of the Land Use Map and the policies and programs in this Element will assure that the City is able to meet the needs of its population, while preserving the high quality of development it is known for. GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS GOAL LU-i Land use compatibility throughout the City. ❖ Policy LU-1.1 The Land Use Map shall implement the goals and policies of the Land Use Element and the other Elements of this General Plan. • Program LU-t.t.a: Maintain consistency between the Land Use Map and Zoning Map, consistent with the Zoning Designations Consistency Matrix. • Program LU-t.t.b: The Zoning Ordinance will include design standards in all zoning districts that assure high quality development. land use decisions shall be consistent with all applicable General Wes and programs and shall take into consideration the rights Ids of property owners as well as those of the eeneral oublir-1 ❖ Policy LU-1.3 No annexation affecting lands in the southern Sphere of Influence (also known as Vista Santa Rosa) shall occur until a Master Plan for this area has been adopted. • Program LU-1.3.a: The Master Plan for Vista Santa Rosa will include an active and aggressive community participation program to ensure that community character is reflected in the Plan. LAND USE ,gym ;J 5 8 11-21 ACHMENT 2- Thanks to Rosa Koire and her team at Democrats Against Agenda 21 we have this comprehensive list of key words and phrases that are often used at the local level when discussing Agenda 21 related initiatives. Affordable housing Ballot Box Planning Benefit of all Benefits -Driven Buffer Zones Cap & Trade Choice Climate Change Common Core Curriculum Common good . Community Protocol Comprehensive planning Consensus Conservation Easement Direct instruction Downzoning Endangered species Environment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Environmental Justice Equity Facilitator - —- Fair General Plan Global Warming Good Business Sense Grants Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Greenways Growth management New Urbanism New World Order One planet communities Open Space Outcome based education Outcomes Parking Policy Precautionary approach Precautionary Principle Preserve Priority Conservation Areas Priority Development Areas (PDA) Prosperity Protect Public/Private partnerships Quality of life Redevelopment Regional Resilient Cities Responsible development Restoration ---Safe Routes -to -Schools- ---- Sanctuary Scenic views and vistas School to work Sensitive Lands Smart growth Smart Streets Social justice Stack and Pack Housing Habitat Stakeholder HEAL (Healthy Eating Active Living) Sustainable Communities Initiative Communities Sustainable communities partnership Healthy Communities Strategy Sustainable communities strategies High Speed Rail Sustainable development Historic preservation Sustainable Economic Development Housing Element Sustainable medicine Inclusive Three "E's of Sustainablity-Equity; Economy, Inter -disciplinary International baccalaureate International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Invasive species Jobs -Housing Connection Land Use Policies Lifelong learning Livable communities. Livable Communities Local Local Governments for Sustainability Metropolitan Planning Organizations Mixed Use Development Modeling Multi -Use Dwellings New Economy Environment Traffic calming Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Transportation Justice Triple bottom line Upzoning Urban Growth Boundary Urban revitalization Vehicle Mileage Traveled Tax Vibrant Neighborhoods Vision Visioning Meetings Walkable Communities Watershed . Wetlands Wildlands r 9 Zz �f3 jr�� 55n1 DATE: January 19, 2013 TO: J1� JAN 2 2 2013 i rltY OF EA WINTA C!i` MANAGER'S DFPI_ Mr.Mayor and Council Members Mr. Les Johnson, Planning Director RE: General Plan Revision New Housing Element Quwl t AA CCltZI Per the meeting of Jan 15th, 2013, we are hoping that our cities will be our last line of defense for maintaining stronger local control over the culture and lifestyle of our community and to reaffirm our communities' dedication to preserving the essential principles of our national and state constitutions. In order to do so, it is the job of every citizen to stand up and "question with boldness" how each and every law coming from Sacramento —and there are so many --reaffirms and strengthens those basic foundations. Our question then would be, must we comply with ALL aspects of SB 375, SCS (Sustainable Community Strategy), AB 2158, GHG, RTP, SB12, and HCD, to name a few? Or is there room to negotiate around the bills to maintain the property rights and free market choices that have made La Quinta the wonderful city that it is today? From our research, we see that there is definitely "wiggle room" to all these proposed mandates and many elements of the bills are suggestions at this point and not mandates or "hard law". Mr. Johnson mentioned several new housing -related laws, such as SB 244 that requires identifying "unincorporated fringe communities" in the City's "Sphere of Influence." Must we comply with that also? Has the city attorney been requested to research and questioned the legalities or constitutionality of these new laws? Or has the city gone along blindly to conform to these new requirements? Must we always "obey" —never question or say NO? We googled SB 244, and it appears the League of California Cities has adopted a resolution of opposition to this unfunded mandate. Is this true? Can we say "no" to identifying our "unincorporated fringe communities?" Why do they need to know this? What is the purpose? How will this information be used? What organizations or state and/or federal departments are charged with maintaining, monitoring, parsing and using the information? We understand the necessity at this juncture to pass the Housing Element Update by October. After laying off many city workers, LQ may need to spend $40,000-$50,000 for a consulting firm who can properly assess what the new laws really require, what is optional, and what is the real vision of the community in contrast to these requirements. Is it in the city's best interest to retain Terra Nova to perform this work,' given the fact that they have not demonstrated an understanding of the key issues at stake? They are well; trained —having prepared Palm Desert's last two Housing Elements and now, its current update...plus creating our General Plan. But, could there be another qualified firm that could be selected to perform the, work in a manner that matches the city's intent? From our review of the internet, there are firms more: versed on ramifications of adopting straight out the principles behind these state and federal bills, as well as the guiding principles behind Agenda 21, and protecting individual rights and freedoms and maintaining: the city of La Quinta's special brand and local control PAGE TWO General Plan We googled RHNA. Regional Housing Needs Assessment. It says, RHNA allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the reoion and sub region can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity, fair share housing needs. See the "buzz" words? Shouldn't our city Council question the requirements of RHNA and its constitutionality or a the very least, remove the Agenda 21 language from the LQGP to protect it's sovereignty Neeta Quinn spoke with Mr. Johnson at the last meeting and discussed the upcoming workshop scheduled for January 22 at 6:00 p.m. in the La Quinta Library. He mentioned perhaps a Preamble to the General Plan stating there is no connection to the United Nations Agenda 21. But, don't you see that It IS connected? You cannot say in your Preamble that it's not, then incorporate all of the language/ requirements of Sustainable Community Elements, the Housing Element, and all the AB's and SB's, into the body/text of the General Plan. It is inherently contradictory. The following is a suggested Preamble: PREAMBLE THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN, DATED , SHALL PLACE BOTH OUR FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS, WITH THEIR RIGHTS, LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS OF THE PEOPLE, ITS CITIZENS OF LA QUINTA, FIRST AND FOREMOST. IN THE FUTURE, IF ANY PART OF SAID GENERAL PLAN INTERFERES WITH SAID RIGHTS, THESE CONSTITUTIONS SHALL GOVERN AND TAKE PRECEDENCE. THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND THE PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND IS DESIGNED WITH THE INTENT TO ENHANCE AND IMPROVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IN LA QUINTA. Further, based on the "Recommended Actions" document submitted by Mr. Johnson on December 18, 2012, we would like to submit the following comments We do have concerns regarding some text and wording of the General Plan. The word "sustainable" has been used frequently throughout the document. In some instances, you can omit "sustainable," and still have a complete sentence. Example: Under Community Vision: "...by preserving our natural and historic resources, focusing on (sustainable) existing and future use of water and energy resources; PAGE THREE General Plan Under "Compliance with State Law"... (Page 3) Add, LQ's City Attorney shall investigate each new law to make sure it complies with the Constitution. There have been multiple changes in state law since 2002, and the city attorney must inform the council in writing of his or her opinion as to its constitutionality OR, perhaps add another section... "Compliance with the Constitution of the United States".... All sections of the General Plan must comply with the Constitution of the United States. Etc. Etc. Policy LU-1. Text must be revised... All land use decisions shall be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and programs and shall take into consideration (replace with UPHOLD) the rights and needs of the property owner... NOTE: Individual rights versus the collective. Protection of property rights in compliance with the Constitution. Land Use Summary (Page 4 —1 st bullet) Lands previously designated Low -Density Residential that have since been developed as golf courses have been changed to "Open Space Recreation," which reduced the residential acreage and increased the Open Space Recreation acreage. NOTE: " Golf Courses are considered by the United Nations, Sustainable Development and the Global Biodiversity Assessment as "UNSUSTAINABLE". One day, golf courses will unilaterally be designated as "open space," According to the Global Biodiversity Assessment: Section 10 Tourism — (10.3.6) "It is a well-known fact that many modes of tourism have traditionally exerted a negative impact on the environment, both natural and cultural. Tourism, as well as other human activities, must change many of its negative attitudes and effects, in order to become a truly sustainable endeavor. The big challenges lie with problems caused by tour busses, scuba divers, golf courses, and waste treatment of big resort hotels, etc. Air conditioning should be substituted with natural cross- ventilation or the use of ceiling fans whenever possible. PAGE FOUR General Plan As you can see, among other things, homes surrounding "golf courses" are in jeopardy as well as individual freedom to play golf and enjoy the amenities. People will not be able to play golf. Employees will lose their jobs. Restaurants will close. Maintenance of grounds will cease, allowing the flora and fauna to return to its natural state. This is "Social justice" AND AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN SIMPLE BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, which is directly from the Sustainable section of the UN Agenda 21! Why does this have to be included in the General Plan at all? Golf courses are a part of our culture and lifestyle. We ARE a tourism destination; therefore we need to be watchful of any changes affecting our hotels, golf courses, etc. This infringes on our community, its economy, and our freedoms of life, liberty and property Green House Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan (Page 4) Add... The LQ City Attorney shall present an opinion, in writing, as to the constitutionality of the following The California Warming Solutions Act of 2006, referred to as Assembly Bill 32 (or AB32) Sustainable Community and Climate Protection Act of 2008, referred to as SB 375 In accordance with these laws, the Planning Department has prepared a Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan which serves as an appendix to the draft General Plan and supports the energy efficiency and conservation goals, policies, and programs found within the Sustainable Community Element. The City Attorney shall review the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan and present his or her opinion to Council, in writing, of its constitutionality (as we study this, many are guidelines only, not mandates) Sustainable Community Element (Page 4-5 Rewording of text. .... Too broad and all encompassing... uncertain and intentionally vague ... open to interpretation. This is done by design and in keeping with UN Agenda 21's goals.. We Need to get more specific on these so as not to leave them "open to interpretations" but are spelled out in a clear and concise manner, again to protect the sovereignty of LQ and its' residents and uphold "property rights and PAGE FIVE General Plan freedoms afforded all in the Constitution, "rights and liberties and freedom of choice", not government controlled by Agenda 21 and the UN's agenda The language we use today must be given careful consideration as what is benign to us is not benign to them but has an agenda attached and if left unspecified, will have adverse consequences for the city of LQ and its residents and it's future sovereignty. However, we do like that these are choices rather than mandate limitations. Agricultural Resources (Page 9) This text is unacceptable... "The General Plan Update will not directly require conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, however indirect pressures may encourage agricultural landowners to sell or develop their land. What does that mean? Indirect pressures? How will this "pressure" be applied? What ever happened to the free market drivers that underpin our basic economic principles? This Must be revised, clarified and the language should be given careful consideration so coercion is not used as an attempt to destroy/eliminate the agriculture industry in the name of the UN's idea of what is "sustainable". NOTE: According to the Global Biodiversity Assessment: Section 10 10.3.2 — Agriculture Agriculture occupies more than one-third of the world's land area "and is the leading cause of habitat destruction on a global basis." Keep a watchful eye against any intrusion on our agriculture land. We appreciate your taking the time to study all the information, and to read all the literature and books provided. Linda, did you read, and then pass -on "Spreading the Wealth" by Stanley Kurtz? Please share that book with Les Johnson. Unbeknownst to you, each of you is enjoined in "Regionalism" by complying with all these new rules, regulations and laws. The goal of regionalism is to abolish the suburbs, ideally by having cities annex surrounding suburban municipalities. Failing that, regionalists focus on a three -pronged strategy to effectively render suburbanites' control of their own municipalities meaningless:1) redistributing suburban wealth throughout a metropolitan region through "tax base sharing"; 2) urban "growth boundaries" to block the development of rural areas, forcing would-be suburbanites back toward the cities; and 3) "economic integration," that is, forced zoning changes and low- income housing mandates designed to force inner-city residents into the suburbs. PAGE SIX General Plan The above are just a few of our concerns and suggestions for modifications to the General Plan. Also, please refer again to the booklet Bob and I presented to you prior to our meetings with Les Johnson, "... La Quinta General Plan: A Model of Freedom or Redistribution". One was given to all council members as well. Many of our concerns and suggestions were in this booklet. We hope you will take these into consideration when refining said document. We again implore you to read between the lines, and ask yourself what are the underlying reasons. Please continue your own investigation, research —Agenda 21 is not going away. A watchful eye and awareness must always be present as more changes will be forthcoming at every turn to curtail our freedoms and our way of life. Question with boldness. It is up to you to be our protector and to support and defend our Constitution of the United States. We hope your discussions on Jan. 22nd will take these suggestions seriously.. While we understand that it is going to require education and time to get the LQGP to reflect the necessary changes to protect the citizens and sovereignty of LQ against the intrusion of Agenda 21 goals into our cities, and in the interest of time, we are more than willing to sit down with you all in a "work meeting" and help you expedite this process as we have been working on exposing Agenda 21 now for over 2 years ... We hope you will avail yourselves of our services at no charge to the city. We stand ready to help as it is our freedoms that are being threatened and we must do all we can to protect them especially in the current environment our nation finds itself in.. Many cities and states are boldly stepping forward to stop implementation of this insidious agenda into their lives.. We hope LQ will be one of those cities that steps boldly forward.. "Private Property and Freedom are inseparable." —George Washington Thank you and God Bless, Neeta Quinn, LQ Resident, Christina Michas, Founder/Leader, Palm Springs Patriots Coalition/Desert Valley Tea Party --PRESIDENT, EAGLE FORUM, PALM SPRINGS 760.408-0845--- cmichas(cDdc.rr.com Robert Righetti, Planning Engineer — PS Patriots Q§ lb rn . X rD LA � rn r+ :3 sv :3 a < One rD � n n m rD r+ n, rD cu fD O � LA C r+ N N O. rD r+ rD N cu LA � o n a �' r� ` Ln OrQ z : cu' rD �M LA n �- _m m C'- rDaj 70 N —• q r+ O� � n p = m �. p�lO vNi M. r r' rD rD = N N 0 rD (D N (D _ cu O O_ r+ L1 3 P- rD C. rDit t O rD tA n sv;; to iD o N rDFD I V -t. /� ■ iU {dty i N O !? n' c• r+ n Oro IA rD 1f LA ..0 O O t x C O ^ ' X �D "Q ��llri '• yid €0 �1 ,f , fir- - 00 V� O 0 v 0 O 0 0 0 p 0 O 0 p 0 0 C C aJ aJ IIJ tA tA LA N N O 0 p O O O 0 0 0 0 fD 0 0 0 0 3 rD E (D W 0 0 lJ� 0 0 0 0 3 rD E rD 00 0 F r- m N m W 20 10 m 14 3 Gr I In IA m IA m (zD N li m c fD r 3 m O- C C m go m v:3 '+ r Q. D� v X N 00 00 R¢ m H NN CD A� m m N In m m iy n D a J 'i d X m -n C) m e 6! m ^m ,n W N Q. O m N M O M WC M n m X 3 Q; m 0 i-� N O 00 1—A ,, L. ED C O O w C go N >CU O Oq vpri N fD � � N n 7C" � O QO n t7 O � TI r* 7r go .-r co 3 n m �i ��� T 3 M n (D c O CDx m A 3 o w .t CD CA VA cu 77 LA LA r+ "I (D m e-t- U r. rD n z 0 O O n _ rD 3. O O < rD (D rD � fD rD ao v- O c LA 50 x On D (D ( - 0- • < � 5 �/ � r CM-t, a � rD z' O n � � °- _ �- � o rD rD -� r m w/ �, tA o e-+ (A rp ; r+ N tA < a, O -O < s . rD H M C LA lD 00 V 0) O N T G) M w M n T -h -a C O CL A NJ � h -0 r'n DJ O � r+ � "a a. o a 3 n r+ In L n N r+O O rD w rD r+ LA N N ru rD rD rD C u LA �= a tA o N n rD f O;' rD rLl+) M W rD r+ 0 (D �s aj 3 0 rDLA • N rD (D LA (D (D LA N� - LA N O rD O tA rD r: O rD —• -t rD O CM to N = N N' IQ�. � 0- -' m O O -. Oo r�D o\°\° r�lt- r) - C m -P N rCD 00 G :3 �, N O N rD r+ N 3 rD O rD O LA .A O rD 90 --, rD rD rD 3 rD O N v N LA r+ n LA N O N O � - rD (D rD e+ OrQ �J M, ml 3 t t e_3E I _ _ li �! I pp t. t � I t i t i r� rD rD n r� i1J CrD < �C+ o rD � < o C rD c rD C �l _ o 3 ,�3 V rn r+ r+ -v -n GrQ m rD w LA o' 1 � n n; m �LA OrQrD -h -a m v LA=3 tA yGQ v Di v LA V �• a� -• o �N Un a �n 00 O �• 3 E: ryy� V K rD Q° -v (D �. �q Q. (D � O- r+ 3 (D Ln O m ET (D 7nC" O n LA LA c mo N O tA C N rD r• L O `< (D I, • 3' O 3 r+ rD N C tA r+ 3 rD tA m O m tA 3' O rD rD LA r+ 0� rD rD n, n ru' LA v O a • rD n O Ln 3 rD r+ rDLA N C � C N CL) N. rD a o r+ 0 n e-1-LA • a 3 rD E cu to n tA 0 • wj O _<, < cr rD rD r+ rD LA O rD Q°''' • �t' TS O i./L�/ rD rD a r1 O : S?°, o w 3 Y j�r � h /i�vL a U rD ( y 11 (P