Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016 04 19 CC
T4hf 4 Sep City Council agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: www.la-quinta.org CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016 3:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION 1 4:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Franklin, Osborne, Pena, Radi, Mayor Evans PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. 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 54954.2(b). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6; CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CHRIS ESCOBEDO, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES; AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE AT 4:00 P.M. REPORT ON ACTIONS) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 APRIL 19, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit -your comments to three minutes. 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 54954.2(b). ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL AS DMV/DONATE LIFE MONTH 2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BATTALION CHIEF, DAVE LACLAIR 3. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAINTENANCE FOREMAN STEVE KOCHELL'S RETIREMENT CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion. PAGE 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 2016 2. ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBERS 535, 536, 537, 538 AND 539 TO STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF MUNICIPAL CODE TITLES 2, 7, 8, 9, AND 13 [ORDINANCE NUMBERS 535, 536, 537, 538 AND 5391 3. AWARD CONTRACT TO URBAN HABITAT ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MADISON STREET MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONVERSION IMPROVEMENTS 4. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT TO ATTEND INTRODUCTION TO GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING TRAINING ON JUNE 15, 2016, IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 5. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR BUSINESS ANALYST TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 8-10, 2016, IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 6. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR TO ATTEND THE RESIDENT ENGINEERS ACADEMY, MAY 9-12, 2016, IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 APRIL 19, 2016 7. APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID VOLZ DESIGN TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR MILES AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 8. ACCEPT JEFFERSON STREET ROUNDABOUT ART PIECE PEDESTAL PROJECT 9. APPROVE BID DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ADVERTISE THE CITYWIDE LIGHTING MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1 10. APPROVE BID DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ADVERTISE THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1 11. APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR PARK LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH CONSERVE LANDCARE 12. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS [RESOLUTION 2016-0101 13. APPROVE DEMAND REGISTERS DATED APRIL 1 AND 8, 2016 BUSINESS SESSION 1. APPROVE PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY NOMINATIONS STUDY SESSION 1. INTRODUCTION TO 2016/17 BUDGET 2. DISCUSS PROJECTS TO INCLUDE IN 2016/17 THROUGH 2O20/21 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 3. DISCUSS WASTE SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH BURRTEC WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC. 4. DISCUSS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 PAGE APRIL 19, 2016 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 5:00 P.M. For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to consideration of that item. A person may submit written comments to City Council before a public hearing or appear in support or opposition to the approval of a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. 1. DENY APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WHICH APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 3.16 ACRE LOT AT 77210 LOMA VISTA, WITHIN THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1. CITY MANAGER - REFINANCING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 2011 BONDS 746 2. CITY ATTORNEY 3. CITY CLERK A. UPCOMING EVENTS AND CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR 750 B. STATUS OF MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE PROJECT 754 4. COMMUNITY RESOURCES - QUARTERLY MARKETING REPORT 756 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT - MARCH 2O16 766 6. FACILITIES REPORT - MARCH 2O16 770 7. FIRE QUARTERLY REPORT 778 8. POLICE QUARTERLY REPORT 786 MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBER'S ITEMS REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. CVAG COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION (Evans) 2. CVAG ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Evans) 3. CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Evans) 4. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (Evans) 5. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DELEGATE (Evans) 6. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEE (Evans) 7. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (Evans) 8. CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (Franklin) 9. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (Franklin) 10. JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (Franklin) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 APRIL 19, 2016 11. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY (Franklin) 12. AD HOC COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE CITY CANNABIS OPTIONS (Franklin and Pena) 13. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (Osborne) 14. DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Osborne and Franklin) 15. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Osborne) 16. EAST VALLEY COALITION (Osborne) 17. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (Pena) 18. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFO EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (Pena) 19. CVAG VALLEY -WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE (Pena) 20. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) (Radi) 21. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (Radi) 22. COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Franklin and Radi) 23. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 14, 2016 ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on May 3, 2016 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 on the City's website, 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 April 15, 2016. DATED: April 15, 2016 SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Public Notices • The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7103, 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- 7103. A one (1) week notice is required. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 APRIL 19, 2016 • If background material is to be presented to the Councilmembers 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 Community Development counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 6 APRIL 19, 2016 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2016 A regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Evans. PRESENT: Councilmembers Franklin, Osborne, Pena, Radi, Mayor Evans ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA 1. City Clerk Maysels corrected the name on Consent Calendar Item No. 4 from Commissioner Byerly to Engel. 2. Councilmember Osborne requested that Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5, 8 and 9 be pulled for a separate vote. 3. City Manager Spevacek noted that due to illness, the staff presenter for Study Session Item No. 2 was absent so the Council may wish to postpone that item. Councilmembers concurred with all requests including rescheduling the Study Session on Economic Development Strategies. CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO CALLE TAMPICO AND AVENIDA LA FONDA, WEST OF THE LA QUINTA PUBLIC LIBRARY AND WELLNESS CENTER (APNS: 770-123-011, 770- 123-012 AND 770-124-010) CITY NEGOTIATOR: FRANK J. SPEVACEK, CITY MANAGER NEGOTIATING PARTIES: CITY OF LA QUINTA AND MARVIN INVESTMENTS, INC. UNDER CONSIDERATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT: SILVERROCK RESORT (APNS 770-200-026; 776-150-021; 776-150-023; 770- 060-056; 770-060-057; 770-060-058; 770-060-059; 770-060-061; 770-060- 062; 777-490-004; 777-490-006; 777-490-007; 777-490-012 AND 777-490- 014) CITY NEGOTIATOR: FRANK J. SPEVACEK, CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 APRIL 5, 2016 NEGOTIATING PARTY: SILVERROCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT FOR ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED COUNCILMEMBER PENA ANNOUNCED THAT HE MAY HAVE A CONFLICT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM NO. 1 DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF HIS PROPERTY TO THIS PROJECT. HE RECUSED HIMSELF AND DID NOT ATTEND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. COUNCIL RECESSED THE OPEN SESSION OF THE MEETING AND MOVED INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:04 P.M. MAYOR EVANS RECONVENED THE OPEN SESSION PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 4:00 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT REPORT ON ACTIONS) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: Assistant City Attorney Michelle Molko reported no actions were taken in Closed Session that require reporting pursuant to Government Code section 54957.1 (Brown Act). Councilmember Franklin led the audience in the pledge of allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA PUBLIC SPEAKER: Paul Gibson, La Quinta - Mr. Gibson stated his concern regarding gun shots fired recently by his neighbor, and requested that the Council adopt a cannabis ordinance similar to that codified by the City of Palm Desert. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Maureen Skeese, La Quinta - Ms. Skeese spoke in opposition to the proposed commercial development at Washington Street and Avenue 50tn PUBLIC SPEAKER: Walt Sorenson, La Quinta - Mr. Sorenson thanked those Councilmembers and staff who visited the Fairways community, and spoke in opposition to the proposed commercial development at Washington Street and Avenue 50tn PUBLIC SPEAKER: Celeinne Ysunza, La Quinta - Ms. Ysunza spoke in opposition to any extension in days or hours of Goldenvoice concerts due to the noise disruption after 11 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 APRIL 5, 2016 8 2. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 534 ADDING CHAPTER 5.82 TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN RETAIL SALES OF DOGS AND CATS IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA [ORDINANCE 5341 1:19IR IFA09:1:103 1U814zIElla 1a*_1111:[do1_1DIM I IIam44 4. EXCUSE ABSENCE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSIONER RVERI corrected name: ENGEL 5. Pulled by Councilmember Osborne for separate vote due to a conflict >>> APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT SERVICES AND REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH LA QUINTA FARMS, LLC. FOR PM10 STABILIZATION AT SILVERROCK RESORT 6. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS DATED FEBRUARY 29, 2016 7. AMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REGULAR MEETINGS START TIME TO 6:00 P.M. 8. Pulled by Councilmember Osborne for separate vote due to a conflict >>> ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PARCEL MAP NO. 36855 WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB DEVELOPMENT [RESOLUTION 2016- 0081 9. Pulled by Councilmember Osborne for separate vote due to a conflict >>> ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PARCEL MAP NO. 36856 WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB DEVELOPMENT [RESOLUTION 2016- 0091 10. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR TO ATTEND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS SOFTWARE TRAINING ON APRIL 20-21, 2016, IN APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 11. ACCEPT LA QUINTA LIBRARY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 12. APPROVE DEMAND REGISTERS DATED MARCH 11, 18, 22 AND 25, 2016 13. APPROPRIATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS PARKS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND RATIFY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 APRIL 5, 2016 M PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FROM DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES, INC. OF CALIFORNIA COUNCILMEMBER OSBORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTERESTED ON CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 5, 8 AND 9 DUE TO A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TWO COMPANIES INVOLVED. MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Pena to approve the Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4, 6-7, 10-13 as recommended with the name correction on Item No. 4. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Franklin to approve the Consent Calendar No. 5, 8, 9 as recommended, with Item Nos. 8 and 9 adopting Resolution Nos. 2016-008 and 2016-009. Motion passed: 4-0-1 (Osborne abstain) BUSINESS SESSION - None STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENT OF LA QUINTA XPARK Facilities Director Howlett presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Councilmembers discussed including an area for scooters because those riders have different needs than skateboarders; consider xPark membership card to cover a portion of annual maintenance; an analysis of user volume, both La Quinta and regional numbers, is needed as part of project scoping; research on the skate circuit and an events and marketing plan is needed to draw more younger visitors to the city; the regional nature of the facility and opportunity to tie-in with CVlink; data on users is needed as well as the forecast for the future of the sport; facility fencing and disability accommodations must be considered in design, and; collaboration with the Desert Recreation District and others should be explored. Councilmembers reached a location consensus of La Quinta Park and directed staff to (a) move forward with conceptual plans and scoping, and (b) contact Coachella Valley Water District to open negotiations for a land swap for their well site adjacent to La Quinta Park. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Pulled from the agenda and rescheduled for April 19, 2016. DEPARTMENT REPORTS All reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 APRIL 5, 2016 `Nl Community Resources Manager Larson and Planning Manager Perez reported on the plans for the 2016 Goldenvoice concerts and on the City of Indio's Environmental Impact Report addendum to increase the capacity of the events. Design and Development Director Jonasson reported on Fairway Villas parkway landscaping. Council directed staff to get an estimate for "desert oasis" landscaping and to consider temporary fixes such as painting the perimeter wall, none of which is a commitment on the City's part to fund this homeowners' association (HOA) project. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Don Weber, La Quinta - Mr. Weber said he is the President of the Fairway Villas HOA, which consists of ten members. Mr. Weber explained that the HOA contracted for the removal of the diseased oleanders including the stumps so he will arrange for the contractor to finish the job. He said that the HOA does not have the funds to re -landscape and requested that the City fund the project for which he has a bid for $20,000. PUBLIC HEARING - 5:00 P.M. 1. INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING ORDINANCES TO STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF MUNICIPAL CODE TITLES 2, 7, 8, 9, AND 13 [ORDINANCE 535, 536, 537, 538, 5391 Planning Manager Perez presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Councilmembers discussed means of transmitting a weekly summary of staffs' decisions to Council; dissolution of the Historic Preservation Commission and the role of the California Environmental Quality Act in protecting historic sites; utilizing the resources of the La Quinta Historical Society in the future and engaging and supporting the Society, and; staff's plan to flag historic buildings in the City's permit system so that no permit for those properties can be pulled without notifying the Planning Division. Mayor Evans stated that she wants Council to recognize Historic Preservation Commissioners. Mayor Evans declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 5:17 p.m. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: None Mayor Evans declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 5:17 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 APRIL 5, 2016 Is MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Pena/Radi to take up Ordinance Nos. 535, 536, 537, 538 and 539 by titles and numbers only and waive further reading. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Maysels summarized the following Ordinance titles for the record: ORDINANCE NO. 535: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DELETING CHAPTER 2.35 OF TITLE 2 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE NO. 536: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 7 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE NO. 537: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 8 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE NO. 538: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 9 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE NO 539: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 13 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Pena/Radi to introduce Ordinances 535, 536, 537, 538 and 539 on first reading. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Pena/Franklin to make a finding, included in Ordinances Nos. 535, 536, 537, 538 and 539 that the adoption of these ordinances is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (B)(3) Review of Exemptions - General Rule. Motion passed unanimously. MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBER'S ITEMS Councilmember Franklin suggested and all Councilmembers agreed that in order to reduce paper use, staff should provide red -line copies of Municipal Code revision in Council packets but there was no need to also include clean copies of revised ordinances. Council further directed staff not to recopy attachments for the second reading of ordinances. In addition, the City Manager offered to establish a procedure whereby Councilmembers could decide in advance if they wish to receive bulky attachments to staff reports. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 APRIL 5, 2016 12 City Manager Spevacek introduced Assistant City Attorney Michelle Molko and the newly hired Accounting Manager Karla Campos. Councilmember Osborne commended the Chamber of Commerce and the Ad -Hoc Committee Members for the recent informative meeting. Mayor Evans noted that the Greater Coachella Valley Chambers of Commerce consolidation was a success so for. Councilmember Pena announced the upcoming Chamber golf tournament on April 7. Councilmember Radi announced the La Quinta High School Wind Symphony will perform a free concert at La Quinta Civic Center on Saturday, April 9. It will be their last concert before traveling to Chicago to play on April 18 and a final effort to raise funds for the trip. Mr. Radi noted that this is a successful program teaching not only music but leadership. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL La Quinta's representative for 2016, Mayor Evans reported on her participation in the following organizations meeting: • COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEE La Quinta's representative for 2016, Councilmember Franklin reported on her participation in the following organization meeting: • COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY • SUN LINE TRANSIT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Franklin/Radi to adjourn at 5:34 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 APRIL 5, 2016 13 14 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBERS 535, 536, 537, 538 AND 539 TO STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS BY AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF MUNICIPAL CODE TITLES 2, 7, 8, 9, AND 13 RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance Numbers 535, 536, 537, 538 and 539 on second reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • On April 5, 2016, Council approved introducing Ordinance Numbers 535, 536, 537, 538 and 539 on first reading, which amend Titles 2, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of the Municipal Code and streamline the development review process. • By law, a second reading must occur, followed by a vote to adopt and a 30-day posting period before an ordinance may take effect. If adopted on April 19, 2016, this ordinance will take effect on May 19, 2016. FISCAL IMPACC( - None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Municipal Code establishes the development approval procedures, and identifies standards and permitted land uses. It also identifies the required level of approvals by the Design and Development Director, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. It is anticipated that the Development Code Tune Up will facilitate new development and attract new business. ALTERNATIVES As Council approved these ordinances at first reading, staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Pam Nieto, Deputy City Clerk Approved by: Susan Maysels, City Clerk 15 16 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3 AGENDA TITLE: AWARD CONTRACT TO URBAN HABITAT ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADISON STREET MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONVERSION IMPROVEMENTS Award a contract to Urban Habitat Environmental Landscapes in the amount of $500,000 to construct the Madison Street Median Landscape Conversion Improvements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Over 60,000 square feet of turf in the Madison Street medians from Airport Boulevard to Avenue 54 would be converted to the Desert Efficient palette. • Urban Habitat Environmental Landscapes of La Quinta, California, submitted the lowest responsive bid at $500,000. FISCAL IMPACT The 2015/16 Capital Improvement Plan allocates $1,300,000 of General Fund revenue to this project. Considering project costs to date and the construction bid of $500,000, the following is the adjusted budget: Adjusted Project Budget Anticipated CVWD Rebate Professional: $100,750 Design: $130,000 Inspection/Testing/Survey: $126,750 Construction: $500,000 City Administration: $ 65,000 Contingency: $377,500 $60,400 Total Budget: $1,300,000 $601400 The Coachella Valley Water District has tentatively approved $60,400 in turf removal rebates, which will be allocated to the contingency budget. Staff anticipates that 17 funds will remain after this project is complete; staff recommends that these funds be allocated Staff anticipates a substantial positive contingency for this project due to the rebate and the favorable bids. Staff recommends the remaining balance at project completion be assigned to the La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion Project (the northern community parkways) to expedite its the schedule. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS State water use reduction mandates prohibit turf medians irrigation. These Madison Street medians (Attachment 1) were all turf, the turf has since died. This project will remove the turf and selected trees, and replace them with the Desert Efficient palette. On March 1, 2016 City Council authorized staff to advertise the project for construction bids. The City received five bids on March 31, 2016 (Attachment 2). The following is the proposed project schedule: Council Considers Project Award April 19, 2016 Execute Contract and Mobilize April 20 to May 11, 2016 Construction (75 Working Days) May/August 2016 Accept Improvements September 2016 ALTERNATIVES Per State law, this turf median is no longer being irrigated. Council may elect to not remove the turf and selected trees and leave this median in its current condition. Staff does not recommend this alternative because this would not meet the City's water efficiency goals or aesthetic standards. Prepared by: Ed Wimmer, P.E., Principal Engineer Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Design and Development Director/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Bid Comparison Summary 18 ATTACH M ENT 1 CD L Cn C 111 W PROJECT SITE 111 Avenue 54 Airport Blvd QC _V7 L L Vicinity Map 0 NOT TO SCALE z 10 i7 20 MADISON STREET MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONVERSION IMPROVEMENTS 2015-04 ATTACH M ENT 2 BID OPENING: MARCH 31, 2016 Engineers Estimate Item No. Description CITY Unit Unit Price Extended Price 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 34,000.00 $ 34,000.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 3 Dust Control 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 4 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $ 30,200.00 $ 30,200.00 5 1 REMOVE - Tree 29 EA $ 200.00 $ 5,800.00 6 Rock Cobble - Size: 4" - 8" 17,600 SF $ 7.00 $ 123,200.00 7 Rock Crushed - Size: 3/4" 2" Depth) 17,800 SF $ 2.00 $ 35,600.00 8 Decomposed Granite - Size: 3/8" Minus 2" Depth) 24,960 SF $ 1.00 $ 24,960.00 9 Decomposed Granite Backfill for Rock Cobble 2" Depth) 17,600 SF $ 1.00 $ 17,600.00 10 Landscape Boulders - Size: 2'- 4' 173 EA $ 400.00 $ 69,200.00 11 Soil Prep and Fine Grading 60,400 SF $ 0.75 $ 45,300.00 12 lWeed Abatement 60,400 SF $ 0.25 $ 15,100.00 13 Palm 5' BTH - Brahea armata 10 EA $ 350.00 $ 3,500.00 14 24" Box Tree 48 EA $ 350.00 $ 16,800.00 15 5 gal Agave 217 EA $ 40.00 $ 8,680.00 16 5 gal Fou uieria s lendens 56 EA $ 45.00 $ 2,520.00 17 5 gal Echinocactus grusonii 34 EA $ 85.00 $ 2,890.00 18 5 gal Shrub 63 EA $ 25.00 $ 1,575.00 19 1 gal Shrub 160 EA $ 12.00 $ 1,920.00 20 1 irrigation System 1 LS $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 21 jElectrical and Lighting System 1 LS $ 141,535.00 $ 141,535.00 SUBTOTAL BID ITEMS 1-15: $ 786,880.00 TOTAL BID ITEMS: 1 $ 786,880.00 Urban Habitat Environmental Landscapes Unit Price Extended Price $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 2,760.00 $ 2,760.00 $ 42,280.00 $ 42,280.00 $ 250.00 $ 7,250.00 $ 1.41 $ 24,816.00 $ 1.26 $ 22,428.00 $ 1.15 $ 28,704.00 $ 1.02 $ 17,952.00 $ 179.00 $ 30,967.00 $ 0.10 $ 6,040.00 $ 0.30 $ 18,120.00 $ 521.00 $ 5,210.00 $ 325.00 $ 15,600.00 $ 38.10 $ 8,267.70 $ 75.85 $ 4,247.60 $ 33.68 $ 1,145.12 $ 17.00 $ 1,071.00 $ 7.50 $ 1,200.00 $ 96,010.41 $ 96,010.41 $ 146,431.17 $ 146,431.17 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 1 1 $ 527,981.00 Conserve LandCare Unit Price Extended Price $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 3.50 $ 61,600.00 $ 1.75 $ 31,150.00 $ 1.00 $ 24,960.00 $ 0.80 $ 14,080.00 $ 100.00 $ 17,300.00 $ 0.10 $ 6,040.00 $ 0.02 $ 1,208.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 300.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 25.00 $ 5,425.00 $ 55.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 45.00 $ 1,530.00 $ 15.00 $ 945.00 $ 6.00 $ 960.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 583,178.00 $ 583,178.00 Clean Cut Landscape Unit Price Extended Price $ 27,448.00 $ 27,448.00 $ 31,811.00 $ 31,811.00 $ 7,222.00 $ 7,222.00 $ 60,871.00 $ 60,871.00 $ 194.00 $ 5,626.00 $ 2.75 $ 48,400.00 $ 1.20 $ 21,360.00 $ 1.10 $ 27,456.00 $ 0.86 $ 15,136.00 $ 180.00 $ 31,140.00 $ 0.22 $ 13,288.00 $ 0.08 $ 4,832.00 $ 3,147.00 $ 31,470.00 $ 482.00 $ 23,136.00 $ 43.00 $ 9,331.00 $ 41.00 $ 2,296.00 $ 40.00 $ 1,360.00 $ 29.00 $ 1,827.00 $ 10.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 99,102.00 $ 99,102.00 $ 172,700.00 $ 172,700.00 $ 637,412.00 $ 637,412.00 Kirkpatrick Landscaping Services, inc. Unit Price Extended Price $ 55,179.84 $ 55,179.84 $ 28,500.00 $ 28,500.00 $ 9,788.00 $ 9,788.00 $ 99,660.00 $ 99,660.00 $ 850.00 $ 24,650.00 $ 3.99 $ 70,224.00 $ 1.85 $ 32,930.00 $ 0.98 $ 24,460.80 $ 0.98 $ 17,248.00 $ 135.11 $ 23,374.03 $ 0.12 $ 7,248.00 $ 0.21 $ 12,684.00 $ 1,195.00 $ 11,950.00 $ 368.00 $ 17,664.00 $ 37.00 $ 8,029.00 $ 135.00 $ 7,560.00 $ 77.00 $ 2,618.00 $ 28.00 $ 1,764.00 $ 12.00 $ 1,920.00 $ 66,286.87 $ 66,286.87 $ 166,009.00 $ 166,009.00 $ 689,747.54 $ 689,747.54 4/4/2016 Page 1 of 1 21 M CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT TO ATTEND INTRODUCTION TO GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING TRAINING ON JUNE 15, 2016, IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for the Account Technician and Management Assistant to attend Introduction to Governmental Accounting Training on June 15, 2016, in Newport Beach, California. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) offers continuing training opportunities. Over the last 18 months, the Finance Department has experienced turnover in key staff positions resulting in promotions; promoted staff require continuing training to stay current with ever changing governmental accounting requirements. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $1,000, which includes registration, travel, lodging, parking and meals. Funds are available in the Finance Department's 2015/16 training budget. �_T�l.(h Xell] Z 117/_1 Z /_1 W&I i One City initiative is to provide growth and opportunities to staff who accept new challenges. Training is a vital component to ensure that staff succeeds at meeting these challenges. CSMFO courses provide attendees with solid basics of governmental accounting and requirements. This training will cover the accounting process, governmental accounting, and the role of the budget. It will contribute to the continued success of the newly promoted employees and enable them to establish contacts with other government finance professionals. Further, government accounting and financial reporting requirements are constantly changing. These courses allow staff to keep abreast of these changes. AL I FERNATIVES The Council could elect to not authorize this overnight travel; however, this professional development opportunity will benefit City service delivery. Prepared by: Vianka Orrantia, Management Assistant Approved by: Rita Conrad, Finance Director 23 24 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITI ' AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR BUSINESS ANALYST TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 8-10, 2016, IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for the Business Analyst to attend the California Resource Recovery Association Conference on August 8-10, 2016, in Sacramento, California. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) offers continuing training opportunities in municipal solid waste and recycling management. • This training enables staff to stay current with industry emerging trends and best practices utilized in other communities throughout the state. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $1,500, which includes membership and registration, travel, lodging, transportation, and meals. Funds are available from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2015/16 grant. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City received grant funds from CalRecycle to increase waste diversion efforts, which include reimbursement for the annual CRRA Conference. The grant identifies three criteria to utilize these funds: 1) community litter abatement events, 2) waste and recycling containers for public outdoor facilities, and 3) staff training. The CRRA Conference provides over 30 sessions on resource management with at least 100 solid waste and recycling industry experts. The training will introduce new programs at the municipal level targeting non-traditional wastes (unused medication), methods to increase overall waste diversion, and review pending legislation that could affect the industry. This conference allows staff to establish professional contacts and keep abreast of ever changing industry trends. ALTERNATIVES The Council could elect to not authorize this overnight travel; however, this professional development opportunity will benefit City service delivery. Prepared by: Ted Shove, Business Analyst Approved by: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager 25 26 City of La Quinta CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR TO ATTEND THE RESIDENT ENGINEERS ACADEMY, MAY 9-12, 2016, IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for the Public Works Construction Manager and Public Works Inspector to attend the Resident Engineers Academy, May 9-12, 2016, in San Diego, California. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Resident Engineers Academy provides core training regarding state and federal regulations for state and federal grant funded construction projects. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $1,600, which includes registration, travel, lodging, parking, and meals. Funds are available in the department's Travel and Training budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This four -day course provides practical, hands-on training on how to efficiently manage a project from beginning to completion in compliance with state and federal regulations. A number of topics will be covered, including: Resident Engineer's Roles and Responsibilities Staffing, Consultants and Supervision Pre -Construction Preparation Scope of Work Safety/Traffic Control Contract Change Orders Labor Compliance Claims and Claims Avoidance ALTERNATIVES The Council could deny this travel request; however, this would not allow the City to develop in-house knowledge in the procedures and documentation required to satisfactorily administer state and federal grant funded projects. Prepared by: Ed Wimmer, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Design and Development Director/City Engineer 27 28 City of La Q u i n to CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID VOLZ DESIGN TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR MILES AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Approve a Professional Services Agreement with David Volz Design for $62,218 to prepare plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate for the Miles Avenue Median Landscape Improvements Project; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This project entails installing raised median curb and desert efficient landscaping, irrigation, and low level lighting along Miles Avenue between Seeley Drive and Dune Palms Road (Attachment 1). • David Volz Design submitted the most qualified proposal to prepare the plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate. FISCAL IMPACT This project is part of the 2015/16 Capital Improvement Program, to be funded with Transportation Developer Impact Fee funds in the amount of $668,920. The remaining $315,818 is from developer funding. The following is the approved project budget: Approved Project Budget Professional: $76,317 Design: $98,474 Inspection/Testing/Survey: $96,012 Construction: $566,224 City Administration: $49,237 Contingency: $98,474 Total Budget: $984,738 29 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This project entails installing new median curbs to replace the existing striped medians and raised delineators on Miles Avenue, and extending two existing medians between Seeley Drive and Adams Street. An irrigation system, low-level lighting and landscaping will then be installed. The landscape palette will be a blend of the existing corridor landscaping with the Desert Efficient plant palette. A Request for Proposals was issued in January 2016. The City received nine proposals. Following an in-depth consultant selection process, staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to David Volz Design of Costa Mesa, CA. If this PSA is approved on April 19, 2016, the plans, specifications and cost estimates are expected to be completed by September, 2016. ALTERNATIVE City Council could choose not to design and construct these medians; however, this would not improve the aesthetics of Miles Avenue consistent with City standards and would not take advantage of developer bonds that can only be used for this improvement. Therefore, no alternative is recommended. Prepared by: Ed Wimmer, P.E., Principal Engineer Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Design and Development Director/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Professional Services Agreement 30 ATTACHMENT 1 MILES AVENUE MEDIAN ISLAND AND MEDIAN LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS w w � MILES AVENUE HIGHWAY Ill W 48TH AVENUE z z 0 JiNrD` 1J z 50TH AVENUE CALLS TAMPICO LA I -Q, UIN7A 52ND I AVENUE PROJECT NO. 2015-02 VICIN iTY MAP NO SCALE 31 32 ry w O m Q 2 U H Q CITY OF LA QUINTA ATTACHMENT 1 - VICINITY MAP MILES AVENUE MEDIAN ISLAND AND MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2015-02 Page 2 of 2 33 34 ATTACHMENT 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, ("City"), a California municipal corporation, and David Volz Design ("Consultant"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide those services related to Miles Avenue Median Island Landscape Improvements, Project No. 2015-02, as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Services"). Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant is a provider of first- class services and Consultant is experienced in performing the Services contemplated herein and, in light of such status and experience, Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the Services required hereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar services under similar circumstances. 1.2 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations, and laws of the City and any Federal, State, or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.3 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Except as otherwise specified herein, Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the Services required by this Agreement, including a City of La Quinta business license. Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required for the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments, and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the Services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, free and harmless against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties, or interest levied, assessed, or imposed against City hereunder. Consultant shall be responsible for all subcontractors' compliance with this Section. 1.4 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the Services to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site where the Services are to be performed, if any, and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Should Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the Services or as represented by City, Consultant shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof). 1.5 Standard of Care. Consultant acknowledges and understands that the Services contracted for under this Agreement require specialized skills and abilities and that, consistent with this understanding, 35 Consultant's work will be held to a heightened standard of quality. Consistent with Section 1.4 hereinabove, Consultant represents to City that it holds the necessary skills and abilities to satisfy the heightened standard of quality as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of this Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the Services performed by Consultant, and the equipment, materials, papers, and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the Services by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The performance of Services by Consultant shall not relieve Consultant from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate, or defective work at no further cost to City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Consultant. 1.6 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services ("Additional Services") only when directed to do so by the Contract Officer, provided that Consultant shall not be required to perform any Additional Services without compensation. Consultant shall not perform any Additional Services until receiving prior written authorization from the Contract Officer, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of Consultant. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to the Services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services or reasonably contemplated therein. It is specifically understood and agreed that oral requests and/or approvals of Additional Services shall be barred and are unenforceable. Failure of Consultant to secure the Contract Officer's written authorization for Additional Services shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment of the Contract Sum or time to perform this Agreement, whether by way of compensation, restitution, quantum meruit, or the like, for Additional Services provided without the appropriate authorization from the Contract Officer. Compensation for properly authorized Additional Services shall be made in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. 1.7 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in Exhibit "D" (the "Special Requirements"), which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a part hereof. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Special Requirements and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the Special Requirements shall govern. 2.0 COMPENSATION 2.1 Contract Sum. For the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with Exhibit "B" (the "Schedule of Compensation") in a total amount not to exceed Sixty -Two Thousand, Two Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($62,218.00) (the "Contract Sum"), except as provided in Section 1.6. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the Services, payment for time and materials based upon Consultant's rate schedule, but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by City; Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. Regardless of the method of compensation set forth in the 36 Schedule of Compensation, Consultant's overall compensation shall not exceed the Contract Sum, except as provided in Section 1.6 of this Agreement. 2.2 Method of Billing. Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City's Finance Director, an invoice for Services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the Services provided, including time and materials, and (2) specify each staff member who has provided Services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for Services performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Subject to retention pursuant to Section 8.3, City will pay Consultant for all items stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than thirty (30) days after invoices are received by the City's Finance Department. 2.3 Compensation for Additional Services. Additional Services approved in advance by the Contract Officer pursuant to Section 1.6 of this Agreement shall be paid for in an amount agreed to in writing by both City and Consultant in advance of the Additional Services being rendered by Consultant. Any compensation for Additional Services amounting to five percent (5%) or less of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater amount of compensation for Additional Services must be approved by the La Quinta City Council. Under no circumstances shall Consultant receive compensation for any Additional Services unless prior written approval for the Additional Services is obtained from the Contract Officer pursuant to Section 1.6 of this Agreement. 3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. If the Services not completed in accordance with the Schedule of Performance, as set forth in Section 3.2 and Exhibit C, it is understood that the City will suffer damage. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in Exhibit C (the "Schedule of Performance"). Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Maieure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the Services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his or her judgment such delay is justified, and the Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. Extensions to time period in the Schedule of Performance which are determined by the Contract Officer to be justified pursuant to this Section shall not entitle the Consultant to additional compensation in excess of the Contract Sum. 37 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Sections 8.8 or 8.9 of this Agreement, the term of this agreement shall commence on April 25, 2016 and terminate on December 31, 2016 ("Initial Term"). This Agreement may be upon mutual agreement by both parties ("Extended Term"). 4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representative of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the Services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: David Volz, RLA #2375 E-mail: dvolz@dvolzdesign.com Gary Vasquez, RLA #3883 E-mail: gvasquez@dvolzdesign.com It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of the foregoing Principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing Principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be changed by Consultant and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the Services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The "Contract Officer" shall be Timothy R. Jonasson, PE, Design and Development Director/City Engineer, or such other person as may be designated in writing by the City Manager of City. It shall be Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the Services, and Consultant shall refer any decisions, that must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority to sign all documents on behalf of City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of Consultant, its principals, and its employees were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the Services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated, or encumbered, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. Any attempted or purported assignment or contracting by Consultant without City's express written approval shall be null, void, and of no effect. No approved transfer shall release Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode, or means by which Consultant, its agents, or its employees, perform the Services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision, or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives, or agents, or in fixing their 38 number or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all Services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. Except for the Contract Sum paid to Consultant as provided in this Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing the Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing the Services hereunder. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (" PERS") as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation laws regarding Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers' compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any payment due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. 4.5 Identity of Persons Performing Work. Consultant represents that it employs or will employ at its own expense all personnel required for the satisfactory performance of any and all of the Services set forth herein. Consultant represents that the Services required herein will be performed by Consultant or under its direct supervision, and that all personnel engaged in such work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized and permitted under applicable State and local law to perform such tasks and services. 4.6 City Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records, or other data or information pertinent to the Services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to Consultant only from or through action by City. 5.0 INSURANCE 5.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of any Services under this Agreement and throughout the duration of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, policies of insurance as set forth in Exhibit E (the "Insurance Requirements") which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a part hereof. 39 6.0 INDEMNIFICATION. 6.1 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as set forth in Exhibit F ("Indemnification") which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a part hereof. 7.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS. 7.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning Consultant's performance of the Services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that City is greatly concerned about the cost of the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the Services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique, or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed. 7.2 Records. Consultant shall keep, and require any subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports (including but not limited to payroll reports), studies, or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and the Services performed hereunder (the "Books and Records"), as shall be necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such Services. Any and all such Books and Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such Books and Records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such Books and Records. Such Books and Records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the Services hereunder, and City shall have access to such Books and Records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business, custody of the Books and Records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant's successor in interest. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement. 7.3 Ownership of Documents. All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents, and other materials plans, drawings, estimates, test data, survey results, models, renderings, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings, digital renderings, or data stored digitally, magnetically, or in any other medium prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, and agents in the performance of this Agreement (the "Documents and Materials") shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of 40 ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the Documents and Materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed Documents and Materials for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, revise, or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such Documents and Materials for its own use. Consultant shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any Documents and Materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. In the event City or any person, firm, or corporation authorized by City reuses said Documents and Materials without written verification or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended and causes to be made or makes any changes or alterations in said Documents and Materials, City hereby releases, discharges, and exonerates Consultant from liability resulting from said change. The provisions of this clause shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement and shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. 7.4 Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, rights of reproduction, and other intellectual property embodied in the Documents and Materials. Consultant shall require all subcontractors, if any, to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for the Documents and Materials the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all of the Documents and Materials. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to the Documents and Materials which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Materials at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk. 7.5 Release of Documents. The Documents and Materials shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other entity or person any information regarding the activities of City, except as required by law or as authorized by City. 8.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. 8.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 8.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety, or general welfare, City may take such Cy immediate action as City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 8.8. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during any period of default. 8.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Consultant in the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. 8.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non -defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 8.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 8.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 8.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 8.9 for termination for cause. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all Services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all Services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any Services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 8.3. 8.8 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 8.2, take over the Services and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the Services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed City as previously stated in Section 8.3. Cya 8.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees; provided, however, that the attorneys' fees awarded pursuant to this Section shall not exceed the hourly rate paid by City for legal services multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent by the prevailing party in the conduct of the litigation. Attorneys' fees shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorneys' fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery, and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 9.0 CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NONDISCRIMINATION. 9.1 Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer, official, employee, agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 9.2 Conflict of Interest. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of it, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which effects his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 9.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of any impermissible classification including, but not limited to, race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its 43 address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. To City: CITY OF LA QUINTA Attention: Frank Spevacek, City Manager 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 To Consultant: David Volz Design Attention: David Volz, President, RLA #2375 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite M8 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 10.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 10.3 Section Headings and Subheadings. The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. 10.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument 10.5 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement including the exhibits hereto is the entire, complete, and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. 10.6 Amendment. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by Consultant and by the City Council of City. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. 10.7 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the articles, phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining articles, phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless. 10.8 Unfair Business Practices Claims. In entering into this Agreement, Consultant offers and agrees to assign to City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials related to this Agreement. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City renders final payment to Consultant without further acknowledgment of the parties. 44 10.9 No Third Party Beneficiaries. With the exception of the specific provisions set forth in this Agreement, there are no intended third -party beneficiaries under this Agreement and no such other third parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder. 10.10 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 45 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. CITY OF LA QUINTA, CONSULTANT: a California municipal corporation By: _ Name Title: FRANK J. SPEVACEK, City Manager Dated: ATTEST: SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California David Volz, RLA #2375 President 46 Exhibit A Scope of Services Consultant's scope of work, dated March 28, 2016, related to the Miles Avenue Median Island Landscape Improvements, Project 2015-02 is attached and made a part of this agreement. EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 4 47 Exhibit A Scope of Services David Volz Design proposes the following scope of services to address the requirements of the project RFP. These services will be supplemented by the services of our well experienced subconsultants, Heptagon Seven and Design West Engineering. TASK 1 - INITIALIZE PROJECT AND BASE MAP PREPARATION 1.01 Background Research a. Collect available data and maps b. Meet with city project personnel c. Review Preliminary project program and development criteria d. Review plans and documents e. Conduct site review • Identify existing irrigation infrastructure • Identify location and condition of trees 1.02 Prepare site survey and base map 1.03 Utilities Coordination a. Send preliminary notification letters b. Identify facilities and points of connection c. Identify affected utility providers. 1.04 Meeting with city staff to review work to date MEETINGS AND DELIVERABLES Review meeting with city staff Project site survey base map with overlays TASK 2 - INITIAL CONCEPT PLANS 2.01 Prepare initial concept plans a. Develop concepts for medians b. Refine + consolidate ideas d. Prepare concept plan map e. Develop order of magnitude construction cost budgets 2.02 Prepare project boards depicting concept plans a. Develop rendered conceptual site plans b. Prepare plant palette and landscape materials display 2.03 Prepare for staff and council review EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 4 48 MEETINGS + DELIVERABLES Meetings with city staff Initial concept plans Project display boards TASK 3 - COUNCIL REVIEW 3.01 Council Presentation a. Review project parameters b. Present concept plan c. Receive direction from council MEETINGS + DELIVERABLES Council review working TASK 4 -CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 4.01 Schedule verification 4.02 Program review and verification 4.03 Prepare base maps a. Prepare geo corrected aerial photo map for project use b. Field review for spotting trees and infra -structure 4.04 Prepare construction drawings a. Site construction plan and details b. Irrigation plan and details c. Landscape plan and details d. Construction budget estimate e. Construction documents 4.05 Prepare technical specifications 4.06 Prepare construction cost budget estimate 4.07 Submittal/review documents (70% and 90%) MEETINGS AND DELIVERABLES Base Maps Construction document submittals 70% and 90% (3 bound copies each submittal) Construction budget estimate TASK 5 - FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 5.01 City project team review of work -to -date 5.02 Internal quality control review 5.03 Submit Final PS&E documents EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 4 49 5.04 Revise documents as necessary 5.05 Turnover of original plans and specifications (mylar) MEETINGS AND DELIVERABLES Construction plans -final submitted (3 bound copies) Construction technical specifications Construction budget estimate Deliver Cad, Word, Excel files Turn over original drawings (mylar) Staff meetings TASK 6 - BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE 6.01 Provide answers to pertinent pre -bid questions 6.02 Respond to project requests for information (RFI's) 6.03 Review project submittals MEETINGS AND DELIVERABLES Bidding assistance RFI responses Submittal Reviews EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 4 50 Exhibit B Schedule of Compensation With the exception of compensation for Additional Services, provided for in Section 2.3 of this Agreement, the maximum total compensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreement is Sixty -Two Thousand, Two Hundred Eighteen ($62,218.00) ("Contract Sum"). The Contract Sum shall be paid to Consultant in installment payments made on a monthly basis and in an amount identified in Consultant's schedule of compensation attached hereto for the work tasks performed and properly invoiced by Consultant in conformance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement. EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 2 51 EXHIBIT B Fee Schedule Task 1- Initialize Project and Base Map Preparation Task 2 - Initial Concept Plans Task 3 - Council Review Task 4 - Construction Documents Task 5 - Final Construction Documents Task 6 - Bidding and Construction Period Assistance Reimbursables TOTAL PROPOSED FEE EHIBIT B Page 2 OF 2 $ 16,817 $ 6,874 $ 1,762 $ 25,783 $ 6,405 $ 4,577 $ 1,000 $62,218 52 Exhibit C Schedule of Performance Consultant shall complete all services identified in the Scope of Services, Exhibit A of this Agreement, in accordance with the Project Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. EXHIBIT C Page 1 OF 2 53 EXHIBIT C Project Schedule David Volz Design proposes the following schedule. The construction documents are scheduled for final plan delivery by early summer of 2016 with availability for a late summer start for bidding and construction. Task 1- Initialize Project and Base Map Preparation Task 2 - Initial Concept Plans Task 3 - Council Review Task 4 - Construction Documents Task 5 - Final Construction Documents Task 6 - Bidding and Construction Period Assistance 3 weeks 3 weeks 2 weeks 8 weeks 2 weeks As needed City Staff reviews, council meeting schedules, and plan review will need to be added to this proposed EXHIBIT C Page 2 OF 2 timeline 54 None. Exhibit D Special Requirements EXHIBIT D Page 1 of 1 55 Exhibit E Insurance Requirements E.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of this Agreement, the following policies shall be maintained and kept in full force and effect providing insurance with minimum limits as indicated below and issued by insurers with A.M. Best ratings of no less than A -:VI: Commercial General Liability (at least as broad as ISO CG 0001) $1,000,000 (per occurrence) $2,000,000 (general aggregate) Commercial Auto Liability (at least as broad as ISO CA 0001) $1,000,000 (per accident) Errors and Omissions Liability $1,000,000 (per claim and aggregate) Workers' Compensation (per statutory requirements) Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, Commercial General Liability insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Consultant's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City and its officers and employees as additional insured (on the Commercial General Liability policy only) shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. Consultant shall carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by Consultant, its officers, any person directly or indirectly employed by Consultant, any subcontractor or agent, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. If Consultant or Consultant's employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement. Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E Page 1 of 5 56 Consultant shall carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Worker's Compensation laws with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease. Consultant shall provide written notice to City within ten (10) working days if: (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self -insured retention is increased. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, Consultant shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Exhibit to the Contract Officer. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant's obligation to indemnify City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or agents. E.2 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies City may have. The above remedies are not the exclusive remedies for Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Consultant's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. E.3 General Conditions Pertaining to Provisions of Insurance Coverage by Consultant. Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Consultant: 1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials, employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise. 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. EXHIBIT E Page 2 of 5 57 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor. 6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant, at City option. 8. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply first and on a primary, non- contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self-insurance available to City. 9. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project that is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 10. Consultant agrees not to self -insure or to use any self -insured retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein (with the exception of professional liability coverage, if required) and further agrees that it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self -insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing coverage includes a deductible or self -insured retention, the deductible or self -insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self -insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. 11. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of this Agreement to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increased benefit to City. EXHIBIT E Page 3 of 5 58 12. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 13. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 14. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. 15. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five (5) days of the expiration of coverages. 16. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials, and agents. 17. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive. 18. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. 19. The requirements in this Exhibit supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Exhibit. 20. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 21. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability EXHIBIT E Page 4 of 5 59 by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. EXHIBIT E Page 5 of 5 Exhibit F Indemnification F.1 General Indemnification Provision. a. Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees, and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities of every kind, nature, and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of Consultant or of any subcontractor), costs and expenses of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, to the extent same are cause in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this agreement. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. b. Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses) incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors of Consultant. F.2 Standard Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth herein this section from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this Exhibit. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section. a. Indemnity Provisions for Contracts Related to Construction. Without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Consultant shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City's active negligence accounts EXHIBIT F Page 1 of 2 61 for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Consultant will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City. b. Indemnification Provision for Design Professionals. 1. Applicability of Section F.2(b). Notwithstanding Section F.2(a) hereinabove, the following indemnification provision shall apply to Consultants who constitute "design professionals" as the term is defined in paragraph 3 below. 2. Scope of Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities of every kind, nature and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of Consultant or of any subcontractor), costs and expenses of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone that they control. 3. Design Professional Defined. As used in this Section F.2(b), the term "design professional" shall be limited to licensed architects, registered professional engineers, licensed professional land surveyors and landscape architects, all as defined under current law, and as may be amended from time to time by Civil Code § 2782.8. EXHIBIT F Page 2 of 2 62 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. S City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ACCEPT JEFFERSON STREET ROUNDABOUT ART PIECE PEDESTAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Accept the Jefferson Roundabout Art Piece Pedestal project as 100 percent complete; authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and authorize staff to release retention in the amount of $ 2,739, thirty-five days after the Notice of Completion is recorded. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This project entailed constructing a concrete pedestal to support and protect current and future art pieces in the roundabout at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. • The work has been completed and City Council acceptance will complete the contract and allow final payment. FISCAL IMPACT The following is the accounting for this project: Original Contract Amount $ 54,761 Contract Change Orders (None Issued) $ ( 0) Final Contract Amount $ 54,761 Project Budget $ 80,000 Final Contract Amount ($ 54,761) Design, Professional, Personnel Costs, Inspection, Survey, Testing, Plans, & Other Construction Costs ($ 10,040) Survey Monument Re-establishment ($ 1,000) Anticipated Funds Remaining* $ 14,199 * All costs to date have been accounted for and no further costs are anticipated. 63 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On February 2, 2016, City Council awarded a $54,761 contract to Tri-Star Contracting II, Inc. to construct the Jefferson Roundabout Art Piece Pedestal, Project No. 2015-10; the pedestal is located in the roundabout center median at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. On February 19, 2016, a Notice to Proceed was issued with a 30 working day contract completion time starting February 29, 2016 and ending April 11, 2016. The project was deemed substantially complete on March 18, 2016. No liquidated damages or early completion incentives are recommended. No contract change orders were issued. The project's construction is now 100 percent complete and is in compliance with the plans and specifications. Staff, therefore, recommends acceptance of the project and release of the retention thirty-five days after the Notice of Completion is recorded. ALTERNATIVES Since the project has been constructed and reviewed for conformance to the plans and specifications, staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Ed Wimmer, P.E., Engineering Services Principal Engineer Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Design and Development Director/City Engineer Attachment: 1. Vicinity Map 64 ATTACHMENT 1 I CCALE TAMPICO w w cc WESTWARD o HO IDRIVE HIGHWAY 111 W 48TH cn AVENUE z 0 w fiNDIJ 50TH AVENUE JEFFERSON ROUNDABOUT ART PIECE PEDESTAL PROJECT SITE 52ND I AVENUE VICINITY MAP NO SCALE cn w 0 ct z 0 65 66 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE. APPROVE BID DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ADVERTISE THE LIGHTING MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1. RECOMMENDATION Approve the bid documents and specifications, and authorize staff to advertise the Lighting Maintenance Service for the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Lighting Maintenance Service (LMS) provides landscape lighting maintenance of medians and parkways throughout the City. This lighting is important for motorist safety and streetscape aesthetics. On June 19, 2012, Council awarded a contract to La Salle Electric, Inc. Due to prevailing wage increases and the additional service area along the Fred Waring median between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road, staff has prepared new bid documents and specifications for LMS. FISCAL IMPACT The anticipated 2016/17 lighting maintenance cost is $160,000, which would be funded through the Landscape and Lighting fund. The Landscape and Lighting District 89-1 continues to operate in a deficit and is annually subsidized by the General Fun. The current projected 2016/17 subsidy is $361,514. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89.1 provides landscape and lighting maintenance services citywide, and includes all public medians, parkways, and retention areas. These services are necessary for roadway safety, water retention, and visual aesthetics. La Salle Electric, Inc has provided lighting services since July 1, 2012. Staff has prepared new bid documents and specifications for the LMS due to new prevailing wage requirements and service for additional areas for the median along Fred Waring Drive between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. Bid documents and specifications are available for review in the Facilities Department. 67 ALTERNATIVES In response to new prevailing wage requirement and additional areas of service, staff is not recommending an alternative. Prepared by: Steve Howlett, Facilities Director Approved by: Frank Spevacek, City Manager 68 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE APPROVE BID DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ADVERTISE THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1. RECOMMENDATION Approve the bid documents and specifications, and authorize staff to advertise the Landscape Maintenance Service for the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89- 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Landscape Maintenance Service (LMS) provides landscape maintenance for City medians, parkways, and retention areas. On June 4, 2013, Council awarded a contract to Kirkpatrick Landscape. Due to prevailing wage increases and the need to maintain the completed median and parkway landscape improvements along Fred Waring Drive, between Adams Street and Dunes Palms Road, staff has prepared new bid documents and specifications for the LMS. FISCAL IMPACT The anticipated 2016/17 landscape maintenance cost is $493,000, which would be funded through the Landscape and Lighting fund. The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89-1 operates in a deficit and is subsidized annually by the General Fund. The current projected 2016/17 subsidy is $361,514. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89-1 provides landscape and lighting maintenance services citywide, and includes all public medians, parkways, and retention areas. These services are necessary for roadway safety, water retention, and visual aesthetics. Kirkpatrick landscape has provided landscape service since June 4, 2013. Staff has prepared new bid documents and specifications for the LMS due to new prevailing wage requirements and service for additional areas for the median along Fred Waring Drive, between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. Bid documents and specifications are available for review in the Facilities Department. .• ALTERNATIVES In response to new prevailing wage requirements and additional areas of service, staff is not recommending an alternative. Prepared by: Steve Howlett, Facilities Director Approved by: Frank Spevacek, City Manager 70 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR PARK LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH CONSERVE LANDCARE RECOMMENDATION Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 with Conserve Landcare for Park Landscape Maintenance Services to extend the contract for one year and increase the contract amount by $22,200 for additional tree maintenance service. ''*:1X411jIW*111UF151_1'XJ • On June 16, 2015, City Council awarded a contract to Conserve Landcare (Contractor) for the Park Landscape Maintenance Services in the amount of $444,960. The current contract expires June 30, 2016. • The contract terms allow for four additional one-year extensions, not to exceed a total five year contract term. • The City has requested that the Contractor provide additional tree maintenance along the Bear Creek Trail and within parks; this additional service would cost $22,000. FISCAL IMPACT The 2016/17 contract cost will be $467,160, which includes the $22,200 for tree maintenance along the Bear Creek Trail and at parks. These costs are allocated to various City funds as presented below, and will be included in the 2016/17 operating budget. FUND 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 General $346,884 $358,320 $358,320 Library $11,820 $63,060 $63,060 L&L Dist. $146,400 $23,580 $45,780 TOTAL 505,204 $444,960 $467,160 The Landscape and Lighting District 89-1 continues to operate in a deficit and is annually subsidized by the General Fund. The current projected 2016/17 subsidy is $361,514. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 16, 2015, the Council approved the Park Landscape Maintenance Services contract with the Contractor, which provides daily cleaning and weekly maintenance of all City parks and facility landscapes. 71 Change Order No. 1 proposes a one-year contract extension with a 5 percent cost increase of $22,200 for additional tree maintenance service along the Bear Creek Trail and at City parks. The Contractor's bid was $55,000 less than the next closest bidder when the project was awarded last year. Therefore, staff recommends the one-year contract extension with the cost increase based on the contractor's performance and the possibility of the costs being higher should the project be re -advertised. ALTERNATIVES Direct staff to prepare new bid documents and specifications to re -advertise the Park Landscape Maintenance Service Contract for 2016/17. Prepared by: Robert Ambriz, Jr., Parks Superintendent Approved by: Steve Howlett, Facilities Director 72 City of La Qu i nta CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution authorizing applications for California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery payment programs and related authorizations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 2011, the City has received $53,692 of California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) grants. CalRecycle initiated a fiscal transparency initiative, which requires participating agencies to adopt a resolution to authorize participation in future grant cycles. FISCAL IMPACT - None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City pursues grant opportunities to defray General Fund costs. Since 2011, the City has secured $53,692 in CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling Program funds to underwrite citywide recycling initiatives. The goal is to reduce the amount of material deposited into landfills. In November 2015, CalRecycle advised participating communities of its intent to increase fiscal transparency. Audits are now occurring to insure grant fund accounting and expenditures comply with CalRecycle requirements. CalRecycle is now requiring participating communities to adopt a resolution by June 1, 2016 to authorize participation in their grant program or future funding would be withheld. The recommended action will ensure that the City continues to be eligible for CalRecycle funding; this resolution does not require renewal. AL i tKNATIVES The Council could elect to not adopt this resolution; however, since CalRecycle provides grant funds that defray General Fund costs for refuse diversion programs, staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Ted Shove, Business Analyst Approved by: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager 73 74 RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR CALRECYCLE PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS WHEREAS, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides grant opportunities to expand recycling opportunities and reduce solid waste streams; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., 14581, and 42023.1(g), CalRecycle has established various payment programs to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle's procedures for administering payment programs require, among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The City of La Quinta is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for any and all payment programs offered. SECTION 2. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized as Signature Authority to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment. SECTION 2. This authorization is effective until rescinded by the Signature Authority or this governing body. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 19th day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 75 Resolution No. 2016- Authorization to Submit Applications for Payment Programs Adopted: April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 2 LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 76 O t y of La Qu i n t a CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. CI TY COUNO L MEETI NG: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE DEMAND REGI STERS DATED APR L 1, AND 8, 2016 RECOM M EDATI ON Approve demand registers dated April 1, and 8, 2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - None. FI SCAL I M PACT Demand of Cash: -- City $ 1,015,801.83 -- Successor Agency of RDA $ 4,462.50 -- Housing Authority $ 0.00 -- Housing Authority Commission $ 0.00 1,020,264.33 BACKGROUND/ANALYST S Between City Council meetings, routine bills and payroll must be paid. Attachment 1 details the weekly demand registers from March 26 through April 8, 2016. Warrants Issued: 110579 - 1106561 $ 389,537.03 110657 - 110727) $ 247,533.02 Voids} $ (108,301.69) Wire Transfers} $ 301,293.84 P/RChecks No. 37106 - 37109 and Direct Deposit} $ 152,016.41 Payroll Tax Transfers} $ 38,185.72 1,020,264.33 In the amounts listed above, six checks were voided. Check No. 108633 was voided due to charges being covered under warranty. Check No. 109516 was invoiced incorrectly; the vendor ultimately submitted a revised invoice for a lesser amount. The check (in the amount of $107,249.16) was prepared ahead of time because of a stop work notice that was issued. Once the Public Works Division met with the vendor and resolved the issue a new check with a corrected amount was issued. Check No. 109479 and 109281 were stale dated. Check No. 109821 (in the amount of $763.53) was paid in error by the Finance Department to the wrong vendor. Finally, Check No. 110103 wascancelled per 77 the Design and Development Department's request as the business license refund was incorrectly calculated. The most significant expenditures on the demand registers listed above are as follows: Vendor: Account Name: Amount: Purpose: Costco Other Operating $ 122,004.32 4t" Quarter Sales Tax Tri-Star Contracting Inc. Construction $ 52,022.95 Art Pedestal -Jefferson Studio EArchitects Design $ 43,496.00 Washington St. Apt. Greater Palm Springs CVB PSDRCVB $ 45,298.00 FY15/16 CVB Funding Wire Transfers: Seven wire transfers totaled $301,293.84. Of this amount, $174,784.37 was to Landmark for golf course management; $86,535.05 to CaIPERS for health insurance premiumsand $33,751.77 to Cal PERSfor retirement costs (see Attachment 2 for a full listing). Purchase Orders/Contracts: The City Council recently updated the City's purchasing policies and asked for quarterly reports regarding contracts and purchase ordered issued from $25,000 to $50,000. For the period of November 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016, the following purchase orders in that dollar range were issued (no contracts were executed for that dollar range): Vendor Name: P.O. Number: Amount: I teris 1868 $ 27,086.40 (Sole source traffic video detection system Dune Palms & Miles) I teris 1869 $ 27,086.40 (Sole source traffic video detection system Washington & Eisenhower) South Valley Electric 1872 $ 49,700.00 (3 bids obtained for Library LED lighting conversion project) Max-R 1885 $ 49,104.80 (Sole source -park recycling bins purchased with restricted recycling funds) ALTERNATI VES Council may approve, partially approve, or reject the demand registers. Prepared by: Sandra Mancilla, Account Technician Approved by: Rita Conrad, Finance Director Attachments: 1. Demand Registers 2. Wire Transfers 78 ATTACHMENT 1 Demand Register City of La Quinta, CA Packet: APPKT00693 - SHM 4/1/16 Vendor Name Payment Number Payment Date Description (Payable) Account Number Amount Fund: 101-GENERAL FUND ALPHA CARD 110580 04/01/2016 OPERATING SUPPLIES 101-3002-60420 246.94 ANTHONY, JOHN AND ASSOC 110583 04/01/2016 REFUND ADMIN FEE 101-0000-20306 2.00 CABINETS BY PRECISION WO 110587 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 45.00 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STAN 110588 04/01/2016 OCT-DEC ADMIN FEES 101-0000-20306 926.00 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STAN 110588 04/01/2016 OCT-DEC ADMIN FEES 101-0000-42615 -92.60 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/O1/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-0000-42300 1.00 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-1004-60320 47.54 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-1004-60420 8.69 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-1006-60400 15.11 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-3002-60691 19.38 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-3003-60420 20.46 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/O1/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-3005-60424 9.45 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-3008-60420 27.87 CASH/PETTY CASH 110590 04/01/2016 PETTY CASH DRAWER REIMB 101-6002-60320 6.00 CHARISMATIC BAKERY 110591 04/O1/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 3.00 CLASSIC AUTO TRANSPORT 110592 04/01/2016 TOWING '15 SCION 101-2001-60175 170.00 CLASSIC AUTO TRANSPORT 110592 04/01/2016 TOWING'05NISSAN 101-2001-60175 170.00 COMMUNITY ALL-STARS, LLC 110593 04/01/2016 LQHS POSTER SPONSORSHIP 101-3007-60461 305.45 CONTRACTORS SERVICES 110594 04/O1/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 15.50 COSTCO 110595 04/O1/2016 4TH QTR SALES TAX REIMB 101-1007-60535 122,004.32 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPA 110596 04/01/2016 WATER FT HEALTH PERMIT 101-3005-60554 385.00 DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVI 110597 04/01/2016 COFFEE SUPPLIES 101-1007-60403 209.62 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVA 110599 04/01/2016 OCT-DEC MOTION/SEISMIC F 101-0000-20308 1,469.55 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVA 110599 04/01/2016 OCT-DEC MOTION/SEISMIC F 101-0000-42610 -73.48 DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRU 110600 04/01/2016 ELECTRIC WORK 101-2002-60670 8,370.00 DESERT SUN, THE 110601 04/01/2016 APR -SUBSCRIPTION 101-3002-60352 69.12 DESERT VALLEY BUILDERS AS 110602 04/01/2016 LEGISLATIVE 101-1001-60320 35.00 ESPARZA MAGALLANES, ROB 110604 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 13.00 GRAINGER 110606 04/O1/2016 LQ PARK TOILETS REPAIR 101-3002-60691 50.77 GRAINGER 110606 04/01/2016 SINK FAUCET REPAIR 101-3005-60554 113.50 GRAPHTEK INTERACTIVE 110607 04/O1/2016 SRR TIME LAPSE VIDEO 101-3007-60461 2,730.00 GRAPHTEK INTERACTIVE 110607 04/01/2016 TIME LAPSE VIDEOS 101-3007-60461 11,500.00 HALUM, AMIRAH REAL ESTAT 110608 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-41400 72.31 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/O1/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-2002-61101 410.85 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3008-61101 283.20 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-2002-61101 422.22 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/O1/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61102 12.34 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61103 2,745.97 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61105 1,084.00 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61106 3,940.91 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61108 526.80 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61109 177.20 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61111 15.85 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61113 21.69 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3008-61101 6,181.49 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST, 110611 04/01/2016 WELLNESS CTR ELECTRICITY 101-3002-61101 1,901.81 MASTER TECH MECHANICAL 110616 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 30.00 MONACO CONCEPTS 110617 04/O1/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 36.00 MORA, ALBERTO A 110618 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 21.00 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 ENVELOPES 101-1007-60402 133.16 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 PAPER SUPPLY 101-1007-60402 172.32 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-1005-60400 46.30 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-1005-60400 8.35 4/12/2016 5:44:00 PM Page 1 of 5 79 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00693 - SHM 4/1/16 Vendor Name Payment lYumber Payment Date Description (Payable), Account Number Amount OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-1005-60400 11.33 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 LAPTOP CASE 101-1005-60400 32.39 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-1004-60400 16.85 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-3001-60400 3.44 OFFICE DEPOT 110622 04/01/2016 PAPER 101-1007-60402 430.81 ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA LLC 110623 04/01/2016 4TH QTR SALES TAX REIMB 101-1007-60535 8,527.68 PRO CIRCUIT AV INC 110625 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 400.00 PROPER SOLUTIONS INC 110626 04/01/2016 TEMP STAFFING WKEND 3/4 101-7001-60125 355.20 PSOMAS INC 110627 04/01/2016 FEB-CONTSVC INSPECTION 101-7006-60104 16,352.00 RASA/ERIC NELSON 110629 04/01/2016 PM2016-0001 101-7002-60183 95.00 RAY, LUCILLE YVONNE 110630 04/O1/2016 • REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 8.00 RJH VALUATIONS 110631 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 6.00 SILVESTRI, SILVIO 110633 04/01/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 5.00 SIMPSON, BARBARA 110634 04/01/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42214 5.00 STANDARD INSURANCE COM 110637 04/01/2016 APR -INSURANCE 101-0000-20947 481.65 STANDARD INSURANCE COM 110637 04/01/2016 APR -INSURANCE 101-0000-20955 3,863.67 STANDARD INSURANCE COM 110638 04/O1/2016 APR-ADD'L LIFE INSURANCE 101-0000-20948 287.97 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 110641 04/01/2016 FEB-BUS PASSES 101-0000-20305 2,017.50 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 110641 04/01/2016 FEB-BUS PASSES 101-0000-42301 -162.00 VALLEY PLUMBING 110648 04/01/2016 WELLNESS CTR DRINKING FT 101-3002-60691 76.63 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 110650 04/01/2016 DSL3/4-4/3 101-1007-61300 164.62 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS 110651 04/01/2016 INTERNET 2/23-3/24 101-1007-61300 85.00 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) 110652 04/01/2016 APR -VISION INSUR 101-0000-20945 1,284.66 WALMART COMMUNITY 110653 04/01/2016 WALMART 2/29-3/8 101-3002-60420 50.02 WALMART COMMUNITY 110653 04/01/2016 WALMART 2/29-3/8 101-3002-60420 137.94 WALMART COMMUNITY 110653 04/01/2016 WALMART 2/29-3/8 101-3003-60149 19.05 WALMART COMMUNITY 110653 04/01/2016 WALMART 2/29-3/8 101-3003-60149 10.64 WALMART COMMUNITY 110653 04/01/2016 WALMART 2/29-3/8 101-3003-60420 62.04 WATERJET WEST, INC. 110654 04/01/2016 VETS PANEL CONNECTIONS 101-3003-60149 172.80 WEBER, YULONDA 110655 04/01/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42214 76.00 WILLDAN 110656 04/O1/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 3.00 Fund 101- GENERAL FUND Total: 201,946.85 Fund: 201- GAS TAX FUND AIR & HOSE SOURCE, INC. 110579 04/01/2016 WATER DISCHARGE HOSE 201-7003-60431 267.62 ALSCO INC 110581 04/01/2016 UNIFORM RENTAL EOM 3/18 201-7003-60690 88.05 KRIBBS, BRUCE 110612 04/01/2016 SIDEWALK REPAIR 201-7003-60431 280.00 KRIBBS, BRUCE 110612 04/O1/2016 SIDEWALK REPAIR -BRIDGE 201-7003-60431 380.00 PROPER SOLUTIONS INC 110626 04/01/2016 TEMP STAFFING WKEND 11/ 201-7003-60125 255.30 PROPER SOLUTIONS INC 110626 04/01/2016 TEMP STAFFING WKEND 3/4 201-7003-60125 204.24 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 110644 04/01/2016 LEGEND PAINT 201-7003-60433 332.15 Fund 201- GAS TAX FUND Total: 1,807.36 Fund: 202 - LIBRARY FUND IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 202-3004-61101 2,350.78 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110611 04/01/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 202-3006-61101 1,455.80 Fund 202 - LIBRARY FUND Total: 3,806.58 Fund: 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FU ALSCO INC 110581 04/O1/2016 UNIFORM RENTAL EOM 3/25 215-7004-60690 88.05 AUTOZONE 110584 04/01/2016 ELECTRICAL MATERIAL 215-7004-60431 8.97 BEST BAG COMPANY 110586 04/01/2016 DOGGIE BAGS 215-7004-60431 91.80 HIGH TECH IRRIGATION INC 110610 04/01/2016 LANDSCAPE 215-7004-60431 216.00 KRIBBS, BRUCE 110612 04/01/2016 ELECTRICAL-WASHINGTON/R 215-7004-60431 1,600.00 KRIBBS, BRUCE 110612 04/O1/2016 MADISON/PGA WEST ELECT 215-7004-60431 420.00 LOCK SHOP INC, THE 110615 04/01/2016 LOCKS 215-7004-60431 85.02 NO BRAND PET WASTE PROD 110620 04/01/2016 DOGGIE BAG DISPENSORS 215-7004-60431 297.30 SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY CO 110635 04/01/2016 IRRIGATION 215-7004-60431 236.43 Fund 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FU Total: 3,043.57 Fund: 218 - CV VIOLENT CRIME TASK FOR NEXTEL GANG TASK FORCE 110619 04/01/2016 CELL PHONES 2/12-3/11 218-0000-61300 41.08 SPARKLETTS GANG TASK FOR 110636 04/01/2016 DRINKING WATER 218-0000-61200 34.00 4/12/2016 5:44:00 PM Page 2 of 5 80 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00693 - SHM 4/1/16 Vendor Name Payment Number Payment Date Description (Payable) Account Number Amount STAPLES GANG TASK FORCE 110639 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 218-0000-60400 351.23 STAPLES GANG TASK FORCE 110639 04/01/2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES 218-0000-60400 30.92 VERIZON CA - GANG TASK FO 110649 04/01/2016 CLETS LINE 3/13-4/12 218-0000-61300 309.39 Fund 218 - CV VIOLENT CRIME TASK FOR Total: 766.62 Fund: 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND ALTUM GROUP, THE 110582 04/O1/2016 ENGINEERING SVC-WASH AP 248-0000-60185 25,887.50 STUDIO E ARCHITECTS 110640 04/01/2016 WSA/ARCHITECTUAL SVC 248-0000-60185 43,496.00 Fund 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND Total: 69,383.50 Fund: 401- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR DUDEK & ASSOCIATES INC 110603 04/01/2016 OCT'15-DESIGN 401-0000-60185 282.00 GOLDEN VALLEY CONSTRUCT 110605 04/O1/2016 LANDSCAPE MAINT 2014-10 401-0000-60188 1,900.00 HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 1 110609 04/01/2016 FB PARK PKWY DESIGN 2015- 401-0000-60185 160.00 LANDMARK GEO-ENGINEERS 110614 04/01/2016 CONT SVC TESTING 2013-02 401-0000-60108 1,824.00 LANDMARK GEO-ENGINEERS 110614 04/01/2016 CONTS SVC 2013-02 401-0000-60108 2,346.00 NOLTE ASSOCIATE INC 110621 04/O1/2016 FEB-ADA IMPROVEMENTS 20 401-0000-60108 1,845.00 PLANIT REPROGRAPHICS SYS 110624 04/01/2016 LQ PARK RR 2013-12 401-0000-60108 185.12 PLANIT REPROGRAPHICS SYS 110624 04/01/2016 EISENHOWER-BID SPECS 201 401-0000-60188 161.30 PSOMAS INC 110627 04/01/2016 FEB-CONT SVC INSPECTION 401-0000-60108 10,472.00 TKD ASSOCIATES INC 110643 04/O1/2016 ADDTART TURF DESIGN 401-0000-60185 3,800.00 TRI-STAR CONTRACTING, INC 110646 04/01/2016 JEFF ART PED 2015-10 401-0000-60188 52,022.95 Fund 401- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR Total: 74,998.37 Fund: 501- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CARQUEST 110589 04/01/2016 TK#18 BATTERY 501-0000-60675 208.38 L & L AUTOMOTIVE 110613 04/01/2016 TK#57 SERVICE 501-0000-60676 171.50 RAN AUTO DETAIL 110628 04/01/2016 CAR WASH 3/19/16 501-0000-43430 507.00 TOWER ENERGY GROUP 110645 04/O1/2016 FUEL2/16-2/29 501-0000-60674 1,417.84 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH COR 110647 04/01/2016 TK#64 SWEEPER/BROOMS 501-0000-60678 729.22 Fund 501- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT Total: 3,033.94 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AVIR 110585 04/01/2016 MONITOR-COUNCILCHAMB 502-0000-80100 1,472.82 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES 110598 04/01/2016 COMP UPGRADE LSE 811670 502-0000-80100 20,693.13 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES 110598 04/O1/2016 LAPTOP UPGRADE LSE 81167 502-0000-80100 5,318.48 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 110632 04/01/2016 REPORT WRITING SVC WKEN 502-0000-60301 1,695.00 TIME WARNER CABLE 110642 04/01/2016 CABLE 3/20-4/19 502-0000-60108 8.83 TIME WARNER CABLE 110642 04/01/2016 CITY HALL FIBER 3/10-4/9 502-0000-60104 1,561.98 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total: 30,750.24 Grand Total: 389,537.03 4/12/2016 5:44:00 PIA Page 3 of 5 81 Demand Register Fund Summary Fund 101-GENERAL FUND 201- GAS TAX FUND 202 - LIBRARY FUND 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FU 218 - CV VIOLENT CRIME TASK FOR 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND 401- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR 501- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Grand Total: Account Number 101-0000-20305 101-0000-20306 101-0000-20308 101-0000-20945 101-0000-20947 101-0000-20948 101-0000-20955 101-0000-41400 101-0000-42214 101-0000-42300 101-0000-42301 101-0000-42610 101-0000-42615 101-1001-60320 101-1004-60320 101-1004-60400 101-1004-60420 101-1005-60400 101-1006-60400 101-1007-60402 101-1007-60403 101-1007-60535 101-1007-61300 101-2001-60175 101-2002-60670 101-2002-61101 101-3001-60400 101-3002-60352 101-3002-60420 101-3002-60691 101-3002-61101 101-3003-60149 101-3003-60420 101-3005-60424 101-3005-60554 101-3005-61102 101-3005-61103 101-3005-61105 101-3005-61106 101-3005-61108 101-3005-61109 101-3005-61111 101-3005-61113 101-3007-60461 Account Summary Account Name Due to SunLine CBSC Fees SMIP Fees Payable Vision Insurance Pay Life Insurance Pay Add'I Life Insurance Pay Disability Insurance Pay Transient Occupancy Tax Senior Center Leisure En Cash Over/Short Miscellaneous Revenue SMIP Fees CBSC Administrative Fee Travel & Training Travel & Training Office Supplies Operating Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Forms Coffee Other Operating Utilities - Telephone Special Enforcement Fun Fire Station Utilities - Electricity Office Supplies Subscriptions & Publicati Operating Supplies Repair & Maintenance Utilities - Electricity Special Events Operating Supplies Materials - Irrigation & L LQ Park Building Utilities - Electric - Monti Utilities - Electric - Civic Utilities - Electric - Fritz Utilities - Electric - Sport Utilities - Electric - Colon Utilities - Electric - Com Utilities - Electric - Velas Utilities - Electric - Eisen Economic Development/ Expense Amount 201,946.85 1,807.36 3,806.58 3,043.57 766.62 69,383.50 74,998.37 3,033.94 30,750.24 389,537.03 Expense Amount 2,017.50 928.00 1,469.55 1,284.66 481.65 287.97 3,863.67 72.31 81.00 586.50 -162.00 -73.48 -92.60 35.00 47.54 16.85 8.69 98.37 15.11 736.29 209.62 130,532.00 249.62 340.00 8,370.00 833.07 3.44 69.12 434.90 146.78 1,901.81 202.49 82.50 9.45 498.50 12.34 2,745.97 1,084.00 3,940.91 526.80 177.20 15.85 21.69 14,535.45 Packet: APPKT00693 - SHM 4/1/16 Report Summary 4/12/2016 5:44:00 PM Page 4 of 5 82 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00693 - SHM 4/1/16 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-3008-60420 Operating Supplies 27.87 101-3008-61101 Utilities - Electricity 6,464.69 101-6002-60320 Travel & Training 6.00 101-7001-60125 Temporary Agency Servi 355.20 101-7002-60183 Map/Plan Checking 95.00 101-7006-60104 Consultants 16,352.00 201-7003-60125 Temporary Agency Servi 459.54 201-7003-60431 Materials 927.62 201-7003-60433 Paint/Legends 332.15 201-7003-60690 Uniforms 88.05 202-3004-61101 Utilities - Electricity 2,350.78 202-3006-61101 Utilities - Electricity 1,455.80 215-7004-60431 Materials 2,955.52 215-7004-60690 Uniforms 88.05 218-0000-60400 Office Supplies 382.15 218-0000-61200 Utilities - Water 34.00 218-0000-61300 Utilities -Telephone 350.47 248-0000-60185 Design 69,383.50 401-0000-60108 Technical 16,672.12 401-0000-60185 Design 4,242.00 401-0000-60188 Construction 54,084.25 501-0000-43430 Car Washes 507.00 501-0000-60674 Fuel & Oil 1,417.84 501-0000-60675 Parts & Maintenance Su 208.38 501-0000-60676 Vehicle Repair & Mainte 171.50 501-0000-60678 Stregt Sweeper 729.22 502-0000-60104 Consultants 1,561.98 502-0000-60108 Technical 8.83 502-0000-60301 Software Maintenance A 1,695.00 502-0000-80100 Machinery & Equipment 27,484.43 Grand Total: 389,537.03 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense Amount **None** 245,155.16 121307D 282.00 131402T 16,487.00 131412CT 185.12 141510CT 1,900.00 151601CT 161.30 151605D 3,800.00 151610CT 52,022.95 151613D 160.00 999901D 69,383.50 Grand Total: 389,537.03 4/12/2016 5:44:00 PM Page 5 of 5 83 Demand Register ` 1 City of La Quinta, CA Packet: APPKT00700 - SL 4/8/16 Vendor Name Payment Number Payment Date Description (Payable) Account Number Amount Fund: 101-GENERAL FUND 2XL CORPORATION 110657 04/08/2016 GYM WIPES/OPERATION SUP 101-3003-60420 656.13 ACCOUNTEMPS 110658 04/08/2016 TEMP STAFFING WKEND 3/1 101-1004-60125 491.40 ACCOUNTEMPS 110658 04/08/2016 TEMP STAFFING WKEND 3/2 101-1004-60125 491.40 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 110659 04/08/2016 BLOOD ALCOHOL 101-2001-36310 140.00 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC 110660 04/08/2016 JANITORIAL EOW 3/31/16 101-3002-60115 151.58 AZURE POOLS & SPA INC 110661 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42404 47.86 AZURE POOLS & SPA INC 110661 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42600 60.91 BENNETT, MIKE 110662 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-22830 100.00 BENNETT, MIKE 110662 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42212 250.00 CALPERS LONG-TERM CARE 110663 04/08/2016 LONG TERM CARE 101-0000-20949 144.16 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 110664 04/08/2016 APR -CONTRACT CHARGE 101-1007-60662 322.89 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 110664 04/08/2016 APR -CONTRACT CHARGE 101-1007-60662 1,730.23 COACHELLA VALLEY CONSER 110667 04/08/2016 MAR -MITIGATION FEE 101-0000-20310 4,006.00 COACHELLA VALLEY CONSER 110667 04/08/2016 MAR -MITIGATION FEE 101-0000-43631 -40.06 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 110668 04/08/2016 WATER SERVICE 101-2002-61200 1,306.23 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 110668 04/08/2016 WATER SERVICE 101-3005-61208 43.12 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 110668 04/08/2016 WATER SERVICE 101-3005-61209 263.53 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 110668 04/08/2016 WATER SERVICE 101-3005-61202 1,307.10 DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVI 110669 04/08/2016 COFFEE 101-1007-60403 146.98 DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVI 110669 04/08/2016 COFFEE SUPPLIES 101-1007-60403 91.08 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 110670 04/08/2016 BLOOD ALCOHOL 101-2001-36310 175.00 DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRU 110671 04/08/2016 FS#70 EXHAUST FAN 101-2002-60670 531.00 DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCH 110673 04/08/2016 SCHOOL OFFICER 12/10/16- 101-2001-60168 9,805.81 DISH NETWORK 110674 04/08/2016 EOC DISH 3/13-4/12 101-2002-60671 225.18 ESPINOZA, DAVID C. 110675 04/08/2016 LQ WIND SYMPHONY 4/9/16 101-3003-60149 80.00 FIRST CHOICE A/C & HEATIN 110676 04/08/2016 SENIOR CENTER A/C REPAIR 101-3002-60667 325.00 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 110677 04/08/2016 GARNISHMENT 101-0000-20985 125.00 GALLS LLC 110678 04/08/2016 UNIFORM SHIRTS 101-6004-60690 71.93 GREATER PALM SPRINGS CVB 110679 04/08/2016 FY15/16 CVB FUNDING 101-3007-60151 45,298.00 HALEY, SUSAN & MARK 110680 04/08/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 82.32 HENSON CONSULTING GROU 110681 04/08/2016 FEB-CONSULTING SERVICES 101-1002-60101 9,887.50 HENSON CONSULTING GROU 110681 04/08/2016 MAR -CONSULTING SVC 101-1002-60101 11,725.00 FIR GREEN CALIFORNIA INC 110682 04/08/2016 FEB -PLAN CHECK SERVICES 101-7002-60183 16,258.75 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-2002-61101 601.62 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61104 49.76 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61108 654.76 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61109 3,005.54 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61110 66.13 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 101-3005-61114 12.34 JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER 110686 04/08/2016 TRAVEL EXPENSE 101-2002-60320 445.97 K HINKLE PAINTING 110688 04/08/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 5.00 LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF CO 110691 04/08/2016 CHAMBER CONTRACT PAYM 101-3001-80021 27,280.93 LA QUINTA GOLF HOA 110692 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-22830 100.00 LANDER, JEFFREY 110693 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-20306 1.00 LANDER, JEFFREY 110693 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42401 12.09 LANDER, JEFFREY 110693 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42404 91.85 LANDER, JEFFREY 110693 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42600 24.17 LIFELOC TECHNOLOGIES 110694 04/08/2016 BREATH TESTER MAINT 101-2001-60420 247.03 MEDRANO, EFRAIN 110696 04/08/2016 WEED ABATEMENT 101-6004-60120 199.00 METRO FIRE & SAFETY INC 110697 04/08/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42300 33.00 MORRIS, CARMEN & LORI 110698 04/08/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-41400 620.00 NIETO, PAM 110700 04/08/2016 REIMB FITNESS CTR 101-1004-60104 40.00 PEREZ, GILBERTO 110702 04/08/2016 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 101-0000-42447 35.00 4/12/2016 5:41:05 PM Page 1 of 5 84 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00700 - SL 4/8/16 Vendor Name, Payment Number Payment Date Description (Payable) (Account Number Amount RIVERSIDE ASSESSOR 110703 04/08/2016 DEC -RECORDER FEES 101-6004-60108 23.00 RIVERSIDE ASSESSOR 110703 04/08/2016 DEC -RECORDER FEES 101-6004-60108 23.00 RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF 110704 04/08/2016 GARNISHMENT 101-0000-20985 200.00 RJW NOTARY PUBLIC 110705 04/08/2016 FINGERPRINTING 101-1004-60103 188.00 ROBLEDO, VANESSA 110706 04/08/2016 REFUND 101-0000-42218 50.00 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALO 110707 04/08/2016 JAN-PROFESSIONAL SVC 101-1006-60103 4,522.00 SAM'S CYCLE SERVICE 110708 04/08/2016 '06 HONDA REAR TIRE 101-2001-71031 376.75 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 FEB -LQ POOL 101-3001-60184 488.75 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 APR-LQ POOL 101-3001-60184 488.75 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 FB POOL CHLORINE TABLETS 101-3001-60184 407.50 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 MOTOR -MAIN POOL PUMP 101-3001-60184 3,766.82 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 FEB-LQ PARK 101-3005-60554 295.00 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 APR-LQ PARK 101-3005-60554 295.00 SHARK POOLS INC 110709 04/08/2016 TANK SERVICE 101-3005-60554 750.00 SHERIFF'S SPECIAL EVENTS 110710 04/08/2016 SHERIFF'S DEPT AWARD CER 101-1001-60320 25.00 STANLEY STEEMER INTERNAT 110712 04/08/2016 FS#70 CARPET CLEANING 101-2002-60670 318.00 STANLEY STEEMER INTERNAT 110712 04/08/2016 FS#32 CARPET CLEANING 101-2002-60670 558.00 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 110713 04/08/2016 MAR -BUS PASSES 101-0000-20305 1,538.50 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 110713 04/08/2016 MAR -BUS PASSES 101-0000-42301 -124.00 TALL MAN GROUP INC 110714 04/08/2016 JAN-SRR CONTRACT SVC 101-1002-60101 4,987.50 TALL MAN GROUP INC 110714 04/08/2016 FEB-SRR CONTRACT SVC 101-1002-60101 2,800.00 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-1007-61300 284.46 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-1007-61300 100.83 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-1007-61300 397.37 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-1007-61300 570.18 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-1007-61300 500.78 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-3001-60184 47.41 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-3005-60554 237.05 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-3005-61204 47.41 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 101-6005-61300 1,085.30 TIME WARNER CABLE 110716 04/08/2016 FS#32 CABLE 3/16-4/15 101-2002-61101 131.41 TOTALFUNDS BY HASLER 110718 04/08/2016 CITY WIDE POSTAGE 101-1007-60470 5.53 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT 110720 04/08/2016 CONTRIBUTION 101-0000-20981 30.00 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 101-2002-60670 15.07 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 101-3002-60667 79.60 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 101-3005-60554 3.69 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 101-3008-60667 406.96 VALLEY PLUMBING 110722 04/08/2016 FS#32 PLUMBING REPAIRS 101-2002-60670 1,387.57 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 110723 04/08/2016 VERIZON 3/7 - 4/6 101-7004-60189 157.63 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 110723 04/08/2016 VERIZON LQPD SUB 3/4 - 4/3 101-2001-61300 304.51 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS 110724 04/08/2016 INTERNET SERVICE 3/10 - 4/ 101-1007-61300 95.00 VERIZON WIRELESS 110725 04/08/2016 LQPD WIRELESS 1/26 - 2/25 101-1007-61301 1,102.59 WATERLOGIC USA FINANCE I 110727 04/08/2016 WATER COOLER 4/12-5/11 101-1007-60404 226.81 Fund 101- GENERAL FUND Total: 169,020.95 Fund: 201- GAS TAX FUND IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 201-7003-61101 763.12 SPARKLETTS 110711 04/08/2016 DRINKING WATER 201-7003-60400 200.59 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 110717 04/08/2016 PAVEMENT REPAIR 201-7003-60431 264.60 Fund 201- GAS TAX FUND Total: 1,228.31 Fund: 202 - LIBRARY FUND LUXE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC 110695 04/08/2016 WATER FOUNTAIN RENTAL 202-3006-61200 37.80 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 202-3006-61300 47.41 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 202-3004-60667 46.11 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 202-3006-60667 40.94 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 110723 04/08/2016 MUSEUM 3/13-4/12 202-3006-61300 112.96 Fund 202 - LIBRARY FUND Total: 285.22 Fund: 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FU DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 110672 04/08/2016 ELECTRICAL 215-7004-60431 9.12 DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 110672 04/08/2016 ELECTRICAL 215-7004-60431 31.35 4/12/2016 5:41:05 PM Page 2 of 5 85 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00700 - SL 4/8/16 Fund Summary Fund 101-GENERAL FUND 201- GAS TAX FUND 202 - LIBRARY FUND 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FU 224 - TUMF 235 - 50 COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND 401- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR 501- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 601- SILVER ROCK RESORT Grand Total: Account Number 101-0000-20305 101-0000-20306 101-0000-20310 101-0000-20949 101-0000-20981 101-0000-20985 101-0000-22830 101-0000-41400 101-0000-42212 101-0000-42218 101-0000-42300 101-0000-42301 101-0000-42401 101-0000-42404 101-0000-42447 101-0000-42600 101-0000-43631 101-1001-60320 101-1002-60101 101-1004-60103 101-1004-60104 101-1004-60125 101-1006-60103 101-1007-60403 101-1007-60404 101-1007-60470 101-1007-60662 101-1007-61300 101-1007-61301 101-2001-36310 101-2001-60168 101-2001-60420 101-2001-61300 101-2001-71031 101-2002-60320 101-2002-60670 101-2002-60671 101-2002-61101 101-2002-61200 101-3001-60184 101-3001-80021 Account Summary Account Name Due to SunLine CBSC Fees MSHCP Mitigation Fee LT Care Insurance Pay United Way Deductions Garnishments Payable Miscellaneous Deposits Transient Occupancy Tax Facility Rental Wellness Center Membe Cash Over/Short Miscellaneous Revenue Plumbing Permits Miscellaneous Permits Home Occupations Plan Check Fees CVMSHCP Admin Fee Travel & Training Contract Services - Admi Professional Consultants Temporary Agency Servi Professional Coffee Bottled Water Postage Copiers Utilities - Telephone Mobile/Cell Phones Blood/Alcohol Testing School Officer Operating Supplies Utilities - Telephone Vehicles Travel & Training Fire Station Repair & Maintenance - Utilities - Electricity Utilities - Water Fritz Burns Park Special Projects Expense Amount 169,020.95 11228.31 285.22 25,080.33 16,536.96 6,755.63 4,462.50 8,580.00 12,006.76 2,436.23 1,123.93 16.20 247,533.02 Expense Amount 1,538.50 1.00 4,006.00 144.16 30.00 325.00 200.00 620.00 250.00 50.00 120.32 -124.00 12.09 139.71 35.00 85.08 -40.06 25.00 29,400.00 188.00 40.00 982.80 4,522.00 238.06 226.81 5.53 2,053.12 1,948.62 1,102.59 315.00 9,805.81 247.03 304.51 376.75 445.97 2,809.64 225.18 733.03 1,306.23 5,199.23 27, 280.93 Report Summary 4/12/2016 5:41:05 PM Page 4 of 5 86 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00700 - SL 4/8/16 Vendor Dame Payment Number Payment Date Description (Payable) Account Number Amount DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 110672 04/08/2016 ELECTRICAL 215-7004-60431 51.27 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110683 04/08/2016 IID ST LIGHT 10/12/11-2/17/ 215-7004-61116 8,194.34 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 215-7004-61116 6,659.99 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110684 04/08/2016 ELECTRICITY SERVICE 215-7004-61117 2,810.77 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 110685 04/08/2016 IID SIGNALS 10/12/11-2/17/ 215-7004-61116 6,033.21 KRIBBS, BRUCE 110689 04/08/2016 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION 215-7004-60431 465.00 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 215-7004-60189 47.41 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATI 110715 04/08/2016 TELEPACIFIC 3/23/16-4/22/1 215-7004-60189 47.41 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 110717 04/08/2016 TRAFFIC/MATERIAL 215-7004-60427 199.70 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 110717 04/08/2016 TRAFFIC/MATERIAL 215-7004-60431 372.22 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 110723 04/08/2016 VERIZON SIGNAL CABINET 3/ 215-7004-61116 42.43 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 110723 04/08/2016 PHONE SVC 3/10-4/9 215-7004-60189 39.52 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECT 110726 04/08/2016 ELECTRICAL 215-7004-60431 76.59 Fund 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FU Total: 25,080.33 Fund: 224 - TUMF COACHELLAVALLEY ASSOC O 110666 04/08/2016 MAR-TUMF FEE 224-0000-20320 16,536.96 Fund 224 - TUMF Total: 16,536.96 Fund: 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC 0 110665 04/08/2016 AB2766 2ND QTR 235-0000-60186 6,755.63 Fund 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND Total: 6,755.63 Fund: 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN TALL MAN GROUP INC 110714 04/08/2016 JAN-SA REAL ESTATE CONSUL 237-9001-60104 1,137.50 TALL MAN GROUP INC 110714 04/08/2016 FEB-SA REAL ESTATE CONSUL 237-9001-60104 3,325.00 Fund 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN Total: 4,462.50 Fund: 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND TALL MAN GROUP INC 110714 04/08/2016 JAN-WSA CONTRACT SVC 248-0000-60185 4,867.50 TALL MAN GROUP INC 110714 04/08/2016 FEB-WSA CONTRACT SVC 248-0000-60185 3,712.50 Fund 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND Total: 8,580.00 Fund: 401- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRU 110671 04/08/2016 LEDGE @ POLICE COUNTER 401-0000-60185 2,400.00 DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRU 110671 04/08/2016 POLICE RCPT BASE BOARDS 401-0000-60185 970.00 JTB SUPPLY CO., INC. 110687 04/08/2016 BBS REPAIR 401-0000-60188 599.40 JTB SUPPLY CO., INC. 110687 04/08/2016 NEW SIGNS 401-0000-60188 8,037.36 Fund 401- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR Total: 12,006.76 Fund: 501- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT L & L AUTOMOTIVE 110690 04/08/2016 TK#65 SERVICE 501-0000-60676 54.77 MOUNTAIN VIEW TIRE 110699 04/08/2016 COP CAR'07 FORD RANGER 501-0000-60676 27.35 MOUNTAIN VIEW TIRE 110699 04/08/2016 TK#36 TIRES 501-0000-60676 666.46 TOWER ENERGY GROUP 110719 04/08/2016 FUEL 3/1-3/15 501-0000-60674 1,687.65 Fund 501- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT Total: 2,436.23 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PCMG INC 110701 04/08/2016 4 LIC MS OFFICE 36S 502-0000-60421 600.00 PCMG INC 110701 04/08/2016 ADD'L LIC MO LU L1 1-9 502-0000-60421 279.99 TIME WARNER CABLE 110716 04/08/2016 APR -CITY HALL CABLE 502-0000-60108 243.94 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total: 1,123.93 Fund: 601- SILVER ROCK RESORT US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 110721 04/08/2016 A/C FILTERS 601-0000-60556 16.20 Fund 601- SILVER ROCK RESORT Total: 16.20 Grand Total: 247,533.02 4/12/2016 5:41:05 PM Page 3 of 5 87 Demand Register Packet: APPKT00700 - SL 4/8/16 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-3002-60115 Janitorial 151.58 101-3002-60667 HVAC 404.60 101-3003-60149 Special Events 80.00 101-3003-60420 Operating Supplies 656.13 1O1-3005-60554 LQ Park Building 1,580.74 101-3005-61104 Utilities - Electric - Pione 49.76 101-3005-61108 Utilities - Electric - Colon 654.76 101-3005-61109 Utilities - Electric - Com 3,005.54 101-3005-61110 Utilities - Electric - Adam 66.13 101-3005-61114 Utilities - Electric - Deser 12.34 101-3005-61202 Utilities - Water - Civic C 1,307.10 101-3005-61204 Utilities- Water -Fritz Bu 47.41 101-3005-61208 Utilities - Water -Season 43.12 101-3005-61209 Utilities - Water-Commu 263.53 101-3007-60151 PSDRCVB 45,298.00 101-3008-60667 HVAC 406.96 101-6004-60108 Technical 46.00 101-6004-60120 Lot Cleaning 199.00 101-6004-60690 Uniforms 71.93 101-6005-61300 Utilities - Telephone 1,085.30 101-7002-60183 Map/Plan Checking 16,258.75 101-7004-60189 Technical 157.63 201-7003-60400 Office Supplies 200.59 201-7003-60431 Materials 264.60 201-7003-61101 Utilities - Electricity 763.12 202-3004-60667 HVAC 46.11 202-3006-60667 HVAC 40.94 202-3006-61200 Water - Inside 37.80 202-3006-61300 Utilities - Telephone 160.37 215-7004-60189 Technical 134.34 215-7004-60427 Safety Gear 199.70 215-7004-60431 Materials 1,005.55 215-7004-61116 Utilities - Electric - Signal 20,929.97 215-7004-61117 Utilities - Electric - Medi 2,810.77 224-0000-20320 TUMF Payable to CVAG 16,536.96 235-0000-60186 CVAG 6,755.63 237-9001-60104 Consultants 4,462.50 248-0000-60185 Design 8,580.00 401-0000-60185 Design 3,370.00 401-0000-60188 Construction 8,636.76 501-0000-60674 Fuel & Oil 1,687.65 501-0000-60676 Vehicle Repair & Mainte 748.58 502-0000-60108 Technical 243.94 502-0000-60421 Supplies - Software 879.99 601-0000-60556 SilverRock Buildings 16.20 Grand Total: 247,533.02 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense Amount **None** 235,526.26 131407CT 8,636.76 999903D 3,370.00 Grand Total: 247,533.02 4/12/2016 5:41:05 PM Page 5 of 5 88 City of La Quinta, CA Canceled Payables Vendor Set: 01- Vendor Set 01 Bank: APBNK-APBNK Vendor Number Vendor Name 03021 POLAR BARR AIR CONDITIONING INC. Payment Type Payment Number Check 108633 Payable Number: Description 27078 HVAC Vendor Number Vendor Name 04974 PALM SPRINGS MOTORS INC Payment Type Payment Number Check 109821 Payable Number: 302249 Payment Reversal Register APPKT00692 - SHM VOIDS 3/30/16 Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date 10/09/2015 03/30/2016 10/09/2015 Payable Date Due Date 10/02/2015 10/09/2015 Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date 01/22/2016 03/30/2016 01/22/2016 Description Payable Date Due Date MAINT HONDA'05 12/31/2015 01/22/2016 Vendor Number Vendor Name 07119 GOLDEN VALLEY CONSTRUCTION Payment Type Payment Number Check 109516 Payable Number: Description PD150612E92 CONT SVC 2014-13A Vendor Number Vendor Name 08076 TEAM WHEELER REALTY Payment Type Payment Number Check 109281 Payable Number: Description R11130 REFUND OVERPAYMENT Payment Type Payment Number Check 109479 Payable Number: R11130A Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date 12/30/2015 03/30/2016 12/30/2015 Payable Date Due Date 11/30/2015 12/30/2015 Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date 12/04/2015 03/30/2016 12/04/2015 Payable Date Due Date 11/25/2015 12/04/2015 Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date 12/18/2015 03/30/2016 12/18/2015 Description Payable Date Due Date REFUND OVERPAYMENT 11/25/2015 12/18/2015 Vendor Number Vendor Name 08165 TURN OF THE CENTURY PEST CONTROL Payment Type Payment Number Check 110103 Payable Number: Description R12690. REFUND OVERPAYMENT Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date 02/12/2016 03/30/2016 02/12/2016 Payable Date Due Date 02/08/2016 02/12/2016 Total Vendor Amount -88.00 Payment Amount -88.00 Payable Amount 88.00 Total Vendor Amount -763.53 Payment Amount -763.53 Payable Amount 763.53 Total Vendor Amount -107,249.16 Payment Amount -107,249.16 Payable Amount 107,249.16 Total Vendor Amount -100.00 Payment Amount -50.00 Payable Amount 50.00 Payment Amount -50.00 Payable Amount 50.00 Total Vendor Amount -101.00 Payment Amount -101.00 Payable Amount 101.00 3/31/2016 7:20:57 PM Page 1 of 2 89 90 Payment Reversal Register Packet: APPKT00692 - SHM VOIDS 3/30/16 Bank Code Canceled Payables APBNK-108,301.69 Report Total:-108,301.69 Bank Code Summary Payables Left To Pay Again Total 0.00-108,301.69 0.00-108,301.69 3/31/2016 7:20:57 PM 91 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK TRANSACTIONS 03/26/16 - 04/08/16 03/29/16 WIRE TRANSFER - TASC 04/04/16 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 04/05/16 WIRE TRANSFER - HEALTH PREMIUM 04/05/16 WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK 04/08/16 WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA 04/08/16 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 04/08/16 WIRE TRANSFER - LQCEA TOTAL WIRE TRANSFER OUT $754.15 $601.28 $86,535.05 $174, 784.37 $ 5,154.00 $33,150.49 $314.50 $301,293.84 92 BUSINESS SESSION NO. City of La Quinto City Council Meeting April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY NOMINATIONS RECOMMENDATION Approve the Pillars of the Community nominations as recommended by the Community Services Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • At the March 18, 2014 meeting, Council directed staff to redesign the Pillars of the Community nomination process and include more biographical information, omit the 25 signatures requirement, and present nominations to the Community Services Commission for review and recommendation. • At their April 11, 2016 meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of this year's nominations. • Upon Council approval, the Pillars of the Community event will be scheduled for May 2016. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost for the plaque is $200 and funds are available in the Community Resources Special Events budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Pillars of the Community nominees' criteria include: 1) City residency for a minimum of three years, 2) significant contribution to the development of the City, 3) recognition for contribution efforts. Community members submitted two nominations for consideration; the chart below summarizes their nomination information (Attachments 1 and 2): 93 Name Resident since Contributions to the community Michael K. Butler 2007 Member of the LQHS Football Medical Staff, LQHS Football volunteer; Provides kids in LQ a summer conditioning camp; Works with students of the LQHS Medical Academy. Becky K. Kochell 1980 LQ Chamber of Commerce Treasurer & first Vice President 1981-1985; Served on the LQ Youth Accountability Board for Juvenile Offenders 1988-1994; Served on the LQ Sports & Youth Association board 1981- 1996; LQ AYSO treasurer & Chief Referee 1983-1988; Boy Scouts of America Troop 50 Counselor 1982- 1984; La Quinta Senior Center volunteer 2010-2015. On April 11, 2016 the Community Services Commission unanimously recommended Michael K. Butler and Becky K. Kochell as the 2016 Pillars of the Community. The City's practice has been to also recognize the City's prior year Senior Inspiration Award recipient as a Pillar of the Community. Mr. Dick Anderson is La Quinta's 2015 Senior Inspiration Award recipient and will also be recognized this year in the Pillars of the Community program. ALTERNATIVES The Council could elect one or none of the nominees and direct staff to seek additional nominees. Prepared by: Jaime Torres, Management Assistant Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Director of Community Resources Attachments: 1. Michael K Butler 2. Becky K Kochell 94 Pillar of the Community Award Program The Pillar of the Community Award is the highest honor the La Quinta City Council awards to remarkable members of the community. This program is designed to honor individuals that have contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta and have received recognition for their efforts. Candidate Qualifications: 1. A candidate must be or have been a resident of La Quinta for a minimum of three (3) years. 2. A candidate must have contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta. 3. A candidate must have received recognition for their efforts on a local, state, national, or international level. Nominating Party: Name: Melissa R Judnich Telephone: (760 ) _ Candidate's Information Name: Address: Email: Telephone: Years of La Quinta Residency: From 2007 To Candidate has served on the following: (Please check all that apply) ❑ City Council ❑ Boards / Commissions ❑ Service Clubs ® Volunteer Groups ® Other Please provide the service organizations names and dates of service. La Quinta High School Football- 2007-2016 La Quinta High School Medical Health Academy 2007-2016 Youth Training Camps 2005-2016 How has the candidate contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta? He has contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta in several ways. One major way he did this is by working with the cities athletes and helping them understand what it takes to acheive greatness. He donates his own time several hours a week with these students and builds a relationship with them so he can help them succeed not only athletically but also academically. One way he has also contributed to the development of La Quinta is by working with the students of the Medical Health Academy at La Quinta High School. He has spent a lot of time working with these students to help them succeed in their internships, as well as help them with coursework when needed. Michael is one of the main reasons some student athletes get the chance to attend a four year university. I have seen this personally through my husband. He started working with Michael at La Quinta High School when he was in ninth grade. Michael from then on worked with adam several nights a week, and helped develop him into a great athlete. My husband received a full ride scholarship to a D-1 school in 2011. He will tell you that he owes it all to Mike. Mike not only equipped him with the skills he needed but also believed in him every -4-- , --F 4-"- , . - , Please turn over and complete side 2. 95 How has the candidate been recognized for their efforts on a local, state, national, or international level? Michael has been recongnized in several ways for his outstanding efforts. He is recongnized at the local level by Desert Health Awards for Outstanding Businesses in the Valley. He is also nationally recognized through his strength and conditioning association while recertifying with highest distinction honors. Only 125 members receive this out of 35,000 members. He has also locally been recognized by the La Quinta High School Football team for all that he does towards their program. He donates countless hours with these athletes, and helps them achieve their dreams of making it to the next level. Please attach copies of any certificates, awards, news articles, letters of commendation, etc for consideration. Is there any additional information about the candidate that should be considered? (Optional) Mike is one of the most caring, and kind harted individuals that I have ever met. He is always willing to go the extra mile for all of his clients. I have never once heard him turn down a client, or tell them he couldn't help them. He spends hours a day figuring out how he can better help this community and the residents in it. The best part about him is, he does it because he enjoys it, not because he wants an award at the end of it. Although in my opinion, he deserves one. Thank you for completing the nomination form. Please submit this completed form to the Community Services Department at City Hall. SUBMIT FORM City of La Quinta Pillar of the Community Nomination Form 96 January 12, 2016 To Whom It May Concern: It is with great pleasure that I am writing this letter of recommendation for Michael Butler. Mike has been working with La Quinta High School athletes for the past fourteen years. He is extremely hard working, dependable, and knowledgeable. He has a great relationship with our students and coaches alike. He has put in countless hours on the field, in the weight room, and at his facility to make sure our players are trained to perform at a very high level. He is on the cutting edge of his profession, constantly attending clinics, seminars, etc. to make sure he is up on the most current trends. Mike will willingly adjust his schedule to work with our athletes and get them back on the playing field as soon as possible. He definitely goes above and beyond when it comes to athlete care. Mike also has tremendous knowledge of nutrition and injury prevention. He has run several off season camps for our players and made dramatic improvement in their strength, explosiveness, and speed. He was also very instrumental in helping many to gain good weight, or cut bad weight while gaining muscle mass. We have won many championships here at La Quinta and I'm quite certain that would not have occurred without the input and efforts of Mike. In football alone, we have had about thirty division one scholarship players, and at one time or another Mike worked with almost all of them. They will all attest to the improvements Mike was responsible for. I can not think of a better trainer, or person than Mike Butler, and we are extremely fortunate to have him working with our athletes. If you have any further questions regarding Mike, please don't hesitate to contact me, Sincerely, Dan Armstrong Athletic Director/ Head Football Coach La Quinta High School 97 ap am sown us, w,-v, wheybad count at rite "3Nt Sports CCntef fmdity. S, other childrenof1ar- W�_4 iars ages joined her, laughing 7 and enpying the run.t -Thin is awesome," said the teen after an Intense workout. "It's helped me. At schooldu- Michael and Susan Buller are the owners of Kiliz Health and Padormance Center in Palm Desert. -week intensive and multi -layered fitness pfpgram. ing PE I run laps Easter", The couple launched Fit Kid:, an eight Her words are music to the coach, an m_tive chef who 'Susan Butha said. In February. "Tunes are tough right now. ears of Susan and Michael Hut- lee, owners of Kinetix Health goes over meal plans and a she found inspiration during a And when finding away in -event to the American the schools, what am the first and Performance (.enter at the family counselo, pre All of the pmfes'ionals are Heart Association's gals things atev cut? Physical ed- the arse, the They an, the seaters a( the the create. a providing their services in -kind. the idea grew froon there. oration, sports and Susan 8udcr said. Soon after, the Butlers built the very things that keep the kids Kinetic Fit that working with eight children, "These arc passions[,, pro. partnerships and got the pro- active and engaged." fesvonal peciple," Butler :ctid. grant up and mooting For ntany of the children including Nuvia The couple launched Fit Kidz, "Mat's why they do this" The children were cleared by a eni in Fit Kid; the pm - The couple has focused on physician to participate in the grant breaks up the tedium set an eight -week intensive and multi -layered Program. to youth fitness for seven years. programby thew schools, since raruvng Two -and -a -half years ago they The youngsters and their is the most Colnrmon form of hopes of mzkistg a dent in realized the obesity problem fanulics wear bracelets as a tea- exercise. "111is b making me feel bet - diddhood obesity. The PlOgr^rm Primes hm was retching epidemic level tament to their commitment to The two had done what they good health and exercise. ter;' said 1 I -year -old Cristma flies with an exercise session could to fight it, hokling fitness •'there should be more pre- Gon.-dez, no relation to Nuyta. three tunes a week camps and teaching families grants like this;' oriel Joyce "If used to take me 10 minutes Families most also work with good healdt. White, of Bermuda Nunes. Her to run a lap. Now I can rut it 41 a nutritionist, a Kini lifestyle More needed to be done, son, Jordan, is in the program- tyro." Facts AGA titaess N.WWM Norf, 50 peni of children in E&Aiel R'nnside COMO art tither o wrweight or obese as determined by body mass index aileia. Whrc In comparing ovawsiffili and obese children, nhiUe children are more Ifkety to be eat daily with their family. proper SwAngr About 30 percent of children ages 1 to 17 in Eastem Riverside County do not eat here servings of fruits and vegerables m par of trek daily diet. Fast food: More than %OW chitclien between 6 and 17, or lust more than 60 percent, have a Iml-food meal one to two Get in AN" Max to join, This sessions full, but K,netix Health and Pedemnance is takxtg registrations for the crest session. Rarpdtememtc Children must be cleared by the Kinelix-designated physsuan to participate. Testing on their fitness is car di.red before and after the eght-week 98 ALM OESEROUTINGS KID -SPORT PASSION BY JUDITH SALKIN JOSEPH AARON Urom the outside, Kinetic Health and Performance Center looks like any ocher gym nestled in an industrial center in the Coachella Valley. In this case it's definitely who's on the inside that counts. The l(i netix mono is "Molding athletes into champions." For owners Michael K. Butler, the director of Kinetix and Susan Butler, massage therapist who specializes in neuromuscular work, the center is where kids and adults come to improve their game no matter what it is. "From 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. we work with our adult clients (including pro golfers and athletes and regular people who want to improve their health and natural abilities)," Mike says. "The rest of the day is usually devoted to working with kids." It starts, Mikc says, with a rwo-hour assessment of his client's health, medical problems and goal setting. "With the kids 1 often get out the skeleton," he says, "to show them how an injury affects their body. Next, he puts together the plan on how cc correct the problem and improve ability, 99 enter in come to ,fiey on a i_ Cooper, ball pla Basket M - 'tea. '�� 7T � r 0 -WI, ov""t 33,270) 8- -L, Business 13 Ck� r---T H ., A `This is once in a lifetime Palm m kse l 9y Mdr*w 1. John .t grad ua to Greg Latta began to take football more seri- Greg Latta ou:t;l y after he was ruled ineligible to play basket - hall during his senior year of high school. takes next After starring for three years on the court at La Quania High, lte transferred across town to Palm Desert in 2009. But California Interscholas- tic Federation transfer rules prevented him from ever suiting up for the Aztecs. OOtba 5o Latta turned his focus to a sport he had never played and spurned basketball scholarship coffers to pursue football in college. weer with First at College of the Desert, then on schol- �] BrOncOs arship at Purdue. Pismo S" LATTA, C2 _�atte� et 11x Health UnIM7MM %1MV as twat WAh*e1 1ALWY %C ak%on dyS,& rWWO WW(R M4" tV t00%*A. t b"int kAwsp n t% Wwlk With the LiMvwr Irotuo% r• : H pi d �. ti'.s� I..w 102 Jl haf daYJ at Palm lTk en' ��h 9chm4, iartlex nockrrY' ,ar;ae a rebattation not Only u I wit dhkgc t,ul also ,u��Caf hr ayf thankanK one step .. uavc mt tYof one the caacYae► a8�leresm corwr- as � at (h"O a slate. a" iasta llr6 to the mn, alter fw* �former +halal he. a." —ad •H" e We� stab r paial llaeerlr.�eat otatt rMM sa QACS after it." Now in the fourth training —wP of has profe%sivnakcareer, DWker)aanatnA to make the (,aroltna Panther" hird sca 2Slhe i in a py Cerahhe le Position, 'f Z5, he of an t P u s an the still une of the 1"Gunder ' e& havaeag tune, pet self for cos utive peas^ proven hutaself for c:orso rC _ tfts ferft pe-tontY, of 'e."M But paring fax the upeornaag true to form. the a,hects ha' ble eta o ta4$aatl S1177aaaatt ahra�t �eYr ax.luding take after hi, ptaYanB ae eventual return t0 Ihr t ume;.hetla Valley maid defe- Wh,o the tome <Otnc*,- { wr. and matetY took to raax oa.a [an+tmt4 'htna or t(++ work If E'ran net' lteaa." twarkrn -Ye white a rr JAMES ppCKERY IN THE NFL P�//!Ni tom:-_'.rwed,�^U e :,v*s (pttt SXdna 12012 '31 a4w l�J'e't 24. staft+ntt ewer MltaaWM nthea4,.—�-"-•93, haf r+talad• Va6 rRtm a ti-tt, raek+drae m the 12 tr.. he's tdayad for lrow+e the P.11V _ Aw wen bosh 9aniei Poe.e su.ra'd w nas34# �1 � n ha lames + ��30 p� tWq 99n 'Ajop' a.q u.a ►.veer ewe^ 103 BpSvc RING —FIRST ` PLACL Best I ce to take the kids ix Health & Performance Center � ithc Desert Sun 104 -am 00 1 I In recognition of extraordinary achievement in continuing education activities and for contributions to the strength and conditioning profession, the National Strength and Conditioning Association is proud to Recertify with Distinction October 5, 2002 DATE of CERTIFICATION December 31, 2017 SATE CERTIFICATION (EXPIRES 'VichaeCButler M 200219120 CERTiFICAT4ON NUMSE IN US and WA-M cer'Ekibc amedhd bw the %atwre Um CertElymq Ageixft 106 r W In recognition of extraordinary achievement in conti g education activities and for contributions to the strength and condit :r)ing profession, 01 the National Strength and Conditioning Association is proud to (Recertify with Distinction 0 February 11, 2014 December 31, 2017 NATIONAL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION ,TichaeC�ButCer 7247883393 everyone strong, 107 �ftr ,.# The National Strength and Conditioning Association � hereby ,r_knowledges that Michael 'Butler has met the established requlrernents and earned thu recognition of NSCA Registered strength and Conditioning Coach (RSCC) for the period of PAO: W'; .i r Ifll'�' N1E�r'B �Ctt 2AP j, Fleck, PhD. CSCS, FN' . A, FACSM NSCA Pro`ident January 1, 2015 - December 3`1, 2015 RSCC*D with Olstlnctlon EARNED RESPECT t Ao� cArwyn WO, PhD, Ocs,14�CC'D NSCA E- I I' OrGOOM Dtirector y►J1i MWil, 1ST 1 4 y tv'( 1, Va0der 'senior WrActar at Coe M% and 11Pee1el Prolect, eVe1vant Welcome to the Registry. As a Registered Strength and Conditioning Coach your expertise is separate and distinct from the medical, dietetic, and athletic training fields. We are proud to have you as a member of this distinguished group of strength and conditioning coaches. The NSCA has long set the standard for improving athletic performance through the application 0 scientifically proven strength andconditioning principles. You now have the premier distinction in the strength and conditioning industry. Congratulations. Boyd Epley, M.Ed, FNSCA, RSCC*E 'NSC_A founder Senior Director of Special projects 110 How has the candidate been recognized for their efforts on a local, state, national, or international level? h Z fOi)�xYrA t--n (4_�' Is there any additional information about the candidate that should be considered? (Optional) ion �"� > � �[f on � ►� � ice. The SUBMIT button will open an email to send this completed form. please attach any copies of certificates, wards, news articles, letters of commendation, etc to the e-mail for consideration. Forms sent without attached paperwork will not be accepted. SUBMIT FORM City of La Quinta Pillar of the Community Nomination Form 111 Pillar of the Community Award Program The Pillar of the Community Award is the highest honor the La Quinta City Council awards to remarkable members of the community. This program is designed to honor individuals that have contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta and have received recognition for their efforts. Candidate Qualifications: 1. A candidate must be or have been a resident of La Quinta for a minimum of three (3) years. 2. A candidate must have contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta. 3. A candidate must have received recognition for their efforts on a local, state, national, or international level. Nominating Party: Name: Telephone: {7Gd } 70 S S 7 Candidate's Information Name:L G T`,O' e Address: o�oq - Finail S , DeliI GZD/ • (D-ex Telephone: Years of La Quinta Residency: From �9g� To /,s i Candidate has served on the following: (Please check all that apply) ❑ City Council ©-" Boards / Commissions L� Service Clubs p� Volunteer Groups a2r' Other How has the candidate contributed significantly to the development of La Quinta? o -C 15 4-At I- Please provide the service organizations names and dates of service. OCR f W2A0a,WrA, C iy 6t aR; i913 - Rim (04A QL)1,1-"A `r zL5 10,��,Please turn over and complete side 2. 112 Diis certfcate is a-wardedtc XdchZ ff for the many years of dedicated commitment to the Riverside County Probation Department youth AccountabiCity Board and the (ids of the CoacheCla Talley- L e. - ma's a n Sscurt re Date tiignature Date 113 Palm Springs Savings Bank October 29, 1984 To Whom it may concern: Becky Kochell has worked for Palm Springs Savings Bank as the La Quinta branch manager since March 29, 1982. Part of Becky's job entailed supervising a staff of four employees, ensuring that all daily branch functions were performed in a timely manner, business development for the office and making sure that office employees performed their jobs in accordance with Palm Springs Savings Bank policy and procedures. Becky did a fine job in the area of customer service. She had a good rapport with her customers and did well with all types of written correspondence. Becky performed her duties well as the manager of our La Quinta office. She will be greatly missed here at Palm Springs Savings Bank. Sinc �y Kim E. Clark Vice President Operations 420 South Palm Canyon Drive / Palm Springs, California 92262 / (619) 325-2021 "EH 78.105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 October 28, 1984 To Whom It May Concern: It is with great pleasure that -I write a letter• of recommendation for Becky KochelI, who means much to our city and whose talents are oustanding in some many areas. We first became acquainted when La Quinta became a city in May, 1982; Becky. was the f i r•st manager of the new branch of Palm Springs Savings Bank, and I was the first mayor of our nev, city. During these years, I learned to admire Becky fora variety of reasons. There is no doubt that the success of that branch of the bank was due to her professionalism and sincere efforts at good community relations. She created a climate in her organization which made it a pleasure for all of us to bank there. In addition, she provides a leadership role in our community through her involvement in youth activities, as well as many other individual or organizational roles which enhance La Quinta. In recognition of her service, the City Council appointed her City Treasurer, a position intended to honor the person so designated. Al of us in La Quinta wish Becky well and know that she will represent an outstanding asset to any organization employing her services. I would be delighted to provide further information if desired. Sincerely, Z�9Q, Fred Wolff City Council Member MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 115 f � 1 116 Award of Appreciation THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Becky Kochell has rendered valuable and distinctive service to the CITY OF LA QUINTA SENIOR CENTER and this certificate is issued in recognition thereof by the La Quinta City Council on behalf of its citizens on this 26th day of April, 2012. MA�'R April 26, 2012 DAIYE 117 YOU MAKE THE - `l r RSVP Volunteer Program of Eastern Riverside County is pleased to present this certificate to: Becky Kochel-'-. for 103 hours of volunteer service Thank you for your time and dedicated spirit of volunteerism which makes all the difference in your community. f Lori Weathers, RSVP Director 'James Martinez, Chair, RSVPAdvisory Council r i 0 NlYEFIlBE GaYNTF February 6, 2014 e5C]Lt+G�e C.�U1R7.R1et#lC�il ADIZC of RIVERSIDE COLIN7Y 118 'i �, � , . i [�:, , �i L. Fol , ffq! � Tel`.• � 6 V. Certificate of .Appreciation THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Becky XocheCC has rendered valuable and distinctive service to the CITY OF LA QUINTA SENIOR CENTER and this certificate is issued in recognition thereof by the La Quinta City Council on behalf of its citizens on this 15th day of April, 2011. t� OR Ayr%C15, 2011 DATE 120 LaQuin to Chamber of Commerce P O BOX 255 . LA OUINTA. CA 92253 . 619-564-3199 It October 26, 1984 To Whom It May Concern: I have known Becky Kochell for approximately three (3) years. I consider her to be a very professional and proficient lady. She has served on our Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors, for two years - first as treasurer and presently as 1st vice president. Her total involvement and dedication to whatever task she under- takes makes her a valuable asset, not only to our Chamber of Commerce, but to'qur entire community. We hold Becky in the highest esteem. Respectfully, JIM MONTGOMERY President Y' � '121 122 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. I City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO 2016/17 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Discuss the 2016/17 budget forecast. aXECUTIVE SUMMARY Initial forecasts indicate that the 2016/17 operating budget will have a $200,000 deficit that will increase by $500,000 when the back nine at SilverRock is closed when development begins. These projections are due to flat revenues and increases related to public safety contracts, contracted personnel costs and service contract costs. • This report provides a general overview of the Preliminary Budget to be presented to the Council on May 17. FISCAL IMPACT - None. BAC__KGROUND/ANALYSIS Staff is in the process of refining the 2016/17 Preliminary Budget, which will be presented to the Council on May 17. The larger expenditure items, such as contract police services and personnel costs, have been analyzed. Similarly, larger revenue sources including sales tax, property tax, and transient occupancy tax (TOT), have also been analyzed. Expenditure and Revenue Forecast A $200,000 General Fund operating budget deficit is forecasted. Not included in this amount is a projected $500,000 operating loss that the General Fund would need to cover for SilverRock operations. This loss will be incurred when the back nine golf holes are closed for the golf realignment work needed to accommodate the luxury hotel construction. Combined, the total forecasted deficit is $700,000. Expenditures Departments were directed to provide "status quo" budgets, meaning no additional staff or programs. The expenditure forecast encompasses providing services at current levels, and incorporating cost increases related to public safety contracts, contracted personnel costs and service contract costs. Compared to the 2015/16 base operating budget (not including reserves used for additional Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)), expenditures are projected to be approximately 5 percent higher in 2016/17. The two largest contributing factors are: 123 • Police services costs ($950,000) • Reduced Gas Tax revenue to fund street maintenance operations ($350,000). Revenues Compared to the 2015/16 mid -year estimates, revenue is projected to be flat in 2016/17 with an increase of only .3 percent. • Property Taxis projected to increase by approximately 2 percent; when combined with increased Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) distributions (from former City and County project areas) total property tax revenue increases to $835,700. • However, this is offset by $860,000 in one-time revenue in 2015/16 that is not available in 2016/17: ➢ Insurance reimbursement of $525,000 ➢ TOT mitigation payment of $335,000 • Sales Tax is essential flat with a projected increase of $28,000. TOT related to short term vacation rentals (STVR) is estimated to increase by approximately 10 percent; however, hotel related TOT estimates are flat. Deficit Reduction Options The Executive Team has crafted options that the Council should discuss to address this deficit. These options are based upon the principles that guide budget preparation, recommendations presented in the Financial Advisory Committee report findings, and past practices. Guidina Principles The principles that guide the City through past and current budget development are: Recurring revenue for recurring costs • One-time revenue for one-time costs • Use Redevelopment Agency (RDA) loan payment for CIP investment Maintain the current cash -flow and emergency reserve amounts. Operating Budget Deficit Reduction Options o Service cuts. Since 2012 staff positions have been reduced by 29 percent and the City has instituted numerous measures to reduce personnel costs including: reduced retirement formulas and implementation of a performance based compensation system. Authorized positions have been reduced from 104 to 74. Further, per the California State Controller, the average 2015 salary and benefits paid to La Quinta City employees is the second lowest of the Coachella Valley cities. The City could endeavor to reduce salaries and benefits, but this would impact the City's ability to retain staff and recruit new staff. 124 Reduce police service hours and other police services. Since law enforcement is the largest budget expenditure, the City could further reduce patrol hours, special motorcycle traffic enforcement, and special enforcement teams. Service hours were reduced in 2015/16 with minimal impact to service delivery. Staff is analyzing police operations efficiencies and will be offering recommendations as part of the 2016/17 budget discussions. Reducing service hours, as was done last fiscal year, by 10 hours per day would generate a $500,000 savings. Reduce marketing, civic and promotional programs. The City directly and indirectly markets the community and stages community events to attract patrons. Two contracts that were the subject of past discussion entail: o Art Foundation -the City has a marketing agreement with the Foundation. A reduction of the $103,000 contract by $50,000 would reduce the amount invested in marketing. It would also decrease the promotion efforts of La Quinta as an arts and culture destination. o Chamber of Commerce- the $127,500 agreement is made up of a $90,000 contribution to the Gem and the remaining $37,500 to support the visitor's bureau, Chamber events, and the business support center. The City could eliminate its contribution to either or both services. Full cost recovery. The Advisory Committee recommended that the City recover 100 percent of the cost for permits, charges for services, and for programs to seniors, youth, and recreation programs. Examples of these impacts are: Development Fees, including Building and Safety, Planning, and Public Works - full cost recovery and elimination of subsidized permits could yield an additional $489,000 annually. The charges for a variety of permits but the fee increase for some of the high volume permits would be as follows - sign permits: $200.00 to $689.00; PM 10 dust control permits: $525.00 to $1,565.00 Senior Meals - in order to begin achieving full cost recovery, the cost of senior lunches would go from $4 per lunch to $39 per lunch. This would generate $30,400 annually. Wellness Center classes - there are several low cost classes available at the Center, which provide health, wellness, and education services. On average, the cost of those classes would increase by 300 percent. This would generate $333,000 annually. Golf - SilverRock charges dynamic pricing for non-resident golf rounds, which reflect market conditions. To eliminate operating deficits, the resident rates would need to increase from $30.00 to $68.00, from $45.00 to $83.00, and from $55.00 to $93.00 for the off, shoulder and main seasons, respectively. ➢ Youth sports - current player fees for youth sports are from $100-$250 each. Of those fees, only $10 per resident player/$15 per non-resident player is paid to the City. For 100 percent cost recovery, each player fee paid to the City would need to increase from the current $10.00 to $110.00. This would generate $361,000 annually. 125 Tax increases. The Finance Advisory Committee evaluated a number of tax increases including: o Sales tax -1 percent increase, which could yield an additional $6,000,000 in new tax revenue to the City. o TOT - consolidating the current two rate system (10 percent STVR and Hotels, 11 percent Group Hotels) and increasing both to 12 percent, could increase tax revenue by $740,700 annually. Economic development. The City scaled back its economic development investment when redevelopment was eliminated. It does have remaining land assets for which it is pursuing development including SilverRock, the Village properties and a commercial property on Highway 111. For SilverRock, the City concluded a development agreement in 2015 and development will be underway this year. The City will be investing in this development through a combination of infrastructure, a transient occupancy tax rebate, and land cost reduction. The City continues to market the other properties and could consider reducing land values to stimulate interest. ALTERNATIVES This is a discussion item, therefore no alternatives are recommended. Prepared by: Rita Conrad, Director of Finance Ted Shove, Business Analyst Approved by: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager [we STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: DISCUSS PROJECTS TO INCLUDE IN THE 2016/17 THROUGH 2O20/21 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Discuss projects to include in the 2016/17 through 2020/21 Capital Improvement Program and direct staff to make appropriate revisions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a five-year plan for major municipal construction projects related to bridges, streets, traffic signals, drainage, landscaping, lighting, parks, and other facilities. • Based on input from the Council and residents over the past year, staff has developed a preliminary scope and budget for various projects that could be included in the 2016/17 CIP budget. • Based on today's discussion, a final 2016/17 CIP will be prepared for consideration in June. FISCAL IMPACT This review does not generate fiscal impacts. However, two proposed projects - the La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion and the City Hall Internal Security System - anticipate investing $750,000 and $260,000 of Redevelopment Agency (RDA) loan repayment proceeds to complete them. As stated in the Study Session report on the 2016/17 Operating Budget, preliminary forecasts indicate a 2016/17 Operating Budget deficit of $700,000. The 2016/17 RDA loan repayment is estimated to be $1,600,000 and staff will recommend that a portion of this money be used to fund the Operating Budget deficit, which will reduce funding for the City Hall Internal Security System improvements and delay this project. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Staff recommends the following projects be included in the 2016/17 through 2020/21 CIP: Transportation Projects Transportation projects are generally funded through the Pavement Management Plan (PMP), Transportation Development Impact Fees (DIF), Gas Tax, or Measure A funds. • 2016/17 PMP Slurry Seal Project (Genera[ Fund: $1 Million) 127 The City recently completed the pavement evaluation, which prioritizes street maintenance needs, for the next five-year cycle. Next year's proposed slurry seal program (Attachment 1) focuses on the neighborhoods west of Washington Street at Calle Tampico as well as re-striping/narrowing the lanes on a segment of Avenida Bermudas. This year's project will also include re -striping the major and primary arterial roads. • Madison Street - Avenue 50 to 52 (Transportation DIF: $1.8 Million) - Complete the joint project with the City of Indio to widen Madison Street from two to four lanes including a new bridge over the canal at Avenue 50; $1.8 million is the estimated cost for La Quinta's share of the project. Developer Impact Fee Reimbursement Agreements (Transportation DIF: Various) Attachment 2 contains letters from developers requesting payment of existing approved DIF Reimbursement Agreements. While the agreements do not set a deadline for repayment of these improvements the City Council could consider them in lieu of approving other DIF eligible projects. Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant (Measure A: $126k local match) - Intersection Improvements The $1.3 million grant funded improvements will upgrade the City's intersection safety lighting and street name signs to light -emitting diode (LED), upgrade the traffic signal cabinets at eight intersections, and upgrade the controllers at 15 intersections. • Eisenhower Drive at Montezuma Roundabout (Measure A: $290K) This project completes the construction funding for a roundabout at this five -legged intersection that provides direct access to a neighborhood to the east, a community park to the east, and indirect access to an elementary school to the north. Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant ($2.3 Million) - Traffic Signal Interconnect Network Upgrade The improvements will upgrade the City's entire traffic signal interconnect network. Work includes the installation of new fiber optic interconnect, replacement of existing wired interconnect with fiber optic cables to improve signal timing and coordination. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ($106K) - Miscellaneous Village Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Improvements Project improvements for the Old Town Artisans Art Park parcel include constructing ADA compliant sidewalk, and curb ramps. CDBG funding will only be used to construct the "hard" improvements. The Sidewalks at Various Locations General Fund project ($48K) is proposed to pay for "soft" costs to leverage the CDBG funding. Parks and Facilities Projects La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion (Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Loan Repayment: 750K The project is to convert turf along parkways and retention basins to desert landscape primarily in north La Quinta in response to the state drought mandates. As discussed on April 5, 2016 the Eisenhower Street frontage of the Fairway Villas 128 development will be replaced with drought tolerant "Desert Efficient" landscaping and irrigation at an estimated cost of $40K. This addition required a change to the overall project schedule in that the conversion of the Fred Waring parkway adjacent to The Highlands was moved to next fiscal year to accommodate this request. Fritz Burns Park - Tennis and Pickle Ball Court Conversion (Quimby Fund: $437K) The project will remove the existing skate park ramps and entire concrete area at Fritz Burns Park and install two new full-size concrete tennis courts and four pickle ball courts. The improvements include resurfacing and re -striping the six existing tennis courts and two new tennis/pickle ball courts. In addition, the project will change the existing light fixtures to LED and replace 240 linear feet of 14-inch tall chain link fence. City Hall Internal Security System (RDA Loan Repayment: $260K) The project entailer a new internal security system to include access control with fob readers at City Hall, door monitoring and automatic locking at City Hall's main entrance doors, onsite monitoring with 36 cameras for City Hall and other City facilities, security alarm system, voice evacuation system, and wireless panic button system. This project will be integrated with the 2015/16 Park and Facility Security Systems CIP Project. Projects Requiring Further Council Direction Future Drainage Improvements The Request for Proposals for design services for emergency drainage improvements to Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive has been released with design proposals due on May 19, 2016. The current CIP has a budget of $1.8 million for the design and construction of these improvements. Staff has received correspondence from several Homeowners' Associations requesting drainage improvements and therefore seeks Council direction on how much RDA loan repayment funding to assign for drainage improvements along other public streets in future years (Attachment 2). Future North La Quinta Landscape Improvements Attachment 3 is the proposed turf conversion plan using $750K per year from the RDA Loan Repayment. It also shows the areas of north La Quinta that are not addressed in the turf conversion plan. Projects on the Horizon The Village Circulation Improvements - As part of the review of The Village Master Plan, motorist, pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements will be brought forward for consideration to enhance the "walkability" of the area. Staff anticipates funding these in future years with Measure A funds. • Civic Center Campus Lake and Irrigation Conversion from Potable to Canal Water The Coachella Valley Water District is designing a project to connect the La Quinta Resort golf courses to canal water. The City has hired an irrigation consultant to review the feasibility of converting the campus lake into an irrigation lake before a project budget and scope are added to the CIP. Council will be updated once the 129 analysis is complete. Staff anticipates this project will require General Fund or RDA Loan Repayment funding. Washington Street at Fred Waring Drive - Triple Left Turns on All Approaches Preliminary layouts and cost estimates are being prepared to add much needed turning capacity to this intersection. Council will be updated once the analysis is complete. Staff proposes to submit this project to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund/Measure A funding. Washington Street at Miles Avenue - Dual Left Turns on Washington Street Preliminary layouts and cost estimates are being prepared for lengthening and increasing the left turn lane capacity of this intersection which currently backs up in the southbound direction. Council will be updated once the analysis is complete. Staff proposes to submit this project to CVAG for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund/ Measure A funding. Staff seeks general direction on all of the projects (Attachment 5). Depending on Council's direction, staff will prepare the draft CIP for either further review or for public hearing and adoption. Prepared by: Edward J. Wimmer, P.E., Principal Engineer Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Design and Development Director/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Proposed 2016/17 PMP Slurry Program 2. Drainage Improvement Request Letters 3. Proposed 10-Year North La Quinta Turf Removal Plan 4. DIF Reimbursement Agreement Letter Requests 5. Project Revenue Summary from Draft 2016/17 through 2020/21 CIP 130 rr p m J U J W /��q m ~ ~ U) Q = cn r,P o 0 Q Q m U ' z 47T AVE z D E EL N1AF n r co J O z z ( n F <� W w=1 I p m w >- WTI I AE ij () 0 z _ _ x v Q U Y < 0 RE P 5 H AVE x _� o OJ p GA NT AY VIA VALERO p (5z P MELO ST Q4 z O p J 51 ST AVE fO u~i g Z o z IGA m i z POLO RD r0 2 CO O -A U Q O r > IA 2-1 2 qD AVE O� CUI WAY Q SP �� VIA PORTOFINO GINS CT J�PGPP O G�J� cn G� VIA C �P m VIA PAESSAR U p < < a ° o D z BAFFIN VE OAK TREE 54TH AVE > m z D N ` Q9 = A cn f o" D wCn o w �� m aLegend m �m� S 0 PIN HU T THE COLQCtrlines n � ? S TIONALDR TIBURONDR Z G m AIRP LVD <all other values> 01 5 Year Plan 2016-2021 ���` 9�'sti� ELLERI rr G v� 9 p 2016-2017 Zones 1,2 &5 Fis _ G V kOA z J RIVIE '� p > CITY-WIDE STRIPING MERION m VIA I ► s W -�-- z- Digouts & Slurry Seal HERMIT GE < cT� O VID L R rTr-r-j v > m Crack Seal & Slurry Seal W o TOM FAZIO LN N ? IJ3 Of SE N T R p Grind & Overlay � m A A A z J A RY LN c9 O 2017-2018 Zone 2 a ���q< Doti J �ERt a Q z Grind & Overlay TOM FAZIO LN O s 0 59T AVE Q 2018-2019 Zone 2 �O�pP Crack Seal & Slurry Seal CA ECONC ITA W J 2019-2020 Zone 2 > z W Grind & Overlay �° o �o PG 2020-2021 Zone 3 � Crack Seal & Slurry Seal g4ti E DR rY p m CALLE tJ`� z HAR ATTACH M ENT 1 WESTW 4 E BLUFF.RD z MARY LN z w SAB FIESTA D p 1 z SH-111 z City of La Quinta Q p Or w 9 Draft 5 Year Plan z T 1 RO 8T AVE � m 2016-2021 E BRISA ,�Q/ N z Z Z p D Oz U -G ul JARWOOD ENIDA L ND LIMA CITRUS '9 m m G N O <2 U) C0 0 BAYA 132 ATTACH M ENT 2 V%� YXt49 RECEIVEL, March 15, 2014 H'AR t 8 2014 Frank J. Spevacek CITY OF LA OUINTA City Manager CITY MANAGER'S 0, HC E City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Spevacek, I am writing on behalf of our Board of Directors and our 334 homeowners to ask for your help. On August 25 our Gatehouse at 49-991 Eisenhower Drive was flooded by waters that reportedly overwhelmed the City's storm drain system. Security communications were severed for several days with our members and the owners in four other enclaves, and the Resort within our gates. The Gatehouse was under a foot of water, and out of commission for two weeks. Homeowners were unable to use the Calle Mazatlan gate and had to be escorted through flooded back streets, and over greenbelts to reach the Fernando exit. • We sustained over $10,000 in monetary damages. Tom Thorman of Vantage Point Construction told us that this is the fourth time our Gatehouse has been flooded. Vantage Point handled the repairs. Can you please discuss this problem with the appropriate professionals in your administration and recommend a possible solution for the future? Thanks very much for your consideration. Si ly, amen M Parry President of the Board Of Directors The Santa Rosa Cove Association 49-991 Eisenhower La Quinta, California (760)777-7621 RC Fax:(760)564-8418 Mailing Address SANTA ROSA COVE ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 133 V 2 D �';r"� I Good Afternoon Tim, APR 1 4 Z016 _4�bPi+�lE�+l7' As you know, I attended last month's Council Meeting addressing the Focused Area Drainage study prepared by Michael Baker International. After reviewing the documents with our consultants, Legacy Villas Board of Directors and Peter Murphy, board president of La Quinta Country Club, we are encouraged that a solution exists for the North Drainage area; specifically Eisenhower and Coachella, which greatly impacts Legacy Villas and other communities and homes along Eisenhower. We think Alternative 5.1 is clearly the only effective solution. Our observation is that in both a flash flood as well as an inconsequential rainfall, Legacy Villa's main retention basin 5, a seven acre retention basin, is filled almost entirely from water coming in to our property off Eisenhower, specifically from the La Quinta Golf Estates (LQCC) entrance. We have observed that even before our other four upstream retention basins have the opportunity to fill and flow downstream into our main basin 5, basin 5 is already filled to capacity with water coming in from Eisenhower (please refer to photos previously sent). It should be noted that twice in the past two years, Legacy Villas undertook a significant costly clearing and renovation of our retention channel and five basins, adding three dry wells to dispose of stored storm water following any storm. The improvements included installing sump pumps, reconstructing weirs, and bringing the entire channel back to original grade and capacity, twice. Although our storm drain system and storage are presently extremely efficient, unfortunately the storm drain systems of our neighbors and the Eisenhower drainage are not- so we continue to be at great risk of flooding. This risk exists not just for short storms, but for even a series of small storms (i.e., less than 1 inch of rain per hour) that can occur over a period of several hours if we continue to rely on sufficient storm water storage from the waters on Eisenhower. Legacy Villas has two 4 foot wide storm drain openings at Eisenhower and Coachella that intake exterior streets' storm and surface waters directly to our basin 5. Our Coachella storm drains are presently the largest on Eisenhower from Washington to Avenue 50. Consequently, we take in well over 50% of any substantial runoff from 134 Eisenhower, filling our Basin 5 to maximum capacity, blocking any of our other 4 basins storm water from entering basin 5 and backing -up any of our street surface waters into our clubhouse, homes and other developed property. The two recent storms have each cost us over $500,000 each. During the last storm, some of our clubhouse damage was covered by insurance, but if this condition is not remedied, we may not even be able to insure for such events. We believe the well researched and reasoned 5.1 alternative must be achieved and budgeted by the City, through bonds or by using some of our over $1,200 per unit annual mitigation fees. It is clearly the solution that should have been done years ago prior to the start of any development on Eisenhower to protect the area from flooding. Furthermore it certainly appears 5.1 and 5.3 of the hydrology proposal further supports your (and our) earlier observation that the undeveloped parcel at the southwest corner of Coachella and Eisenhower is the only significant remaining, undeveloped, and logistical site for a large storm water retention basin to solve the risks and problems of the current conditions and allow for a measured outflow conveyance to La Quinta Country Club. While we have filed our claim with the City, we have not as yet joined any class action and would like to avoid doing so and also avoid the cost of litigation to recover for past damage by an assurance that the City will correct this ongoing design and maintenance problem by undertaking the 5.1 alternative. The existing condition and the less than complete solutions proposed by the studies will not provide us with such assurance. have discussed the issue with La Quinta Country Club board president, Peter Murphy (also a homeowner at Legacy Villas). Mr. Murphy supports 5.1 of the hydrology study. It is our opinion from witnessing three floods (2013, 2014, fire hydrant) and one uneventful rainfall that nothing less than a six -acre plus retention basin or multiple smaller basins of equivalent capacity on an undeveloped Boot Property are acceptable as a competent deterrent for flooding. This has become a life safety issue for our residents, during the September 8 2014, storm and for hours and days following our, homeowners and others along Eisenhower were stranded, unable to 135 leave or return home by car or on foot. In the event of a medical emergency, an ambulance would not have had access. We look forward to the resolution of this critical drainage issue. Sincerely, Melinda Travis, Board President Legacy Villas at La Quinta Peter Murphy, Board President, La Quinta Country Club [we �!1111111401.MI , 5 J. r -ti- t • _CMWL WA.RINGGGGGGJDR T e!N + C3 SCENES TAWAY WAY: OF1. ,MIJVIILETAiDR � I 7l7 a wm. -Y ,r • • Y an AL rw .. A S - i A , EIWERALD _R Z IV T ry _^ —� _ t tom:_ SANITA DR Main' VIAT PAL OmING .�FDRBES CIR m.RLANDjDR LEGEND Zone 1 - La Quanta Del Oro Zone 2 -Acacia La Quanta Highland La Quanta Vistas Rancho Ocotillo Quinterra Cactus Flower Zone 3 - Desert Pride arbella Sierra del Rey Topaz — Landscaped Parkway Maintained — by City of La Quanta Landscaped Entrance with Median Maintained by City of La Quanta CA RNES CIR LL Cj E� A LDEN CIR IRWIN Z LAG WEDR J ItUj 0 Yy' CA N TERRA A� 0 r�. M •L' F4 MR r I` ft , LTiTE -- 1 i r � 4 - 4 JWILES AVE - - co Wr V r� k , KRIS TET RA C f - -. � i� .p � . �' I .. � � � q t •�.•.., Uj try - � k 1.� e � �`�'r � °+�, �,' . j` .'t v IAN R ' .,� 77 co Co • .,e.z., _ y f _ co LQ Uj Y YY Uj � • a } UjP UjUj�, • 1 11, ��� � � , m � a _ �_ Uj Uj LU LL 1 L' r1PyDR ' i' w AIa x ri y� r I ESERT-KSTREAM I' till r M 4 I i ,E RA VI S TA r _, s SIER J r \ �' ., _ •ems" � - � 1.: -. ..>y ... ,: p^. ,•,r. �... _,RS ... .. - sir•._ '_ ` :` � d i . _ Y r�. .. ASHLYEW Q -10 I J .2� n E_ _ 1 ,x e- : J c a _ - - �.:� E■ .. � lye.. ' 1- _ � > - I (jpe y�- .I pis .'?6. [E■■!r` eAL L { f.. L�: .. {:.•3°- i /•. �,PT"y-I .'r>E, �:... y y# ,.; ^ , e`ti f'-r .aarw..:'I Y.- y I VENIDA � L 11�A S i7 .,vet. ,k .. I.�, , - :._, :.. _ .. .. . .. r eL.p* .. � -. .. �`rc`. , •+t ! - Y -_ r 1.. �( T y i' I 71111 7K r ?.. h f 41 ♦ ''C' a �"`S _ n - 'e 4 7f+ k Is-i c If IV Y+Y4'.1 , r. r -r b 11 m Ir ! i R! 1 °� r ,- � ' -. u •I v ty, i _ 1 r+r'F lA ' ti 8 I �1 � � 1 1 k' , t.4. � � SL•.. .m,R„ 'ti .da�`�,s„'�'� �E.: ���`��....c.:�.. .. �',� �`i����'5"�� P � "'� � ors` , .r.+.... '°eTp,...,,�• _ 1 M6 A � .t44 WES T WA R I-1 D � - -' �•x. •.,N n "r`i�. :� .y,, F.. - .�c+ - .vial 4� s' '1 -Ki �F `� � . � �"'` a c 3� s . , w V ' .. �'•...,- � .. : ,? . � _.. . - ,- rh... by .it,. -.. - ,y-�� dwr '$ -�. - - Y. 6 •��.�.. _ V•. t J Tug ReYnoval Le end. �z �r IN LQ l:r Tug Removal Retention I, _ mcrmmi_ I F' Zone Basin lT g/ '•� r , i u+ > r Sri 138 Landscape and Lighting Citywide Project List Budget: $750K / Year Facility I Existing Turf (S.F.) Remaining Turf (S.F.) Total Turf Removed (S.F.) Turf Removal (Per S.F.) Irrigation Repairs - Remaining Turf (Per S.F.) Basin Conversion or Existing Shrub/ Groundcover (S.F.) Turf Conversion to Desert Efficient - Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Shrub/GC Conversion to Desert Oasis -Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Pressure Wash, Seal, Paint Walls (Per S.F.) Repair Retaning Walls (Lump Sum) TOTAL Estimated Cost per Square Foot, as Applicable $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 $ 1.60 2016 Zone 1 Entrance - La Quinta Del Oro (Via Sevilla/Washington Street) - Median/N.Side Oi 4,957 0 4,957 $ 4,957 1,514 $ 32,355 Wall Painting - La Quinta Del Oro - Approximately 3720 SF $ 5,952 Subtotal $ 4,957 $ 32,355 $ 5,952 $ 43,264 Zone 2 Entrance - La Quinta Highlands (Fred Waring/Las Vistas Drive) 11,056 0 11,056 $ 11,056 $ 1,911 $ 64,835 Perimeter - La Quinta Highlands (Fred Waring Drive) 48,539 0 48,539 $ 48,539 $ 16,356 $ 324,475 Wall Painting - La Quinta Higlands - Fred Waring - Approximately 9000 SF $ 14,400 Wall Repair - Fred Waring and Adams $ 15,000 Subtotal $ 59,595 $ $ 389,310 $ $ 14,400 $ 15,000 $ 478,305 TOTAL $ 521,569 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% $ 40,422 Design 10.00% $ 52,157 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 50,853 City Administration 5.00% $ 26,078 Contingency 10.00% $ 69,108 TOTAL 2016 PROJECT BUDGET $ 760,187 2017 Zone 1 Perimeter - La Quinta Del Oro (Washington Street/Via Sevilla) 7,330 0 7,330 $ 7,330 13,580 $ 104,550 Subtotal $ 7,330 $ 104,550 $ - $ 111,880 Zone 2 Perimeter - La Quinta Highlands (Adams Street) 17,946 0 17,946 $ 17,946 $ 2,484 $ 102,150 Wall Painting - La Quinta Highlands (Adams) - Approximately 12,690 SF $ 20,304 Perimeter - Quinterra (Miles Avenue) 19,700 0 19,700 $ 19,700 8,820 $ 142,600 Wall Painting - Quinterra - Miles - Approximately 3480 SF $ 5,568 Entrance - Acacia (Miles Avenue/Seeley Drive) 1,430 0 1,430 $ 1,430 325 $ 8,775 Wall Painting - Acacia - Approximately 9,000 SF $ 14,400 Entrance - Cactus Flower (Dune Palms Road) 1,850 $ 9,250 Wall Painting - Cactus Flower - Dune Palms/Fred Waring - Approximately 18,600 SF $ 29,760 Subtotal $ 39,076 $ $ 262,775 $ 70,032 $ $ 371,883 TOTAL $ 483,763 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% $ 37,492 Design 10.00% $ 48,376 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 47,167 City Administration 5.00% $ 24,188 Inflation Rate 2.50% $ 12,094 Contingency 10.00% $ 65,308 TOTAL 2017 PROJECT BUDGET $ 718,388 139 Date Last Revised: 2/29/2016 Page 1 Landscape and Lighting Citywide Project List Budget: $750K / Year Facility Existing Turf (S.F.) Remaining Turf (S.F.) Total Turf Removed (S.F.) Turf Removal (Per S.F.) Irrigation Repairs - Remaining Turf (Per S.F.) Basin Conversion or Existing Shrub/ Groundcover (S.F.) Turf Conversion to Desert Efficient - Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Shrub/GC Conversion to Desert Oasis -Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Pressure Wash, Seal, Paint Walls (Per S.F.) Repair Retaning Walls (Lump Sum) TOTAL Estimated Cost per Square Foot, as Applicable $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 $ 1.60 2018 Zone 2 Perimeter - Acacia (Miles Ave (N Harland Drive/Seeley Drive) 25,348 0 25,348 $ 25,348 13,258 $ 193,030 Retention Basin - Quinterra 2 - Los Manos Drive (East Side) 14,400 5,760 8,640 $ 8,640 $ 7,200 8,640 $ 34,560 Retention Basin - Rancho Ocotillo #2 (Azul) 11,908 4,763 7,145 $ 7,145 $ 5,954 7,145 $ 28,579 Subtotal $ 41,133 $ 13,154 $ 193,030 $ 63,139 $ 310,456 Zone 3 Perimeter - Topaz (Dune Palms Road) 26,040 $ 130,200 Wall Painting - Topaz/Marbella - All Perimeters - Approximately 35,700 SF $ 57,120 Subtotal $ 130,200 $ $ 57,120 $ 187,320 TOTAL $ 497,776 Soft Costs Professional 7.75 38,578 Design 10.00% $ 49,778 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 48,533 City Administration 5.00% $ 24,889 Inflation Rate 2.50% 12,444 Contingency 10.00% $ 67,200 TOTAL 2018 PROJECT BUDGET $ 739,197 2019 Zone 2 Retention Basin - Quinterra 1 - Los Manos Drive (West Side) 30,000 12,000 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 15,000 18,000 $ 72,000 Retention Basin - Rancho Ocotillo #1 (Ocotillo) 29,164 11,666 17,498 $ 17,498 $ 14,582 17,498 $ 69,994 Subtotal $ 35,498 $ 29,582 $ 141,994 $ 207,074 Zone 3 Perimeter - Adams St West Side (Westward Ho Drive -Bayberry Lane) 5,875 0 5,875 $ 5,875 15,540 $ 107,075 Wall Painting - Desert Pride - Westward Ho/Adams/Miles - Approximately 33,340 SF $ 53,344 Subtotal $ 5,875 $ 107,075 $ 53,344 $ 166,294 TOTAL $ 507,318 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% 39,317 Design 10.00% $ 50,732 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 49,464 City Administration 5.00% $ 25,366 Inflation Rate 2.50% 12,683 Contingency 10.00% $ 68,488 TOTAL 2019 PROJECT BUDGET $ 753,367 140 Date Last Revised: 2/29/2016 Page 2 Landscape and Lighting Citywide Project List Budget: $750K / Year Facility Existing Turf (S.F.) Remaining Turf (S.F.) Total Turf Removed (S.F.) Turf Removal (Per S.F.) Irrigation Repairs - Remaining Turf (Per S.F.) Basin Conversion or Existing Shrub/ Groundcover (S.F.) Turf Conversion to Desert Efficient - Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Shrub/GC Conversion to Desert Oasis -Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Pressure Wash, Seal, Paint Walls (Per S.F.) Repair Retaning Walls (Lump Sum) TOTAL Estimated Cost per Square Foot, as Applicable $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 $ 1.60 2020 $ 165,247 Zone 2 Retention Basin - Acacia (Miles Avenue/N Harland Drive) 68,853 27,541 41,312 $ 41,312 $ 34,427 41,312 Subtotal $ 41,312 $ 34,427 $ $ 165,247 $ 240,986 Zone 3 Retention Basin - Del Rey (Bridgette Way/Desert Stream Drive) 72,000 28,800 43,200 $ 43,200 $ 36,000 43,200 $ 172,800 Subtotal $ 43,200 $ 36,000 $ 172,800 $ 252,000 TOTAL $ 492,986 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% $ 38,206 Design 10.00% $ 49,299 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 48,066 City Administration 5.00% $ 24,649 Inflation Rate 2.50% $ 12,325 Contingency 10.00% $ 66,553 TOTAL 2020 PROJECT BUDGET $ 732,083 2021 Zone 2 Retention Basin - Topaz (Desert Stream Drive/Dune Palms Road) 110,364 49,664 60,700 $ 60,700 $ 62,080 60,700 $ 242,801 Subtotal $ 60,700 $ 62,080 $ 242,801 $ 365,581 Zone South Perimeter - Eisenhower Drive West Side (Tampico to the Bridge) 10,950 0 10,950 $ 10,950 $ - 13,650 $ 123,000 Subtotal $ 10,950 $ $ 123,000 $ 133,950 TOTAL $ 499,531 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% $ 38,714 Design 10.00% $ 49,953 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 48,704 City Administration 5.00% $ 24,977 Inflation Rate 2.50% $ 12,488 Contingency TOTAL 2021 PROJECT BUDGET 10.00% $ 67,437 $ 741,803 2022 Zone 2 Retention Basin - La Quinta Highlands 117,750 58,875 58,875 $ 58,875 $ 73,594 58,875 $ 235,500 Retention Basin - Cactus Flower #1 (Goldenrod Circle) 29,430 11,772 17,658 $ 17,658 $ 14,715 17,658 $ 70,632 Retention Basin - Cactus Flower #2 (Foxtail Circle) 12,493 4,997 7,496 $ 7,496 $ 6,247 7,496 $ 29,983 Subtotal $ 84,029 $ 94,555 $ 336,115 $ 514,699 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% $ 39,889 Design 10.00% $ 51,470 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 50,183 City Administration 5.00% $ 25,735 Inflation Rate 2.50% $ 12,867 141 Date Last Revised: 2/29/2016 Page 3 Landscape and Lighting Citywide Project List Budget: $750K / Year Facility Existing Turf (S.F.) Remaining Turf (S.F.) Total Turf Removed (S.F.) Turf Removal (Per S.F.) Irrigation Repairs - Remaining Turf (Per S.F.) Basin Conversion or Existing Shrub/ Groundcover (S.F.) Turf Conversion to Desert Efficient - Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Shrub/GC Conversion to Desert Oasis -Includes Drip Irrigation (Per S.F.) Pressure Wash, Seal, Paint Walls (Per S.F.) Repair Retaning Walls (Lump Sum) TOTAL Estimated Cost per Square Foot, as Applicable $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 $ 1.60 Contingency 10.00% TOTAL 2022 PROJECT BUDGET $ 69,484 $ 764,328 2023 Zone 2 Retention Basin - Cactus Flower #3 (Iris Court) 33,952 13,581 20,371 $ 20,371 $ 16,976 21,011 $ 84,045 Retention Basin - Cactus Flower #4 (Star Flower) 10,625 4,250 6,375 $ 6,375 $ 5,313 6,375 $ 25,500 Subtotal $ 26,746 $ 22,289 $ 109,545 $ 158,580 Soft Costs Professional 7.75% $ 12,290 Design 10.00% $ 15,858 Inspection/Testing/Survey 9.75% $ 15,462 City Administration 5.00% $ 7,929 Inflation Rate 2.50% $ 3,964 Contingency 10,00% $ 21,408 TOTAL 2023 PROJECT BUDGET $ 235,491 GRAND TOTAL - ALL YEARS 694,070 233,669 460,401 423,238 $ 5,444,845 142 Date Last Revised: 2/29/2016 Page 4 ATTACH M ENT 4 80-955 Avenue 52 La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: (760) 393-5286 Fax: (760)398-5788 December 2, 2015 Mr. Tim Jonasson Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Development Impact Fee Reimbursement Agreement Tract29894-2 Street & Raised Landscape Median Improvements to Ave 52 Dear Mr. Jonasson: Please accept this letter as ND La Quinta Partners, LLC ("Developer") request to reimburse the Developer One Million Three Hundred Forty-four Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Dollars ($1,344,690) for those certain improvements identified in the agreement between the Developer and the City of La Quinta dated December 4, 2007. The Developer has completed its obligations under this agreement and now respectfully requests the city include this reimbursement in the upcoming budget review for the city's Capital Improvement Project. Thank you for your consideration and please provide us with information regarding the approval process for this request. Very truly yours, 11"6wid7 1 IV Bruce D. Maize General Manager Cc: Ms. Amy Yu; Mr. Doug Siebold Enclosure: Reimbursement Agreement 143 TRACT MAP No. 29894-2 STREET AND RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS To AVENUE 52 (All American Canal Bridge to East of Madison Street) THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this // 6� day of Z.d e,,,6e,,,,- , 2007, by and between ND La Quinta Partners, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Developer", and the City of La Quinta, California, a California Municipal Corporation (the "City"). RECITALS A. Developer is the subdivider and developer of property in the City of La Quinta subject to the provisions of Tract 29894-2 ("Tract") which area is currently known as The Hideaway and which lies east of Jefferson Street and west of Madison Street between Avenue 54 and Avenue 52. The Agreement excludes all other tracts within the Hideaway Development. B. Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 29894 (attached to the Plan as Exhibit B) adopted by the City Council on November 21, 2000, obligate Developer to make Arterial Core Improvements that included construction of the inside lanes of travel and an 18-foot wide landscaped median, as delineated in Exhibit A of this Agreement, to that section of Avenue 52 that adjoins the Tract ("Required Improvements"). C. The City has identified source of funds from which it desires to reimburse Developer for the Required Improvements at a point in the future to be determined by the City. The fund source is the Transportation Component of the Development Impact Fee. All land developments in the City are required to pay Development Impact Fees ("Fees") pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Program ("Program"), adopted by the City on June 15, 1999 and revised July 5, 2006. A portion of Development Impact Fee known as the "Transportation Component" provides future funding for specific arterial street improvements located throughout the City. D , Currently, the Transportation Component of the 2006 DIF Program contains cost details for Avenue 52 (Jefferson Street to 1/2 Mile East of Madison Street). The cost details (Exhibit B) reflect a DIF totaling $3,244,108.88 for Avenue 52 (Jefferson Street to 1/2. Mile East of Madison Street). The Required Improvements for Avenue 52 are estimated to comprise of $1,344,690. The $1,344,690 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Budget Amount". However, this estimate includes the pro rata distribution percentage that was subject to change due to the DIF updated prior to completion of work. Reimbursement Agreement —Avenue52DIFagreement-0 2.DOC Page I of 9 E. The Developer has requested that the City reimburse the Developer for cost of street improvements on Avenue 52 between the All American Canal Bridge and East of Madison Street that are eligible for reimbursement pursuant to the Program. F. The City Engineer has reviewed the scope and cost associated with Required Improvements and determined that the Required Improvements are included in the Program and are eligible for reimbursement, subject to the cap referenced in Recitals G and H. G. The City Engineer has determined that the Program established a total budget of $1,740,310 for all eligible improvements involving that segment of Avenue 52 between Jefferson Street and Madison Street. However, the Developer has not constructed all of the eligible Required Improvements because of previous obligations of properties along the north side and the proposed City of La Quinta CIP Project 2005-02 and improvements to be constructed by Tract Map No. 30138 and therefore is eligible for only $1,344,690 of the budget. H. The City Engineer has determined that no further street improvements to Avenue 52 between the All American Canal Bridge and Madison Street are required by the developer and therefore is ineligible for further DIF Reimbursement outside of this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: Responsibilities of Developer. Developer has constructed portions of the Required Improvements (Partial Work Completed), as delineated in Exhibit A, and has borne all cost associated with said improvements. The Required Improvements were constructed in accordance with all applicable City and State codes and regulations, including securing bonds and guarantees pursuant to Section 14.16.180 of the Municipal Code of the City of La Quinta. 2. Responsibilities of City: (a) Approval or Disapproval of Expenses. The City Engineer shall either approve or disapprove the invoices and submit the approved invoices for credit and/or reimbursement in accordance with this Agreement. The City Engineer shall provide Developer with a written explanation for any portion of an invoice that is disapproved. Developer recognizes that the City Engineer's approval of the costs does not guarantee that the costs will be reimbursed. Instead, the City Engineer approval is a condition precedent necessary for the costs to be processed for credit or reimbursement. (b) Reimbursement from the DIF. Developer is eligible for reimbursement at some point in the future from the Transportation Component Fees collected on other projects. Developer recognizes that at this point in time, the City cannot commit to a time certain for reimbursement, in as much as the City is entitled to establish the priority of Reimbursement Agreement-Avenue521)Wagreement-02.00C Page 2 of 9 spending for the Transportation Component Fees. Developer further recognizes that the City Council has indicated that it will be considering a policy regarding the priority of reimbursement, and that this reimbursement will be subject to the policy. In no event will the amount of reimbursement exceed the Budget Amount ($1,344,690). 3. Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations incurred herein so long as the injuring party commences to cure such injuring action within ten (ten) days of service of such notice and completes the cure within forty-five (45) days after the notification, or such longer period as may be agreed upon by both parties to this Agreement. 4. Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including the filing of a lien or other legal action to compel' payment of the Reimbursement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and legal costs from the losing party. 5. Indemnification. Developer shall defend, Indemnify and hold harmless employees, representatives and agents ("Indemnified Parties"), from and against those actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, arising out of any liability or claim for liability, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by City) and for errors and omissions committed by Developer, its officers, employees representatives, and agents, which arise out of acts or activities of Developer's or Developer's Officers, employees, agents or representatives ("Claims"), whether or not such act or activity is authorized by this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own negligence or that of its officers or employees. In the event the Indemnified Parties are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding in any way involving such Claims, Developer shall provide a defense to the Indemnified Parties, or at the City's option, reimburse the Indemnified Parties their costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in defense of such Claims. In addition, Developer shall be obligated to promptly pay any final judgment or portion thereof rendered against the Indemnified Parities. 6. City Officers and Employees; Non -Discrimination. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Developer or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer or to its successor or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force following the date it has been executed by both parties until the listed Funding Source has paid the allowable Developer claims. 8. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth Reimbursement Agreement—Avenue52DIFagreement-02.DOC Page 3 of 9 below. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing, if mailed as provided in this Section. To City: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: City Engineer (760) 777-7075 To Developer: ND La Quinta Partners, LLC 80-955 Avenue 52 P.O. Box 1482 La Quinta, CA 92247 Attn: John P. Gamlin (760) 391-5072 9. Assignment of Agreement. The Developer may not assign, sublet, hypothecate, encumber, or transfer (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) its obligations hereunder to any party without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld in the City's sole and absolute discretion. 10. General Provisions. A. Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements set forth herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors of the parties hereto. B. Neither party to this Agreement relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Agreement. C. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted with respect to the laws of the State of California. D. Any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies provided for herein. E. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. Reimbursement Agreement -Avenue52DIFagreement-v 1 2.DOC Page 4 of 9 F. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which when taken together, shall constitute one fully executed document. 11. Severability. In the event that any provision or provisions of this Agreement are held unenforceable, all provisions not so held shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Authority of Signatories. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF LA QUINTA: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Date ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Veronica Mor City of La Qu , CIVIC City Clerk ND La Quinta Partners, LLC 80-955 Avenue 52 P.O. Box 1482 La Quinta, CA 92247 A—, A� r--- M. Katherine Jeo6n, City Attorney City of La Quinta Date Title; John Gamlin, Senior Vice President — East of Madison, L -C CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. Countyof 1vQ 1d-p, On ooernbx'al.f300_1 before me, �Y-k4v,, L. ter �Jotaru Rubl I[L D2U Na6f and TMe of ORicer (e g , -Jane 06 Nctay Puh4cl personally appeared '3 tvl Nar,e(i) of Sgner(s) I ❑ personally known to me 9 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) istw subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sheittwy executed the same in his/hetlttrair authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/FW/thsir signatures) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. esS-a,ae of "WY P•.,bicC OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top cf thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: 0 f 899 Nanonel Notary Aswc don - 9350 Dc Bola Ave , P 0 Bcx 2402 • Chatswodh. CA gi 3l a 2402 • www nat onstida y mg Prod No 5907 Reorder Cal Tod -Free 1-800-97646[W 150 AVENUE 52 — All American Canal Bridge to Madison Street DIF PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - TRACT 29894-2 MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING AVENUE 52 STREET AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS - (All American Canal to Madison Street) Work Completed (Eligible for DIF Reimbursement) Item # Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost 1 Street and Landscaped Median L.S. $1,344,690 1 $1,344,690 Improvements - Required Off -Site Street Improvements Eligible for Reimbursements from Development Impact Fee Fund (Per Tetra Tech Plan Set No. 04015, Sta. 39 + 00 to 62+80) Maximum Reimbursement Funding For Required Improvements (not to exceed): $1,344,690 Reimbursement Agreement — Avenue52DIFagreement-vl 2.000 Page 7 of 9 July 5, 2006 DIE Cost Detail Avenue 52 (Jefferson Street to Y2Mile East of Madison Street) Reimbursement Agreement - Avenue52DIFagreement-v1 2.DOC Page 6 of 9 152 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (AIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial Project: Avenue 52 (Jefferson Street to 112 mile east of Madison) descrietlnn The proposed improvements include the installation of median island, median island landscape, irrigation and electrical, and the adjustment of the centerline profile to implement urban drainage concept for the future Widening of the north and south sides, from Jefferson St. to Madison; and the installation of half a media island, median island landscape, irrigation and electrical and the adjustment of the centerline profile to implement urban drainage concept for future widening of the south side, from Madison St. to 112 mile east o Madison. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $208,921.63 $208,921.63 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $189,928.75 $189.928.75 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $81.787.50 $81,787.50' 4 UNCLASSIFIED FILL CY 4506 $14.00 $63,000.00 5 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 4500 $14.00 $63,000.00 6 6" CURB LF 13200 $10.00 S132,000.00 7 4.5" AC OVER 6" AB SF 1980M $2.65 $524,700.00 8 SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000,00 9 LANDSCAPE SF 118800 $3.50 $415,800.00 10 IRRIGATION SF 118800 $2.50 $297,000.00 11 ELECTRICAL SF 118800 $2.50 $297,000.00 SUB TOTAL $2,298,137.89 Estimated Soft Costs: Jul-06 Design: 2 9 Ins ectionfTesb2 urve : 1 8,10 .69 C" tnin: 110 6.89 Contingency.0 $423,144.64 Total Estimate: 3,2 4,108.8 Note: The project also includes the construction of a new outside lane adjacent to Polo Estates. July 5, 2006 Update Appendix 1 (8 of 20) Exhibit C July 5, 2006 DIF Fee by Development Category Reimbursement Agreement — Avenue52DIFagreement-vI IDDC Page 9 of 9 City of La Quinia — Development Impact Fee Study F. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES Table S-1 summarizes the recommended impact fees by development category and facility type. The amounts shown in that table based on the analysis in subsequent sections of this report. G. PROJECTED REVENUE Table S-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to build out, assuming that the fees are adopted as recommended and that all development anticipated in this report actually occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars. Table S-2 ' Trap nation $44 09 035 Parks $UjO58,823 Civic Center $ t2 971484 Fire Station $1,917 542 Ubraries $4 790 615 Conununity Centers S1,005,791 Street and Park Maintenance S1,492,195 t Residential- Single Family DdAdied 2 Dwclling Unit Rmidmdal- Single Family Attached a Re3ide ntial —Multi family and other S 1,000 Square Fed of Gross Building Area 6 Project Rcvcnue in currcat dollars July 5, 2006 Update Page 4 ?? itUIL1)LRS 80-955 Avenue 52 La Quints, CA 92253 Phone: (760) 393-5286 Fax: (760) 398-5788 February 17, 2016 Mr. Tim Jonasson Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 99953 Re: City of La Quinta Reimbursement Agreement Tract 29894 - Street Improvements to Madison (Avenue 52 to Avenue 54) Dear Mr. Jonasson: The City Council approved the above referenced reimbursement agreement on January 19, 2016 and this letter shall serve as ND La Quinta Partners, LLC ("Developer') request to reimburse the Developer Four Hundred Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Ninety- nine and Fifty Cents ($418,399.50) for those certain improvements identified in the agreement between the Developer and the City of La Quinta dated January 26, 2016. The Developer has completed its obligations under this agreement and now respectfully requests the city include this reimbursement in the upcoming budget review for the city's Capital Improvement Project. Thank you for your consideration and please provide us with information regarding the approval process for this request. Very trruly yours, &"Lve�ft- Bruce D. Maize General Manager BDM/ me Cc: Ms. Amy Yu; Mr. Doug Siebold Enclosure: Reimbursement Agreement 156 I3CII...UFsftS 80-955 Avenue 52 La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: (760) 393-5286 Fax: (760) 398-5788 December 2, 2015 Mr. Tim Jonasson Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Development Impact Fee Reimbursement Agreement Tract 33076-1 Street & Raised Landscape Median Improvements to Ave 52 Dear Mr. Jonasson: Please accept this letter as East of Madison, LLC ("Developer') request to reimburse the Developer Six Hundred Sixty-nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Dollars ($669,920) for those certain improvements identified in the agreement between the Developer and the City of La Quinta dated December 4, 2007. The Developer has completed its obligations under this agreement and now respectfully requests the city include this reimbursement in the upcoming budget review for the city's Capital Improvement Project. Thank you for your consideration and please provide us with information regarding the approval process for this request. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Maize 5 General Manager BDM/me Cc: Ms. Amy Yu; Mr. Doug Siebold Enclosure: Reimbursement Agreement 157 CITY OF LA QUINTA TRACT MAP No. 33076 - 1 STREET AND RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS To AVENUE 52 (MADISON STREET TO 1/2 MILE EAST OF MADISON STREET) THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ,lor4 -- day of - -24--4-qe,,17,6 e,-2007, by and between East of Madison, LLC, a Delaware limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of La Quinta, California, a California Municipal Corporation (the "City"). RECITALS: A. Developer is the subdivider and developer of property in the City of La Qui nta ("Tract") subject to the provisions of Tract 33076-1 (the "Tract"), which area is currently known as Madison Club and which lies south of Avenue 52 and north of Avenue 54 between Madison Street and Monroe Street in the City of La Quinta. B. Conditions of Approval for Tract Map No. 33076 (attached to the Plan as Exhibit B) adopted by the City Council on February 1, 2005, obligate Developer to construct the south half of the street and half width of the landscaped median improvements to the portion of Avenue 52 lying adjacent to the tract (the "Required Improvements"). C. Pursuant to the City Development Impact Fee Program ("Program"), adopted June 15, 1999 and revised July 5, 2006, the Developer is required to pay Development Impact Fees ("Fees") to fund these and other improvements as the Development is constructed. Said Fees include a Transportation Improvement Fee component ("Transportation Fee") that funds regional serving transportation improvements. D. Pursuant to Section 10, Implementation, B. Administration, of the Program, if the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged to that project, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1 . Responsibilities of Developer. Developer shall construct the Required Improvements defined in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and will bear the cost thereof even if the actual costs of constructing the Required Improvements exceeds the Budget Amount as shown on Exhibit A ("Budget Amount"). Upon receipt of an executed DIF Reimbursement Agreement and acceptance of the improvements by the City, the Developer shall submit invoices and supporting documentation for those eligible costs per Exhibit A. Reimbursement Agreement - C5-Avenue52 DlFagreemt Madison Club 1 50a ge 1 of 6 2. Responsibilities of City. (a) Approval or Disapproval of Expenses. The City Engineer shall either approve or disapprove the invoices and submit the approved invoices for credit and/or reimbursement in accordance with this Agreement. The City Engineer shall provide Developer with a written explanation for any portion of an invoice that is disapproved. Developer recognizes that the City Engineer's approval of the costs does not guarantee that the costs will be reimbursed. Instead, the City Engineer approval is a condition precedent necessary for the costs to be processed for credit or reimbursement. (b) Issuance of Credit. Upon the completion of the Required Improvements, and approval of costs by the City Engineer, the City will issue a credit for eligible costs to Developer or Developer's successor in interest which credit can be applied against the Transportation Component of the DIF fees otherwise due and payable for building permits within the Project. (c) Additional Reimbursement from the City's Future Transportation Component Fees. To the extent that Developer's eligible costs for the Required Improvements are not credited or reimbursed pursuant to Section 2(b), Developer is eligible for reimbursement at some point in the future from the Transportation Component Fees collected on other projects. Developer recognizes that at this point in time, the City cannot commit to a time certain for reimbursement, in as much as the City is entitled to establish the priority of spending for the Transportation Component Fees. Developer further recognizes that the City Council has indicated that it will be considering a policy regarding the priority of reimbursement, and that if adopted, the timing of its reimbursement will be subject to the policy. In no event will the amount of reimbursement exceed the amount designated in the DIF Program for the portion or percentage of roadway improvements comprising the Required Improvement. 3. Amount of Reimbursement. Subject to the limitation in Section 2, reimbursement shall be for actual costs incurred by Developer for items eligible for reimbursement and for any additional items required in the course of construction of the Required Improvements and agreed to in writing by the parties hereto. The Developer shall not be reimbursed beyond the Budget Amount. 4. Warranty. Developer agrees to obtain from the contractor(s) constructing the Required Improvements a warranty in favor of the City to repair or replace of faulty work or materials for a period of one year following the date that the Required Improvements are accepted by the City Council. 5. Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations incurred herein so long as the injuring party commences to cure such injuring action within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure within forty-five (45) days after the notification, or such longer period as may be agreed upon by both parties to this Agreement. Reimbursement Agreement - C5-Avenue52 DIFagreemt Madison Club 15 Page 2 of 6 6. Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including the filing of a lien or other legal action to compel payment of the Reimbursement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and legal costs from the losing party. 7. " Indemnification. Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, representatives and agents ("Indemnified Parties"), from and against those actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, arising out of any liability or claim for liability, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by City) and for errors and omissions committed by Developer, its officers, employees representatives, and agents, which arise out of acts or activities of Developer's or Developer's Officers, employees, agents or representatives ("Claims"), whether or not such act or activity is authorized by this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own negligence or that of its officers or employees. In the event the Indemnified Parties are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding in any way involving such Claims, Developer shall provide a defense to the Indemnified Parties, or at the City's option, reimburse the Indemnified Parties their costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in defense of such Claims. In addition, Developer shall be obligated to promptly pay any final judgment or portion thereof rendered against the Indemnified Parities. 8. City Officers and Employees; Non -Discrimination. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Developer or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer or to its successor or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 9. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force and in effect until each party has fully performed its obligations and all required reimbursements have been issued. 10. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. To City: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760/777-7075 Attn: City Engineer To Developer: East of Madison, LLC 80-955 Avenue 52 Reimbursement Agreement — C5-Avenue52 DlFagreemt Madison Club 16 $age 3 of 6 La Quinta, California 92253 Attn: Cindy Zamorez 760/393-5288 11. Assignment of Agreement. The Developer may not assign, sublet, hypothecate, encumber, or transfer (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) its obligations hereunder to any party without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld in the City's sole and absolute discretion. 12. General Provisions. A. Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements set forth herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors of the parties hereto. B. Neither party to this Agreement relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Agreement. C. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted with respect to the laws of the State of California. D. Any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies provided for herein. E. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. F. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which when taken together, shall constitute one fully executed document. 13. Severability. In the event that any provision or provisions of this Agreement are held unenforceable, all provisions not so held shall remain in full force and effect. 14. Authority of Signatories. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. 161 Reimbursement Agreement - C5-Avenue52 DIFagreemt Madison Club Page 4 of 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF LA QUINTA: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager , / V"' /-" 7 Date ATTEST: Veronica 1`46Ktecino, CMC City Clerk City of Latuinta Approved as to Form: Az ;r, M. Katherine Jensd< City Attorney City of La Quinta Date Date Developer: East of Madison, LLC 80-995 Avenue 52 La Quinta, California 92253 Date I — SA Title: seA�'Cv" V11-cc PV-6cc�4 LLC 9M Date Title: Reimbursement Agreement — C5-Avenue52 DlFagreemt Madison Club 1 6f?age 5 of 6 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California _1 County of Rxt�y-S1V�e., ss. On before me, &n+'u! Noturu I Date Nanle and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Pubic") personally appeared [In GaWA Names) of Signer(s) El personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/.v subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s4/thsy executed the same in his/h`%/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. f2 h C/4 e Z,&,. Sgnature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document c+ y� L-�. cum oeo Title or e of ocume wj Document Date: Z�.I%.t? Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of lh�me here Corporate Officer — Title(s): 11 Partner — [I Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact Cl Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: s. 1999 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave.. P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 • vnvw. nationainotaryorg Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827 163 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS —TRACT NO. 33076 — 1 [DELETE INITIAL CAPS] Item # Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost AVENUE 52 STREET AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS MADISON STREET TO 1 /2 MILE EAST OF MADISON STREET 1 One Lane (INSIDE LANE) Street Improvements (South Side) - Required Off -Site Street Improvements Eligible for Reimbursements From Development Impact Fee Fund 2 '/2 of Landscape Median Improvements (South Side) - Required Off -Site Street Improvements Eligible for Reimbursements From Development Impact Fee Fund L.S. $191,520 1 $191,520.00 (not to exceed) L.S. $478,400 1 $478,400.00 (not to exceed) Total Cost for Required Improvements, not to exceed $669,920.00 Reimbursement Agreement—05-Avenue52 DlFagreemt Madison Club Page 6 of 6 164 11 U 3 LA) ?', s2 80-955 Avenue 52 La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: (760) 393-5286 Fax: (760) 398-5788 February 17, 2016 Mr. Tim Jonasson Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: City of La Quinta Reimbursement Agreement Tract 33076-1 Street & Raised Landscape Median Improvements (Avenue 52 to Avenue 54) and Street Improvements to Avenue 54 Dear Mr. Jonasson: The City Council approved the above referenced reimbursement agreement on January 19, 2016 and this letter shall serve as East of Madison, LLC ("Developer') request to reimburse the Developer Nine Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-five Dollars and Fifty Cents ($976,265.50) for those certain improvements identified in the agreement between the Developer and the City of La Quinta dated January 26, 2016. The Developer has completed its obligations under this agreement and now respectfully requests the city include this reimbursement in the upcoming budget review for the city's Capital Improvement Project. Thank you for your consideration and please provide us with information regarding the approval process for this request. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Maize General Manager BDM/ me Cc: Ms. Amy Yu; Mr. Doug Siebold Enclosure: Reimbursement Agreement 165 To]] G Brothers America's Luxury Home Builder° April 1, 2016 City of La Quinta Mr. Tim Jonasson Public Works Director/City Engineer P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 RE: Mountain View Country Club Avenue 50/Avenue 52 Cost Reimbursements Dear Mr. Jonasson, Pursuant to an agreement by and between Toll Brothers Inc and the City of La Quinta dated February 6, 2008, Toll hereby request reimbursement of the cost to improve Avenue 50 and Avenue 52 from the "DIF" fund during this Fiscal year 2016. Toll completed these improvements during the construction of the Mountain View Country Club and submitted all supporting documents to your staff through correspondence dating back to 2007- 2008. Total amount being requested is $274,657.89 as detailed in the attached spread sheet that was previously submitted to the City in a letter to Mr. Ed Wimmer dated March 26, 2008. It is our understanding that the City is completing its fiscal year budget in April and we would like consideration of our reimbursement as part of the City's fiscal year budget. Please review our request and notify us when this reimbursement will be refunded. You can send all correspondence to me at the following address: Toll Brothers Inc. 10 Inverness Drive East Suite 125 Englewood, CO 80112 I can also be reached at 303 708-0730. Sincerely, Terry Hodge Regional Land Development Vice President New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL Colorado Division 10 Inverness Drive East, Suite 125 • Englewood, CO 80112 • (303) 708-0730 • Fax (303) 708-0731 tollbrothers.com 166 MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTRY CLUB DIF FUND REIMBURSEMENT LARRY JACINTO CONSTRUCTION/SUPERIOR READY MIX PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT MADE ON MADE ON MADE ON MADE ON MADE ON PAYMENT TOTAL BY 11/05/02 03/24/03 04/29/03 08/01/03 08/08/03 STREET AVE 50 $ 14,556.09 $ 456.00 $ 770.00 $ 3,950.00 $ 19,732.09 AVE 52 $ 8,457.00 $ 8,457.00 CONCRETE TOTAL $ 28,189.09 ZOLTAN PAVING & GRADING PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT TOTAL BY MADE ON MADE ON MADE ON MADE ON MADE ON STREET 11 /15/02 11 /18/03 11 /18/03 12/02/03 12/23/03 AVE 50 $159,330.00 $ 159,330.00 AVE 52 $ 9,585.00 $ 5,065.00 $ 39,358.28 $ 33,130.52 $ 87,138.80 ASPHALT TOTAL $ 246,468.80 STREETS GRAND TOTAL $ 274,657.89 167 168 CITY OF LA QUINTA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUE SUMMARY ATTACH M ENT 5 General Fund RDA Loan DIF Project # Project Description Operating Repayment Quimby Funds Transportation Measure A Other Revenue Other Revenue Source Total 199702 Sidewalks - Various Locations 55,000 55,000 199703 Handicap Ramps - Various Locations 20,000 20,000 200902 Madison Street (Avenue 50 to Avenue 52) 675,945 675,945 201207 Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements 1,000,000 1,000,000 201307 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Improvements 235,000 235,000 201313 Citywide Preventative Maintenance Plan Improvements 50,000 Equip Replacement Fund 50,000 201503 Eisenhower Drive at Montezuma Roundabout 289,900 289,900 201601 HSIP Intersection Improvements 126,100 1,134,300 Federal HSIP Grant 1,260,400 201602 HSIP Traffic Signal Interconnect Network Upgrade 1,971,000 Federal HSIP Grant 1,971,000 201603 North La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion 750,000 750,000 201604 Fritz Burns Park - Tennis and Pickleball Court Conversion 437,250 437,250 201605 City Hall Internal Security System 260,000 260,000 201606 Miscellaneous Village ADA Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Improvements 105,634 CDBG Funding 105,634 FY 2016/2017 SUBTOTAL: 1,075,000 1,010,000 437,250 675,945 651,000 3,260,934 7,110,129 2017/2018 199702 Sidewalks - Various Locations 55,000 55,000 199703 Handicap Ramps - Various Locations 20,000 20,000 201207 Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements 1,000,000 1,000,000 201307 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Improvements 235,000 235,000 201313 Citywide Preventative Maintenance Plan Improvements 50,000 Equip Replacement Fund 50,000 201603 North La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion 750,000 750,000 201701 Highway 111 at La Quinta Center Drive (Dual Left Turn Lanes) 600,000 600,000 201702 New Traffic Signal (Caleo Bay at Avenue 47) 430,000 430,000 201703 La Quinta Skate Park Conversion to Basketball Courts 263,000 263.000 FY 2017/2018 SUBTOTAL: 1,075,000 750,000 263,000 430,000 835,000 50,000 3,403,000 2018/2019 199702 Sidewalks - Various Locations 55,000 55,000 199703 Handicap Ramps - Various Locations 20,000 20,000 201207 Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements 1,000,000 1,000,000 201303 Fritz Burns Pool Improvements 1,321,000 1,321,000 201307 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Improvements 235,000 235,000 201313 Citywide Preventative Maintenance Plan Improvements 50,000 Equip Replacement Fund 50,000 201603 North La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion 750,000 750,000 201801 New Traffic Signal (Washington Street @ Lake La Quinta Drive) 430,000 430,000 201802 Fred Waring Drive Reconstruction 670,000 670,000 201803 Avenue 50 Bridge Spanning the Evacuation Channel 976,750 15,372,250 CVAG/Federal HBP 16,349,000 FY 2018/2019 SUBTOTAL: 1,075,000 750,000 1,321,000 1,406,750 905,000 15,422,250 20,880,000 2019/2020 199702 Sidewalks - Various Locations 55,000 55,000 199703 Handicap Ramps - Various Locations 20,000 20,000 201207 Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements 1,000,000 1,050,000 201307 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Improvements 235,000 235,000 201313 Citywide Preventative Maintenance Plan Improvements 50,000 Equip Replacement Fund 50,000 201603 North La Quinta Parkway Conversion 750,000 750,000 201901 Washington Street at Washington Park Left Turn Lane 160,000 160,000 201902 Villaqe Circulation Improvements 646,000 646,000 FY 2019/2020 SUBTOTAL: 1,075,000 750,000 0 0 1,041,000 50,000 2,916,000 2020/2021 199702 Sidewalks - Various Locations 55,000 55,000 199703 Handicap Ramps - Various Locations 20,000 20,000 201207 Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements 1,000,000 1,000,000 201307 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Improvements 235,000 235,000 201313 Citywide Preventative Maintenance Plan Improvements 50,000 Equip Replacement Fund 50,000 201603 North La Quinta Parkway Turf Conversion 750,000 750,000 202001 Two Lane Roundabout (Madison Street @ Avenue 54) 846,000 846,000 202002 New Traffic Signal (Dune Palms Road @ Corporate Center Drive) 430,000 430,000 202003 Highway 111/Simon Drive Dual Left Turn Lanes 650,000 650,000 202004 Washington Street at Miles Dual Left Turn Lanes 382,500 382,500 City of Indian Wells 765,000 FY 2020/2021 SUBTOTAL: 1,075,000 750,000 0 846,000 1,697,500 432,500 4,801,000 TOTAL FISCAL YEARS 2016117 THROUGH 2O20/21: 5,375,000 4,010,000 2,021,250 3,358,695 5,129,500 19,215,684 39,110,129 169 170 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 3 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE. DISCUSS WASTE SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH BURRTEC WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC. RECOMMENDATION Discuss solid waste handling services franchise agreement with Burrtec Waste and Recycling, LLC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • In July 2007, the City entered into a nine-year agreement for solid waste handling services with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC. (Burrtec); this contract expires on June 30, 2016. • The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has enacted legislation requiring increases to commercial recycling, triggering increased service levels and rates for commercial properties in the City. • A new agreement with updated programming has been proposed, including outsourcing street sweeping services in residential areas and retaining comparatively low residential rates. • In February, a community survey was conducted seeking input on Burrtec's overall service and value provided for solid waste handling. FISCAL IMPACT - None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In July 2007, the City entered into a nine-year franchise agreement with Burrtec, for solid waste handling services, with a 12-month extension. The initial term expires on June 30, 2016. Since 2007, the solid waste handling industry has experienced significant changes, which resulted in additional requirements to consumers and communities. CalRecycle provides oversight to cities and counties on all solid waste and recycling matters. In the last five years, CalRecycle has enacted legislation for mandatory recycling for multi -family residential units and businesses (AB 341) and commercial organic materials recycling (AB 1826). Both of these mandates have resulted in service increases and costs to Burrtec. Historically, commercial recycling has been provided at no cost to La Quinta residents and businesses. With the passage of AB 1826, Burrtec must expand its regional facilities to accommodate for the required increases in organic materials recycling. To accommodate this expansion and service level increases, Burrtec requests a new service charge for commercial recycling and a ten-year agreement. 171 In discussing community needs for solid waste handling services with Burrtec, two points would remain unchanged for residential rates: rates to not exceed 103 percent of the lowest rate in the Coachella Valley for similar refuse collection services and retaining a 6 percent cap on annual rate increases for service. Last year the service rate increase was 0.51 percent. Additionally, other proposed negotiation points include: • Billing method - continue residential billing through property tax roll and direct billing for commercial accounts; • Shred events - maintain two semi-annual events, however, Burrtec will bear the cost for two trucks for each event; • Implement a new residential non -controlled medication collection program by November 1, 2016; • City -sponsored events - expanded to include all City current events and increased service levels (i.e. portable toilets); • Waste Characterization Study - first study to be completed by March 1, 2017, then every five years. This study is an integral component in increasing waste diversion; • Reprogramming franchise and AB 939 fees: o Increase franchise fee from 8 to 10 percent to General Fund; o Reduce AB 939 fee from approximately $390,000 to $50,000 per year; ■ The reduction of this fee is offset by the increase in Franchise Fee ■ AB 939 fees are considered a restricted funding source and are utilized to increase waste diversion o In summary, an overall General Fund revenue reduction of $50,000 would result for 2016/17, however, an increase of $340,000 per year would become unrestricted. • Reprogram the one-time reimbursement of $60,000 for negotiation costs to being paid as contract management reimbursement over the term of the agreement; • Complete a disaster plan - this plan will identify Burrtec resources available to the City in the event of a disaster; • Street Sweeping Services - outsource residential arterial streets; the estimated cost would be applied to residential accounts in the following manner: o Option 1 - biweekly service (224 curb miles) ■ Rate increase of $0.25/month beginning on July 1, 2017; plus ■ Rate increase of $0.25/month beginning on July 1, 2018; and ■ Rate increase of $0.25/month beginning on July 1, 2019. o Option 2 - weekly services (224 curb miles) 172 ■ Rate increase of $0.51/month beginning on July 1, 2017; plus ■ Rate increase of $0.50/month beginning on July 1, 2018; and ■ Rate increase of $0.14/month beginning on July 1, 2019. Annual rate increases - based upon Consumer Price Index (CPI), Burrtec may request annual increases beginning on July 1, 2017; no increases will apply this year. Community Survey During the month of February, a survey was conducted online and advertised in the GEM, social media and the City website. The survey received 182 responses. The focus for the survey was to gauge the community's opinion of the services provided by Burrtec, how payment for services is collected, and awareness of state mandates. Highlights of salient points include: • Over 97 percent of respondents were City residents; • Customer service - Burrtec ranked high in phone and email service satisfaction, friendliness, ability to answer questions and resolve issues; • Over 92 percent of respondents' waste bill is paid through property tax billing, and over 90 percent prefer tax roll billing compared to monthly billings; • 66 percent of respondents prefer annual rate increases when necessary; with 15 percent preferring every 2-3 years; • Over 72 percent of the time Burrtec services provided in the last year was rated as "Excellent," and 20 percent of the time as `Good'; and • Collectively, less than half of respondents indicated that they were aware of state waste mandates (i.e. AB 939, 341 and 1826). Listed below are questions for which staff seeks Council input. The answers will assist in finalizing the Solid Waste Handling Services agreement for Council consideration. • Should the City authorize Burrtec to continue performing solid waste handling services? • Does the Council envision a specific function or program not currently performed by Burrtec that should be included in the services provided? • Should the City outsource street sweeping services and if so, at which frequency? ALTERNATIVES As this is an informational item, staff does not have any alternatives. Prepared by: Ted Shove, Business Analyst Approved by: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager 173 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDATION Discuss 2016/17 economic development strategies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 21, 2015, Council directed staff to implement the strategies outlined in the 2015 Economic Development Strategic Plan (Plan); these strategies encompassed business attraction, preserving quality of life, addressing blighting conditions, and collaborating on regional economic development initiatives. One initiative entailed conducting a community survey, which occurred in February 2016; 110 responses were received. On March 9, 2016, the Economic Development Subcommittee (Subcommittee) provided feedback on the 2015/16 accomplishments and initial input for the 2016/17 Plan. FISCAL IMPACT - None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The 2015/16 Plan was the City's reentry into economic development with a broad set of goals and limited investment. The accomplishments are listed in Attachment 1 and summarized below: Business Attraction Conducted market research tailored to retail attraction efforts (i.e. demographics, traffic counts, market potential, entitlements, and matching sites with retailer parameters); Developed informational pieces that included a community overview and market characteristics for specific retail sites; Attended International Council of Shopping Centers in San Diego; proactively set 11 appointments with potential leads that led to two site tours; and Engaged local real estate brokerages regarding aligning potential retailer leads with La Quinta retail properties. 174 Preserve Quality of Life Secured funding and planning two community clean up events for Fall 2016; Held the first annual "Block Party" during the Careerbuilder Challenge; and Collaborated with the BMW Driving School to co-sponsor an upcoming community event. Regional Economic Development Provided initial funding and staff support for the East Valley Coalition. Community Engagement The Plan included an element to engage the community as a means of validating the vision and initial efforts. An online survey (Attachment 2) was launched in February 2016; residents and business owners were informed of this survey through the GEM, social media and the City's website;110 responses were received. The survey provided general data on the respondents, and opinions regarding the City's economic development principles and quality of life aspects. The responses are summarized below: 85 percent described themselves as full time La Quinta residents; 51 percent were unaware of the 2015 Plan; 80 percent either agreed or strongly agreed with the guiding principles; 70 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that the City should streamline processes, actively reduce commercial vacancy rates, and provide financial incentives for businesses to locate in La Quinta; 55 percent either agreed or strongly agreed with the current SilverRock development plan; however, 25 percent were neutral, and 20 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the development plan; 83 percent were familiar with the proposed CV Link project and 52 percent indicated that they either support or strongly support the project; and 66 percent agreed that the City should partner with business to add jobs. The survey provides solid data regarding the community perspective's on what the City should be doing regarding economic development. 175 Going Forward The Subcommittee's input and the survey results illustrate three main focus areas for the coming fiscal year:1) continue/expand business attraction efforts; 2) develop a vision for future industry that creates jobs; and 3) improve overall program awareness. One of the bigger challenges is the ability (or lack thereof) to influence market conditions; this is typically achieved by having a vested stake in the desired real estate or ability to provide capital. The City does have select properties in the Highway 111 corridor, the Village and at SilverRock, and has been actively pursuing development opportunities for these assets. However, the City lacks the financial resources to invest in incentives and a broader community marketing effort. Listed below are questions for which staff is seeking Council input. The answers will assist in preparing the 2016/17 Economic Development Plan and Strategies. Should the City continue business attraction efforts in the retail and hospitality sectors and if so, what would be the appropriate level of annual investment? What is the metric(s) to be utilized in measuring success? Is there a desire to pursue an industry that is not currently in La Quinta or in the region? Does the Council envision a specific function or success from the East Valley Coalition? If the City were to influence the market through real estate or capital investment, what would be the desired return on investment? Are there specific investments or programming that should or should not be considered? ALTERNATIVES As this is an informational item, staff does not have any alternatives. Prepared by: Ted Shove, Business Analyst Approved by: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager Attachment: 1. Matrix of Accomplishments - Economic Development Strategy (2015) 2. Community Survey - Economic Development Validation roc. 177 ACCOMPL I SHMENTS ECONOMI C DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 Outputs Completed Outcomes RE Brokerage ✓ Communication Market Analysis for: Defined Opportunity ✓ Sites' Auto Dealer Use ✓ Business Cost of doing ✓ Attraction Business Analysis Trade shows/ F2F Networking ✓ 16/25 Stimulate Commercial Development: 20,000/ SF 1 Potential User I CSC San Diego 20 Jobs Ste Tours ✓ 2/5 $500k Investment Pre -Escrow Phase Develop Collateral ✓ Materials Assisted in Survey data to be reported by Chamber periodically Streamline Originating Formal ✓ Chamber conducting surveys permitting/ Outreach Program - Chamber goal 45 interviews Business Chamber Engagement Exit Interview, Customer Service In Progress Incorporate into Website Revision Survey Address Blight/ Identify and Secure Reduce Partial Funding for Potential for Community Clean ✓ 2/Yr Scheduled for Spring/Fall 2016 Blight Events and Oty Turf Reduction (CVWD) SlverRock Schedule Adherence ✓ On Pace with Current Schedule Identify New Venue ✓ Special Events for "Fun" Events Block Party at SlverRock (January 2016) Seek and Engage ✓ Event Organizers Community Developing an Event In Progress Tentative Summer/Fall 16 Marketing w/ BMW School EVC Set Up and Fund ✓ Approximately 50% Outputs Completed Including Manager ED Strategy Community Survey ✓ 110 Respondents- Summary and Report: HERE Validation 178 179 Economic Development Validation Community Engagement - Validating 2015 ED Strategic Plan The City of La Quinta invites you to participate in validating the 2015 Economic Development Strategic Plan. The survey is approximately ten (10) questions, most are multiple choice format. Please take your time and carefully read each question and answer candidly. There are no incorrect answers. The City will analyze the results and incorporate input received from this survey into the 2016 Economic Development Strategic Plan. 1. Please check which best describes you: Choices Percentage Count Full time resident of La Quinta 85.45% 94 Seasonal resident of La Quinta _ 10.91% 12 Resident and business owner/operator in La Quinta ' 1.82% 2 Business owner/operator in La Quinta , 1.82% 2 Total 110 2. Are you familiar with the City's 2015 Economic Development Strategic Plan? Choices Percentage Cou nt No S7..'°: 57 Yes +.:'.. 42 Unsure 11 Total 110 3, Please rate the Guiding Principles (long range goals): a. Continue to develop economic base (attracting year-round and recession resistant business) b. Expand hotel and hospitality amenities so an 20 o � ma mo � d m y c. Support the development of the La Quinta Village commercial district 60 40 . ■ 20 , �o y roc h 180 d. Support opportunities to create housing inventory for all ages and income levels 40 20 OEM 0 a y Ae I e. Preserve quality of life through recreational and cultural events GO 40 20 o ■� e4f Qs, _qj 1 d �.Q A `QC f. Support efforts to regionally promote economic development throughout eastern Coachella Valley 60 40 20 ■a — 181 g. Periodically update the Economic Development Strategic Plan through community engagement 60 40 10 20 o t� c� 9�Vq PA aye 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, please indicate your likeliness to support: a. Implementation of strategies to reduce and maintain loan commercial vacancy rates 60 ao 20 0 a Q .� �S b. Streamline local government processes for business $o 40 � ■ 20 0 � C\ �O, 1J y� yQOa � Q O `oe c. Providing financial incentives for attraction, expansion, and/or retention of businesses ME= __ d. Support the SilverRock master -planned expansion i c t MMMM� 05 182 6. In terms of special events the City hosts (i.e. "19th Hole Block Party"), did you attend? Choices Percentage Count No M 91 % 78 yes - 18.184E 31 Unsure 091% 1. Total 110 b. How likely are you to attend future City hosted events? Choices (scar) Percentage Count Strongly Agree (5) - 27..36% 29 Agree (4) 45.18% 48 Neutral (3) 17.92% 19 Disagree (2) - 8.49% 9 Strongly Disagree 0) 0.94% 1 Total 106 Unanswered 4 Avg Score 3.9 c. Should the City consider changing the number of events hosted each year: Choices (scar) Percentage Count Strongly Agree (5) 14.29% 15 Agree (4) - 117696 26 Neutral (3) 49.52% 52 Disagree (.) - 7.61% a Strongly Disagree (t) 3.8196 4 Total 105 Unanswered 5 Avg Score 3.4 8. Are you familiar with the CV Link project proposed by the CVAG? Choices Percentage Count Yes 836498 92 No - 16.36% 18 Total 110 183 9. What is your opinion of the CV Link? Choices (store) Percentage Count Strongly support (5) 37.11 % 36 Support (4) - 15.46% 15 Neutral (3) 26.80% 26 oppose (2) 6.19% 6 Strongly oppose (1) 14.43% 14 Total 97 Unanswefed 13 Avg Score 3.6 IO.In your opinion, does the City through ED, need to partner with business to add jobs? Choices Percentage Count Yes 66.36q, 73 Unsure - is.18% 20 No 15.45% 17 Total 110 184 185 In terms of reducing commercial vacancy, In your opinion, does the City lack any particular type Entry Id which types of business should the City of retail or retailer? Are there any other comments or concerns you would like to sure? attract? More hospitality, bars, cafes, eateries of quality, more More use of Old Town and parks for special events.More of great partnership with Goldenvoice for music events!Love all the events hike 1 "green businesses", high tech sector- embrace the Household, furniture,non big block,major grocery store in cove Block Parties!Like the direction city is going.Continue and grow govt/council engagement with Citizens. Increased use of social media to future connect with citizens.The Gem should be online version as well as print for stronger reach and engagement. 4 Family activities 9. ►. No 5 No 6 A variety We need a larger grocery store. I like Jules but it doesn't really fulfill my shopping needs 7 REI 8 Anything besides after hour raves startig or running No into the middle of the night 9 Entertainment No 10 Medium price and value 11 Those that support year round residents. Women's clothing, major department store 12 13 14 15 16 healthy quick serve restaurants, retail and grocery Retail Local businesses, no big box sites! health care M sporting goods ( big 5 too small) Grocery, sporting goods, e.g., bicycle, outdoors No No Don't close schools. Build our community don't tear it down. Closing John Adams is a shame on the community. Worried about crime in the Cove. I support the proposed condo and business development of Old Town. I oppose the gas station and other-developent at Washington and 50th. I would like to see more vendors at Sunday farmers' market, and would love it to continue in summer. Don't know about your use of 'sure' but I don't mind sharing. The City of La Quinta needs to put a new face on Olde Town. It resembles an amateur approach to a problem many downtown areas have faced. Is it broken? Not yet. Some have successfully developed their downtown and others have not and of course their downtown's no longer exist. This city must either do something about it now or get use to losing the traffic that brings in much needed support for the existing retailers and other commerce. Once the retailers leave, the traffic begins to dwindle causing other businesses to close or re -locate. I recommend closing Avenida Bermudas from Tampico to La Fonda to normal vehicle traffic. Also close Desert Club from Tampico to La Fonda creating an Olde Town Square. Foot traffic and bicycle traffic would be allowed of course and some kind of transit system to get shoppers from their cars to the shops and back to their cars. (An electric trolley or 3 wheeled bicycle drawn carts or even 6 passenger electric carts.) Missing is a candy store or confectioner's, curio shop like an All Things La Quinta Shoppe and a point of interest [archway, tower, etc] that everyone wants their picture taken with are just a couple of ideas. A stage area of contemporary design that folks can use for a variety of events (i.e. weddings, small concerts, etc). Introduce more pavers to replace asphalt. Allow more sidewalk vendors which would allow fledgling businesses to start without a lot of overhead/fixed expenses. Their permits could be renewable every 6 mos but preferably on an annual basis. Without large vehicles there would no longer be a need for raised sidewalks within the Square. The city needs to resolve the lack of landscape maintenance for north La Quinta and the constant problems at La Quinta park due to loitering by high school truants. in addition, Silver Rock seems to be going nowhere. It may be time to cut bait and focus on other opportunities. The Starter Bros shopping center is shabby and needs an update. I don't want to see mainstream Big business here in the Old Town area. That is what makes use so unique and a great place to live! 186 17 18 19 Manufacturing 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 we Claim Jumpers, Chillies High end clothing Hospitality, small shops owner operated . Less big box and franchise businesses. More control over No architectural design. No No small manufacturing No No No Small businesses and merchants. A small super market for south east La Quinta residents between PGA West SE La Quinta super market and Trilogy. 99c store,l hardware, everyday low cost a general affordable grocery store wide varietv No No all business tvaes welcome No we don't need raves or similar events here. I would be in favor of the CV Link if it was done on a smaller scale, to be used for walkers and bikers. I am against providing for golf carts and similar vehicles. In this tight money environment the city should not be spending money on parties such as block parties or other social events for "party animals". Mayor and council seem to spend too much time at events more time in attracting long term businesses who employ full time professionals. Although they don't help revenue they would attract full time employees who spend money. Thus sales tax revenue. La Quinta is unique and it should stay that way. We don't need more gas stations or quick pick up stores such as 7-Eleven's . Those type of businesses are best left on Highway 111. We need to maintain our town and our residential areas through code enforcement. Don't screw up a good thing by adding more national stores that have no real connection to our community. Greed is not a good thing. Safety and emergency services Could always be better! Need to keep attracting business and residence that live here full-time It only took 2 traffic tickets to convince me to move. You know the good guys from the bad guys, give the tourist, locals and harmless old folks a break. As you may or may not know the existing Indio Polo Alliance has decided to expand to include subdivisions in La Quinta to join them. Therefore, we will be asking the cities to do whatever they can do legally and politically when the City of Indio reviews the changes to Golden Voice's request to alter their Use Permit to increase the number of attendees in 2017. More specifically, to obtain a TRULY REAL & VERIFIABLE EIR as it relates to resonating (vibrating) sound levels and reducing the number of hours of the festival thus precluding the Polo Alliance from filing a class action suit in order for us to have peace and quiet enjoyment of our property, The City Council has A DUTY to protect or security and quiet enjoyment and quite frankly in my opinion has not lived up to its duty. The alliance will more than likely grow to more than 15,000 residents in the coming year and we will do whatever we need to do to see to it that those three items are seriously addressed. Let me repeat them: 1. Reduce the sound levels especially the booming (vibrating) base SUBSTANTIALLY, and not allow vulgar language be blasted all throughout the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Enhance security by stationing more police and cars in strategic locations at entrances to our subdivisions. 3. Reduce the number of hours of the festival to 11 pm. All three of the aforementioned items are being addressed in other cities across the nation and unfortunately sometimes in the courts and in most cases the people are winning these suits. As our alliance grows stronger we hope our city fathers seriously pay attention to our needs; otherwise, they will leave us no alternative but to respond at the ballot box with candidates that will. April is one of the best weather months in the Valley and we cannot sit outside and enjoy our yards or invite guests from out of town during almost the entire month. And as you know, GV wants another festival in October, the best weather month in the Fall. We have nothing against the free marketplace and wish GV all the success in the world BUT NOT AT OUR EXPENSE! We hope you will genuinely listen to out friendly pleas and do something to help bring about these changes before this situation becomes the type of struggle we all want to avoid. Thank you for listening, 187 Upscale retail, Artisan/studio retail, upscale restaurant, Upscale, trendy retail vendors and indoor/outdoor restaurant vendors that are part of a "planned" development that is NOT 33 Food Truck vendors, Other unique indoor/outdoor vendors. part of a typical " strip mall". Aren't there any more imaginative developers available in this area? 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 pub pub's with music, ethnic food eateries, icecream parlors, Grocery store in the old Ralph's building. Unique boutiques in Old Town as well as galleries, small bookstore/news stand, bakery and deli clothing, restruants, apartments, clothing, restruants, apartments, -0[7 See above 081 In old town; a restaurant where the Hogs Breath was, travel store, a few more service stores, and at least one No national brand store. 41 Shopping 42 43 44 45 46 wo Clothing No We need a Ralph's replacement. No No No Don't know enough of the demographics and economic 47 profile of LQ residences to provide an informed opinion No rather than a knee jerk recommendation. I would love to see a more imaginative development in our economic growth plan... to help keep the "gem of the desert" feel of La Quinta. We need to develop the up and coming commercial areas to create more of a "destination" feel, not only for tourist and part-time traffic... but for full-time residents to have a "wanna be, wanna do, wanna participate" in the "destination" they are lucky enough to live in. Has anybody on the City Staff ever visited Downtown Disney? Or Downtown Dallas? Or any other'Downtown' city area that is vibrant with the hustle, bustle of pedestrian, street traffic? If we could capture that 'downtown' aura for every new development in La Quinta, and keep an ongoing participation relationship between all of the development in the valley, we would create an exciting new personality to our "gem of the desert" destination. We need more indoor/outdoor, walk about, need to go there, overall environments. Especially during the summer months. How about creating a shuttle service that has an old fashioned 'depot' center and services all of the valley with quirky, street car designs to the shuttle vehicles. (This type of transportation would make it fun to travel throughout the valley... or at least, throughout La Quinta.) The city needs to encourage and recruit more imaginative developers and city planners. If we want this desert area to grow and become a world class destination, we need to think outside of the box. What we don't need is more of the same thing we already have. (Which is way too much of the strip mall, franchise mentality, mile after mile... from one end of the valley to the other.) Let's get imaginative and have some fun with new development! We are unique and attract tourists. Look at Carmel, San Diego, Seaport Village, etc. We have golf, tennis, hiking. Lots of business selling related items, showing films of people doing those sports, or watching them while enjoying a beer. Sitting outside in the shade sipping on a lemonade, maybe watching the ducks swimming in a pond. A promenade area where people can walk around or sit and people watch. Professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants, all would eat and use nearby facilities. I strongly support the filling of vacant buildings before approving new building. Is it not possible to offer interested businesses incentives to occupy empty buildings? I think having the extension of old town with the condos is a great idea. Repurpose the old Ralph's center and move the current stores to old town. Cut down red tape and taxes for businesses and then stay out of their business. Government creates the problem and then wants to spend even more money trying to fix it. God help us. Reject the proposed truck -stop type development at 50th and Washington. Try to attract a replacement grocery store for the closed Ralphs. 188 48 49 611 51 ON 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Non recreational to provide a a sustainable business throughout the year that is not driven by "snow birds" Don't know enough to answer restaurants, hardware store back Established businesses, but not fast food nor automotive services. M sewing machine and fabric stores It needs to develop more El Paseo type shopping with a lower cost to the vendors and merchants we No No No No No No No Medical marijuana No It has never been clear to me how all these cities (LQ IW PD CC PS) all fit together to mutually support and promote business across the entire valley... As islands each is not big enough to stand on its own with a major theme although IW does have tennis and Indio the Coachella Fest. But these are episodic and very short term... To wit, we probably spend as much $$ in the other cities as in LQ. PS appears to have a clear view of who it wants to attract and how... Not sure how the "gem of the desert" slogan is leveraged to carve out a similar PS. type model that is pretty clear and unambiguous... Is it golfing? A resort city focusing alternative life style to PS? What?? I remember last year that someone mentioned to one of the candidates running for mayor that LQ lacks a compelling commercial "go to" destination as PD with its El Peseo & River; IW with tennis center; PS with its restaurant row (my words)... Not sure what is or will be the compelling "go to" feature/center? Costs and regulation for business in LaQuinta need to be controlled and more incentives offered for new businesses and relocating businesses. I myself would consider moving to LaQuinta and moving my business if the overhead and tax structure was more conducive to me. I love the area and the summer heat would not deter me from the move, the financial hurdles of moving my business would. Roads getting worse .... also there are no plan in place to enforce vehicle laws such as speeding, running stop signs etc. especially in the COVE Is this question even a sentence? Anyway, its a concern that your survey didn't even include a question on controlling government expenses. Try that. The amount of City regulation here is out of control. Eliminate half the people involved in issuing permits and otherwise strangling development. Stop the SilverRock project... if you sell our tee times to developers, people will move out, I know I'll think about leaving. And if you need to raise taxes just step up and do it rather than hide behind a citizen's group for air cover. Here's the thing ... the City can't really attract business directly. What they can do is promote residential development by making it easier to build here and marketing moving here to Pacific NW, Canada, etc. With development comes business... if you don't get in their way so much. Main feedback is kill that stupid SilverRock project. The residents that want it are non -golfers who think its easy money but it will result in golfers moving out and a decline in real estate values. You're taking the gem of the gem and selling it and us out. Or you could build a second golf course, but I'm sure you'll say you don't have the money. Its not that complicated. Give people a reason to live here, make it easy to live here, make it easy for business and your problem will be solved. Eliminate the hassle factor. You are the hassle factor. Good luck. There are plenty of services and businesses around LQ, it should not be a priority. Maintaining the beauty and quaintness of the community is LQ's attraction, don't change the atmosphere. Thank you. Enforce building codes in the cove. Dark sky lighting, noise, support crime watches. 189 XK 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 First check your typos I'm sure you mean share not sure. Stream real-time council meetings that are produced professionally possible to have high school AV departments assist. The city needs to be more transparent. The council and other public meetings should be made Regional mall available on public access TV. The city should explore other options than the riverside sheriff dept. There is virtually no crime , the majority of homes are in gated communities, why the need for so many police? La Quinta's budget for policing is out of balance. Less police or a more aggressive approach in negotiations with the county are needed. Possible outreach to other cities to combine resources. The percentage increase for police services is not acceptable Traffic traffic traffic. Is your major problem area. NOT gas station! something to go in Ralphs location No City government should govern city municipal matters only. They should not be running golf courses or hotels or other commercial enterprise. Just do the job of running the city and you should be able to stay within budget. Dining, Supermarket, Supermarket (Cove area) 1) Not always a good idea for City to put money into a business that cannot support itself or might not exist down the road (Saxony). 2) Find grocery store tenant for empty Ralphs building Would like to see another grocery store in the empty Ralphs building. 3) CV Link would be a positive project for LQ. 4) >> How about a %Q Link", from the wash at Ave 50 to Hwy 111? A decomposed granite path (like SilverRock perimeter) would be low maintenance. Doesn't have to be fancy, just functional. 5) LQ should be bike -friendly, and promoting bicycle use whenever possible. REI No quality, full service sporting goods eg. REI Do not follow Rancho Mirage's lead on CV Link. Our Bear Creek walking/running path/bike lane has proven to be a huge asset to La Quinta and the valley. Don't let NIMBY jerks stop a quality project that will benefit us all! More businesses that are better suited to meet the income level of full time residents' physiological & Full service grocery chain for the Cove. Jules Market sucks!!! safety needs. Less high end convenience stores that cater to part time residents & tourists. No Canned Food Warehoouse, Breakfast eateries, Medical Reasonably priced grocery Loved the new turnabouts. Need a couple more. I would like to see more underground utilities. Too many picnics with free stuff offered offices would like to see Animal Control returned to local control. supermarket supermarket in cove Continue to improve recreational facilities that can be used all year ..ie, I don,t understand why we don,t have an all year Indoor Pool facility as Palm Desert does, and I feel that the Pool at Fritz Burns Park is underutilized in the Summer and should be more available and not No as restricted in hours..Also, this is a city of Pet Lovers and the Dog Parks are badly in need of repair and maintenance..not enough shade and water features ... Also..WHY doesn,t the City improve with Landscaping all of the vacant Land it owns in Old Town..? ... Or turn them into Mini -Parks with Benches and small water features.. 190 75 FPO 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 D ept Store businesses that attract young adults and young visitors No (not always seniors) medical, banking, convenience store, restaurants No No No Environmentally clean. Family friendly. No smoke or No marijuana stores. No massage shops. IT services. book store Grocery Store Grocery Store No We don't need more businesses No Restaurants Nordstrom type No New Super Market to Replace Ralph's near downtown. Give them tax free status as Hobby Lobby Market to replace Ralph's No Restaurant and recreational businesses A major grocery story in downtown Businesses that attract trust worthy citizens. No These are serious times in La Quinta, and there are serious issues needing our attention. We all need to insist upon a basic standard of truth from our elected officials and community leaders. We must cultivate a commitment to truth to show our young people and children that it has to start here with us. La Quinta is in the midst of needing a long range planning process. This is needed to guide our City over the next decade. Our landscape is dynamic and rapidly changing. In order to maintain La Quinta's legacy of excellence and tradition, we must analyze our current position and plan for the future. The strength of this process depends on the engagement of all members of the community I keep hearing that the city would like to draw a younger demographic but as long as it continues to cater to a conservative older crowd that's all we will get. I like my city but we are mostly just a suburban "bedroom" community rather than a growing vibrant city. For example: The theme is the "gem of the desert". Seriously? There is nothing remotely attractive about that motto. All the more vibrant businesses are hugging 111 or going to other cities. Instead of spending huge amounts of city money on safety and protection for all those people in country clubs, let's put it into services for the majority of year-round residents who live here. We are pleased with the management of our City. We appreciate the mayor's visibility and active support of La Quinta businesses. Use social media more to inform and celebrate all aspects of La Quinta, especially on Facebook and NextDoor. More social events in Old Town - especially for adults. Thank you, John Polak Laguna de la Paz Let's keep la quinta quaint and not over populated The SilverRock expansion screws all the full time residents that own and pay taxes in favor of tax revenue from the newly built hotels and homes on City land. The officials at Silverrock says it will be very hard for residents to get a Tee Time. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE FORCED TO BUILD THE 2ND COURSE for he use of the hotels. Leave the original course to the residents with their Resident card. Presently the average time to play a round is over 5 % hours. What will it be like in the future if we can even get a Tee time. I pay real estate taxes on 4 homes, what do they pay. We are get screwed!!!!!!! I don't think the city should financially support businesses or make deals with developers. I believe that is what got the city in trouble with the landscaping around Del Oro and other La Quinta development communities. I think it is poor management to make deals with developers then after a few years try and put the cost of landscaping on the home owners. It is also a VERY BAD idea to think about increasing the sales tax. As a resident, if the sales tax was increased I would no longer shop in La Quinta. I would shop in the surrounding cities that do not have higher sales tax. I work in Rancho Mirage so I could shop there or Palm Desert when I am on the way home. Put more taxes on the people who rent their homes - it is a nuisance and they should pay the city more than 15% of the rent they charge. The city should also work with LQHS to make the tennis courts/track and swimming pool accessible to the public for a small fee. Our taxes paid for the HS so why not let us use it for fitness. Not everyone can afford a membership to the local gyms. Thank you. 191 Oil 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 w' 100 101 102 High tech, 4yr.college Retail small businesses, artist studio spaces, art galleries Commercial kitchen where u can rent a space to produce goods Vegetarian restaurant 01 art galleries/art oriented No something or somewhere for kids to go and have fun besides skate parks. roller rinks, ice skating ? No something. Businesses that are useful to obtain everyday goods and services Retail - high end!! Fewer chains and franchises! More fast food chains, big chain restaurants, ethnically diverse restaurants that are non-existent in the valley like: Chick-fil-A, Sonic, Johnny Rockets, Ruby's, Portillos, Dave & Busters, Bowling, K-1 GoKarts, GEN Korean bbq,Peruvian food,Persian, Daiso Indoor activities for families, i.e. Skating, jump houses, rock climbing More large name brand businesses M Very few higher end stores -non chain Make a continuous bike path. This is unrelated. But the corner Eisenhower and Montezuma , across from the park and continuing Up Montezuma is heavily traveled by pedestrians of all ages and often in the dark. A side walk connecting Montezuma to bear creek is desperately needed for safety. I know that bear creek has a sidewalk connecting to Calle Tampico, but sadly, that is not where most of the foot traffic walks. Our city has an overabudance of huge vacant buildings that were once retail spaces, yet new buildings continue to be built. Doesn't make sense to us... We would like gallery/studio space in La Quinta (we are artists). But cost is prohibitive. If cost was more reasonable, La Quinta could attract more artists, which in turn, attract more visitors. children need something to do, somewhere to go, besides skate parks, community center, something do not forget about our children our future. The questions do not provide a solution as to what extent the City will go to "Continue to develop economic base" or "Support the development of the La Quinta Village commercial district" so it is hard to answer the questions without being aware of what is being sacrificed or being dealt with behind closed doors that could be a conflict of interest. Very much opposed to CV Link - don't know a soul that will use it! Upkeep would be expensive and not sure of safety to the users. Hard to patrol! For business development, would be great to attract ethnically diverse restaurant businesses as this is something that is lacking in the Coachella Valley, like Persian food, Peruvian, Cuban, GEN Korean BBQ (this chain is very popular in OC & LA areas), more Sushi restaurants and Shabu Shabu Japanese style. We also desperately need an international food market that carries a variety of ethnically diverse foods. I We have very few fast food chains in the Cove area for people know a lot of residents would appreciate another mall besides Palm Desert Mall with big retailers like Nordstrom. Other retail stores that working & needing grab quick bite: need more drive-thru fast attract young adults would be good as well like Forever2l, H&M, Urban Outfitters, Francesca's, Daiso. We also need more activity options food chains in this area. And need more stores for Young Adult like: Bowling Alley, Skating rink, K-1 Indoor Go Kart Racing, Dave & Busters. Also, we don't have a David's Bridal in the area. As for City age group like H&M, Forever2l, etc. events, the 19th Hole Block Party was great & being a young adult myself the EDM DJ's were really a great attraction. For future City events it would be great to have big Food Truck event (Koji's food truck in LA is awesome, The Grilled Cheese Truck). Other ideas: Free concerts in the park, Family Festival with resource booths, Family BBQ & Chili cook off, various cultural events besides Italian Festival & Black History Month like Lunar Festival, Greek Festival, Dia de los Muertos, Octoberfest, Mariachi Festival with Ballet Folklorico dancers, etc. major grocery store neighboorhood watch signs my concern that they are placed on the back of the stop signs. If I read correctly, nothing is to be placed on the back of a stop sign. I feel this detracts from the cove. Stores like The Loft, Banana Republic No 192 Major concern: Please finish sidewalk and road on Avenue 52 between Jefferson and Monroe. Would be nice: Bury power lines. Do 103 BJs Brewery/Pizza something about vacant corner of Madison and Avenue 52. Do river walk idea and walking/hiking paths at silver rock Get commercial going on corner of Jefferson and 52 by roundabout 104 Hotels, shopping complex/mall similar to Westfield with mid to high end anchor department stores 105 106 Mid -range department stores/shopping mall No Lucilles, home goods, Shops, gas stations, banks; these are primarily in the 111 corridor and should be more spread out for 107 Night life. There is very little to do after 9:OOpm convenience. Cove residents have few options for these services 108 Mix of large businesses next to No 109 110 A new market where Ralphs used to be!! It would be great to see Wilma and Frida restaurant in our old town Dennys or budget friendly restaurant Great job. Make more free programs for lower income senior citizens. Development of the La Quinta Village and lower cove area is important. Focusing that effort primarily in the Old Town development is unfair. There is so much more to the Village than that one development, yet the majority of public events are held there. The businesses that aren't willing or able to pay the astronomical rent in Old Town are not benefiting. I would love to see a regular nighttime street fair, especially in summer. The community enjoys those events and are willing to drive all the way to Palm Springs. Let's encourage patrons to explore the rest of the Village by holding events in other parts, such as the Community Park on Montezuma, Calle Estado, etc. Ensure commercial rent is manageable. The old Ralph's center is practically empty is it due to high rent? 193 PUBLIC HEARING ITE M NO. 1 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL 19, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: DENY APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WHICH APPROVED AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 3.16 ACRE LOT AT 77210 LOMA VISTA, WITHIN THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES RECOMMENDATION Deny Appeal 2016-0002 and sustain the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 for a 5,929 square -foot single family dwelling on a 3.16-acre lot at 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Mr. Joseph McVeigh (Applicant) requests that the City Council revoke the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Assessment (EA) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a single family home at 77210 Loma Vista (Project). • The CUP will allow the construction of a 5,929 square -foot single-family home on an existing 3.16-acre lot within the Enclave Mountain Estates (Attachment 1, Project Information Form). • On March 8, 2016, after considering considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission approved the Project. • The Applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on March 18, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT - None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Applicant requests that Council revoke the Planning Commission's approval for the following reasons: 1. The City should prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. 2. The City relied on misleading photo simulations to evaluate visual impacts, and should have required the installation of story poles to the Applicant's standards, as requested. 3. The Planning Commission failed to consider the Applicant's letter, submitted at the hearing. 4. The Planning Commission's approval is based on a flawed hydrology study. 194 5. Individual Planning Commissioners met with the property owner's representatives, but did not meet with the Applicant. 6. The Project description did not mention the removal of 3,000 square feet of mountain. 7. The Project architect provided incorrect information about the retaining wall, west of the garage. 8. The Project will negatively impact the adjacent storm water channel. 9. The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan's Open Space land use designation for the parcel. Each of these points is addressed individually under "Staff Analysis of Appeal." Proiect Histo In 1975, the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan was approved, which designated all of the Enclave subdivision and this property, as Single Family Residential. The Project site was subdivided into two lots in 1990, and reverted to acreage (the two lots were eliminated) in 1996. It is located on a rocky promontory, which currently has an elevation of approximately 91 feet above sea level (Attachment 2, Project Location Map). The balance of the subdivision occurs at an elevation of about 55 feet above sea level. Much of the Enclave has developed and only scattered lots remain. The homes are all single story. The property owner submitted a CUP in May of 2013. Staff advised the property owner that Homeowners' Association (HOA) approval would be needed prior to City consideration of the CUP. The property owner presented the plans to the HOA, and after considerable negotiations, received architectural approval (Attachment 3, Settlement Agreement). In May 2015, the property owner submitted revised HOA approved plans to the City. The City then prepared and circulated an Initial Study per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and prepared the Project entitlement package for hearing. General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning The Project site is designated Open Space on the General Plan and Zoning maps. However, the 1975 La Quinta Resort Specific Plan land use map designates the Project site for Low Density Residential development; the Specific Plan also requires development standards to be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of a single-family home in Open Space designated areas if the City approves a CUP. The Project site is located within the Hillside Overlay zone, which was adopted in 1989. The Hillside Overlay zone, however, exempts specific plans and subdivisions approved prior to the Overlay's adoption. This Project is therefore not subject to the Hillside Overlay zone. Proposed Project The Project entails a 5,929 square -foot single family home (5,222 square -foot home and a 707 square -foot garage) on a 3.16-acre lot. The Project also includes: A new driveway from the northwestern terminus of Loma Vista, along the route of the existing access drive, which is undersized and in poor condition, A patio and pool area at the southern third of the building pad, Extensive landscaping, both on the building pad and on the lower slopes of the lot, has been included in the plans, and MeR • A "retreat" on an overlook above the house but within the property. Project plans are provided in the Development Booklet (Attachment 4, Development Booklet). The site is a rocky promontory at the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The building pad, which has been previously graded and flattened the promontory, is at an elevation of approximately 91 feet above sea level; the Project would reduce the building pad elevation to 87 feet above sea level and cut into the hillside on the northern end to accommodate the garage, and to install a 17 foot high retaining wall behind the garage. Both the reduction in pad height and the moving of the home further north were undertaken in response to neighbor concerns regarding the home overlooking its neighbors. Access will be provided via an expansion of the existing drive, which has an existing curb cut on Loma Vista; a 3 to 7 foot high retaining wall will also be required to accommodate the driveway. An existing concrete drainage ditch occurs at the base of the property, along its southern boundary, and will continue in its current location. A retaining wall is proposed along the north edge of the driveway, against the slope of the hillside, to protect against rockfall. A retaining wall is also proposed on the south side of the driveway, and around the entire south edge of the building pad. This retaining wall will be finished with natural rock excavated from the site. Storm flows will be intercepted on the site, and carried to a sub- surface retention system to be located near the base of the driveway. The Project geotechnical engineer has studies and provided recommendations regarding retaining wall locations and height, and the driveway location. The City then had the County Geologist review (the City contracts with the County for geologic review) these recommendations; the County Geologist approved the analysis and recommendations. Architecture The home is designed with a low (17 foot) roof, with an equipment screen of 20 feet in height, located at the northern portion of the house, above the garage. The materials include the extensive use of stone veneer, and finishes in browns and tans. A sloped, standing seam roof is proposed over the living area, while a flat roof will occur over the bedroom and garage area. The architecture is compatible with its location adjacent to the hillside, and will blend well with its surroundings (Attachment 4, pages A3.10, 3.11, 3.20 and 3.21 provide building elevations, and A6.10 provides a roof plan). Landscaping and Lighting The Project landscape plan has been designed to fit the desert landscape, and to screen the house from its neighbors (discussion of visual simulations is provided below). The landscape plan includes native and desert plants, with trees proposed to be 60-inch box, and conditioned to have a 6-inch caliper, which for exceeds the City's minimum standards, in order to assure that they will provide substantial screening. The landscaping plan has also been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, as it relates to properties adjacent to conservation areas. All plants proposed are acceptable under the Plan (Attachment 5, Landscaping Plans). The lighting proposed is consistent with residential lighting, and will be required to be screened. The Project has been conditioned to prohibit lighting at the retreat area, in order to prevent intrusive lighting on the mountainside. Visual Simulations In order to address neighborhood concerns, the property owner prepared extensive visual simulations for the Project, both for the HOA and the City submittal (Attachment 6, Visual Simulations Booklet). The simulations show the landscaping at planting, and at maturation. As shown in the simulations, views of the house will be effectively screened. With the installation of the trees on the slope, views from the pool area into the backyards of the neighboring residences will be similarly blocked. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Division prepared Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for this Project, in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA. The Initial Study was distributed to the City's responsible agencies, and to a number of parties who had requested the document (Attachment 7, Initial Study). Comments on the Initial Study were received during and after the 20-day comment period. Primary concerns expressed by commenters included biological resources, hydrology and aesthetics. Staff prepared responses to these comments (Attachment 8, Response to Comments); the comment letters are also provided in their entirety. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission considered the Project on March 8, 2016, and heard testimony from a number of speakers. Speaker concerns included hydrology, aesthetics, privacy, and general comments that the City should require an EIR and should prohibit construction of any structure on the property. The Planning Commission inquired about architectural style, hydrology and the visual simulations. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously, with all members present, to approve the Project. STAFF ANALYSIS OF APPEAL Staff recommended approval of the Project, with conditions, to the Planning Commission, and its position has not changed. Each of the Applicant's bases for appeal are provided below, along with staffs analysis. Please note that staff has taken into account the whole of the record, including written submittals before and during the Planning Commission hearing, oral testimony during the hearing, the attachments to the appeal application, as well as the materials submitted to the City by the property owner, his representatives, and all responsible and trustee agencies which provided comments on this Project. The City should prepare an EIR for the Project. The City prepared a comprehensive and thorough Initial Study including extensive technical analysis of the site's biological, cultural, geological, and hydrological conditions, and impacts resulting from the Project. The Initial Study determined that the proposed 197 Project has the potential to impact the environment, but that mitigation measures included in the Initial Study will reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Per CEQA, the Initial Study correctly determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 states that the City must prepare an EIR if it "determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment." Conversely, this Section also states that the City "shall prepare a Negative Declaration if there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects my cause a significant effect on the environment." CEQA defines a significant effect on the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." CEQA also provides that a potentially significant impact can be reduced through either Project modifications or through mitigation measures. As provided in both the Initial Study and the Response to Comments, the property owner has provided modifications (such as the covering of retaining walls with native rock) or the City has imposed mitigation measures that reduce all Project impacts to less than significant levels. Although many statements have been made about the Project's negative impacts, these statements do not provide evidence that the proposed Project will have significant impacts on the environment. As a result, staff continues to support the Planning Commission's decision to approve Environmental Assessment 2013-630. The City relied on misleading photo simulations to evaluate visual impacts, and should have required the installation of story poles to the applicant's standards, as he requested. The property owner did provide story poles, similar to those that the Applicant requested, on at least two occasions during the HOA review of the Project. The City has requested story poles on occasion in the past, but the Zoning Ordinance does not require them. In this case, after having observed the first community meeting at the Project site, where story poles were in place, staff felt strongly that the extensive, geolocated, scaled and professional visual simulations prepared by the property owner's architect were a considerably clearer representation of the Project's visual impacts than story poles would have been for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission failed to consider the Applicant's letter, submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. It is important to note that the materials provided by Mr. McVeigh as supporting documentation to the appeal (Attachment 9, Appeal Application and Attachments) have been provided to the City previously through the CUP application process. The letter of March 8, 2016 to the Planning Commission did not contain new information that had not previously been presented to the Commission either by Mr. McVeigh's attorney (Letter from Ms. Amy Minteer, Chatten-Brown & Carstens, January 20, 2016), or by other residents. Therefore, the Planning Commission had reviewed these issues as part of their review of the staff report and attachments that was provided to them. Similarly, the Applicant's letter to the City Council, dated March 18, 2016, and included in the appeal application as the last attachment, raises no new issues (Attachment 10, CUP Comment Letters). 198 The Planning Commission's approval is based on a flawed hydrology study. The hydrology study is not flawed. The preliminary hydrology study does include an incorrect calculation that results in off -site flows being aggregated with on -site flows flowing to the underground infiltration facility at the lower end of the driveway. The hydrology study should have separated these flows, allowing on -site flows to be carried to the infiltration facility, while directing off -site flows to the channel at the bottom of the site. As stated in the staff report and at the Planning Commission hearing, the hydrology study will be submitted in its final form when grading permits are applied for. At that time, the study will again be reviewed by the Public Works Division, and the Project cannot go forward until the Division is satisfied that the study meets the City's requirements, and carries flows appropriately. Individual Planning Commissioners met with the property owner's representatives, but did not meet with the Applicant. Any resident, business owner or interested party may request a meeting with Planning Commission, City Council or appointed City officials at any time. The property owner's architect contacted City staff, and asked if they could meet with Planning Commissioners individually to present the Project. Staff contacted the Planning Commissioners, and made arrangements for those who chose to meet with the property owner's architect. There is no prohibition against such meetings. The Planning Commissioners disclosed their contact with the property owner at the meeting. The Applicant made no such request. The Project description should have mentioned that 3,000 square feet of mountain will be removed for the Project. The Planning Commission staff report, page 3, describes the need to cut into the hillside a distance of approximately 20 feet. The geological investigation for this retaining wall was included in the analysis in the Initial Study. Although the square footage was not provided, the activity was adequately described. The Project architect provided incorrect information about the retaining wall west of the garage. The Applicant does not provide further detail on this allegation. From staffs perspective, the retaining wall is clearly shown on the Project plan set, including grading plans, site plans, and the Project elevations. It extends northerly of the driveway, to a height of approximately 17 feet. The retaining wall will essentially be behind the garage. The Project will negatively impact the adjacent storm water channel. The Applicant does not specify how the Project will impact the channel. However, based upon the Applicant's attorney comments on the Initial Study, as well as the Applicant's comments to staff and others, it is our understanding that he believes that the Project will result in flows that exceed the channel's capacity. He has also expressed concern that the storms of 2013 and 2014 resulted in damage to surrounding homes, and that the Project will somehow exacerbate these conditions. First, as relates to the Project's impacts on the channel, the City's standards, implemented here and throughout California, clearly require that a project carry 100 year storm flows through a site and discharge onto downstream properties in the same or lesser quantities than prior to development; and that such flows be at the same or lesser velocity than prior to development. The site is currently extremely rocky, and little rainwater is infiltrated onto O site soils now. Undercurrent conditions, rainwater falling in the surrounding mountains, as well as rainwater falling on the site flows downhill into the channel. The Project will control flows through the site, and will discharge them into the channel at a rate and volume equal to or less than what currently occurs. This is part of the preliminary hydrology study, and will be part of the final hydrology study as well. In regards to the 2013 and 2014 storms, these storms for exceeded a 100 year storm event. Furthermore, in addition to the concentrated volume of rain water that fell in this part of the City, facilities located to the south of the site, which were not constructed or maintained as designed to accommodate flows from the channel through the adjacent golf course, resulted in storm water being unable to flow into the golf course, and backing up the channel, which over -topped its banks and flooded adjacent properties. The Enclave HOA brought suit against the downstream property owner on this issue, and the suit has now been settled. Although the City is not privy to the settlement, staff understands that changes will be made to the golf course facilities to address their deficiencies. The Project is responsible to accommodate a 100 year storm event. It is not responsible for more intense events. It is also not responsible for making improvements to the channel that would expand its capacity beyond a 100 year storm event. The hydrology study, the City's review of same, and the requirements of the Municipal Code and State law are all being adhered to. The Project will have the same impact on the flood control channel in the built condition as it does in the unbuilt condition. The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan's Open Space land use designation for the parcel. As described in the Planning Commission staff report, and repeated above under "General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning," the Project's land use designation is determined by the approved, and long standing La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The site is identified as Low Density Residential, which permits single-family development. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan. Specific Plans in the City act as localized General Plan and Zoning documents for individual projects. In this case, the Specific Plan established a Low Density Residential designation for the property. The project is also consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and does not propose any reductions in development standards. The City's determination that a CUP was required stems both from the Specific Plan's reliance on Zoning standards, and an abundance of caution on staffs part to assure that all of the potential impacts associated with this Project be addressed, since it is not a typical valley floor lot. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Public Aqency Review° This request was sent to all applicable City departments and affected public agencies on November 6, 2015. All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Design and Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended Conditions of Approval. A letter was received from the property owner's architect, specifically addressing the sighting of bighorn sheep near the property (Attachment 11, Letter Regarding Big Horn Sheep). Architectural and Landscaping Review Board (ALRB) Review: The ALRB considered the proposed Project at its meeting of January 15, 2014. The home presented was of identical architectural style, but of larger size than the currently proposed Project. The ALRB complimented the architectural and landscape design, and moved to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the Project, with the following recommendations: Replace the proposed swing doors for the utility closet within the garage to facilitate the full use of the parking space. Use a cast of the existing on -site rocks in the design of the faux rock wall. Keep overall site disturbance to a minimum including establishment of the overlook area. These recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Project (Attachment 12, Conditions of Approval). Planning Commission Review: At its regular meeting of March 8, 2016, the Planning Commission heard considerable testimony for and against the proposed Project. The Planning Commission asked technical questions of the applicant relating to noise, aesthetics, and hydrology. The Planning Commission made further inquiries from public speakers regarding noise, parking for parties at individual houses, and whether the residents were aware the proposed Project site was permitted for single family residential (they were). After hearing all comments and information presented by all parties, the Commission unanimously approved the Project. ALTERNATIVES The Council can approve the appeal and revoke the Planning Commission's approval or table the appeal and provide direction to staff. Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Design and Development Director/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Project Information Form 2. Project Location Map 3. Settlement Agreement with Enclave Homeowners' Association 4. Development Booklet 5. Landscaping Plans 6. Visual Simulations Booklet 7. Initial Study 8. Response to Comments 9. Appeal Application and Attachments 10. CUP Comment Letters 11. Letter Regarding Big Horn Sheep 12. CUP 2013-152 Approved Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT 1 Project Information CASE NUM BER: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON PROPERTY OWNER: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ARCHITECT: PREST-VUKSIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HERMANN & ASSOCIATES ENGINEER: THE ALTUM GROUP REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE ENCLAVE AT MOUNTAIN ESTATES LOCATION: 77210 LOMA VISTA, WITHIN THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OPEN SPACE NATURAL ZONING DESIGNATION: OPEN SPACE SPECIFIC PLAN: LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT NO. 5, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: OPEN SPACE/MOUNTAIN SLOPES SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY HOMES EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: OPEN SPACE/MOUNTAIN SLOPES SUBDIVISION INFORMATION: N/A. The lot was created at the time that the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan (SP 121-E, Amendment No. 5) was developed. 203 N ATTACHMENT 2 CUP 2013-152 LOCATION MAP W E S m o �Ow Q Srq V 'Q c? o � AV-ENIM ERNANDO C�u C W�a q m� 2 O�� z �C OLI W LOS A-RBO L�ES� CALLE-M - -T-L-AN ATTACHMENT 3 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER IDR CONFERENCE This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER IDR CONFERENCE ("Agreement") is made as of the dates which appear below, by and between CASE SWENSON and LISA SWENSON (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "Swensons'�, and THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Non -Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation ("Association') related to a dispute involving the Swenson's Architectural application and submittal dated November 20, 2014, for the development of the residential lot located at 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California ("Swenson Property'. The Swensons and the Association shall hereinafter collectively referred to as "the parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, the Swensons had submitted various architectural design submittals for the Swenson Property prior to their most recent architectural application and submittal received on November 20, 2014 ("Prior Submittals'; WHEREAS, the Swensons submitted to the Association's Architectural Review Committee a detailed set of architectural design submittals prepared by Prest Vuksic, Architects, the Altum Group Engineering Firm and Hermann Design Group dated November 20, 2014, all as more particularly identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference ("November 20, 2014 Submittal'; WHEREAS, after receipt of the November 201" submittal, the Association made an Architectural Review Committee ruling dated December 31, 2014 ("December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling'), attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof by this reference; WHEREAS, the Swensons in a letter received from their counsel dated January 2, 2015, disputed the December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling and requested Internal Dispute Resolution ("IDR' related to same; WHEREAS, on Friday January 30, 2015, the parties had an IDR conference in which both parties and their consulting architects attended as well as their respective counsel; and WHEREAS, the parties reached a resolution settling all of their pending disputes including but not limited to any Prior Submittals or claims as well as the November 20, 2014 Submittal and hereby resolve all their disputes as set forth below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals of the parties herein, the parties agree as follows: A. The above -referenced recitals are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page I of 12 Settlement Agmt. B. This Agreement is intended, consistent with Civil Code §5915 to be a written agreement reached between the parties and is intended to bind the parties and is judicially enforceable; C. In consideration of Swenson's accommodations enumerated below, the Association hereby approves the November 20, 2014 Submittal and modifies the December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling such that the only remaining conditions of approval is compliance with all of the following: 1. DRAINAGE - the drainage plans that are part of the November 20, 2014 Submittal are approved subject, however, to compliance with necessary revisions and/or confirmation of additional information as more particularly identified in the memorandum from the Association's civil engineer, Charles Greely, P.E., of Dudek Engineering ("Dudek', dated January 28, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof by this reference ("Drainage Memorandum'. The Swensons shall provide the necessary information and/or revisions to meet the requirements of the Drainage Memorandum and shall provide all such revisions and information to Dudek as soon as possible inclusive of maintenance standards for the on -site drainage facilities located on the Swenson Property ("On -Site Drainage'). Written approval by Dudek as to further revisions/information required under the Drainage Memorandum ("Revised Drainage Memorandum') shall be deemed compliance with this section and no further approvals will be required from the Association's Board of Directors and/or Architectural Review Committee. Swenson and their future successors and assigns shall maintain the On -Site Drainage consistent with the approved Revised Drainage Memorandum. The Swensons further agree to reimburse the Association all costs it incurs as of February 1, 2015, to have Dudek review the information/revisions provided by the Swenson's civil engineer related to the Drainage Memorandum and such reimbursement shall take place within ten (10) days of presentation by the Association to the Swensons of an invoice for same. 2. INDEMNIFICATION - The Swensons shall indemnify for himself/herself/themselves, as well as for his/her/their successors and assigns, and covenants and agrees to hold Association harmless from all claims, demands or liability (collectively "Claims') arising out of or encountered in connection with any failure of the on -site drainage system comprised of a series of area drains connected to a localized storm drain system that terminates in an underground retention system under the driveway, including, but not limited to, the underground retention system, the drywells and all on -site drainage systems on the Swenson Property ("Drainage System', whether such Claims are caused by Swenson, Swenson's agents or employees, or contractors or subcontractors employed on the Swenson project, their agents or employees, or caused by any materials that are part of the Drainage System, excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by Association's negligence or wilful misconduct. 3. DRIVEWAY WALL / POOL AREA WALL PLANTERS - i) North Driveway Wall - The height of the wall is acceptable. The Swensons will use cast stone for the north wall with the color to match the material/stone of adjacent hillside. However, the final design plans for the north driveway wall will be submitted to the Association's SwensonSettlementAgmt.Flnal.030415.wpd Page 2 of 12 Settlement Agmt. 207 architect, Brad Hammerstrom of Diehl Group Architects ("Hammerstrom', as part of the working drawing submittal, for review and final approval. Promptly after the commencement of grading, Swenson's contractor and/or design professionals shall make available field samples made of cast stone for review and approval by Hammerstrom. The cast stone wall shall be applied to the hazardous rock wall as such wall is being constructed. The Swensons and their successors and assigns are further obligated to maintain the cast stone wall to ensure that the North Wall matches the material/stone of the adjacent hillside. ii) South Driveway Wall - The Swensons will use a stucco that matches the color as shown by the Color Board prepared by Prest Vuksic and received by the Association on November 20, 2014. In addition, the height of the wall will be reduced as much as possible but still meet La Quinta Building Code and, further, the Swensons will add landscaping to conceal the wall as much as possible to mitigate the aesthetic impact of such wall. The final design plans for the south driveway wall will be submitted to Hammerstrom as part of the working drawing submittal for review and final approval. iii) Pool Area Wall Planters - the pool area wall planters will have an additional natural boulder facade added to such planters with such boulder facade to have a 0 to 5 feet variation from the top of the wall in order to make it appear natural and blend in with the hillside consistent with the schematic attached hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof by this reference. The final design plans for this wall and the natural boulder facade shall be submitted to Hammerstrom as part of the working drawing submittal for review and final approval. The Swensons and their successors and assigns shall maintain the natural boulder facade so that the natural look of the boulder facade is retained. iv) Location and Identification of the Walls - See map attached hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof by this reference showing the North Driveway Wall, the South Driveway Wall and the Pool Area Wall Planters. 4. GRADING - Preliminary and final Grading shall be as agreed upon between Dudek and the Swenson's civil engineer. The Swensons shall provide Dudek grading reports as they are prepared during the grading process. 5. LANDSCAPE - The Swensons agree to install, at their cost, up to a total of twenty-one (21) 60" box Palo Brea and Blue Palo Verde trees behind Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 in locations to be reasonably agreed upon by the Association. The irrigation pipes for these trees will be buried where possible. If it is not possible to bury the pipes, then the irrigation pipes will be hidden/covered as much as possible so that they cannot be seen from any other residential Lot or the common areas. As to the irrigation for all other landscaping on the Swenson Property, all irrigation pipes (but not emitters) must be placed below grade. 6. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND SCHEDULE - Except for drilling as enumerated in Section 10.ii., the construction standards and schedule for all work to be done on the Swenson Property shall be consistent with III. D. denominated as Construction Standards of The Enclave Mountain Estates Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit F, made a part hereof by this reference. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 3 of 12 Settlement Agmt. KIM 7. VARIANCES - The Association's CC&Rs provides that variances may be granted from compliance with the architectural provisions contained therein "when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic and environmental consideration may require." Based on the uniqueness of the Swenson Property which distinguishes it from any other lot within The Enclave Mountain Estates community, any variances that are noted on Hammerstrom's May 16, 2014 Report, which was attached to the December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling, are hereby resolved and, to the extent a variance was required, it is hereby granted; provided, however, that as to any lighting of the front yard landscaping, the Swensons will use shielded LED / low voltage lights and, further, any lighting on the slope areas adjacent to lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, shall be installed with shielded low voltage lights with the light pointing uphill toward the Swenson residence. Written approval by Hammerstrom as to the working drawings shall be deemed in compliance with this Agreement and no further approvals will be required from the Association's Board of Directors and/or Architectural Review Committee. 8. REMEDIAL MEASURES SET FORTH IN VUKSIC'S LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2014 - Hammerstrom has confirmed that all remedial measures stated in said letter have been included in the November 20, 2014 Submittal. 9. COMPLETION BOND - A completion bond will not be required; however, the Swensons agree that once they start construction, they are obligated to complete the retainage / drainage system irrespective of any cessation on the construction of the house. For the purposes of this provision, "cessation" shall mean "stoppage of construction for 2 months or more". . 10. ACCESS AND NOTICE i) ACCESS. - The Association's design professionals (such as their architect and civil engineer) shall have access to the Swenson Property to ensure compliance with the November 20, 2014 Submittal and this Agreement until such time as the proposed residence and all improvements thereon are issued a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of La Quinta. ii) NOTICE - The Swensons shall provide written notice to the Association at least ten (10) days before commencement of any drilling or other heavy grading on the Swenson Property, such notice to include a description of the type of drilling, the time of day and duration (number of days) of the expected drilling. No drilling shall start before 9:00 a.m.. iii) DRIVEWAY - The Association's contractor placed some dirt on the undeveloped area intended to be the Swenson's driveway and the Swensons agree such dirt can remain in place and does not need to be removed by the Association. D. Miscellaneous Provisions. 1. The parties represent and warrant that no portion of any claim, right, demand, cause and/or right of action that the parties have or might have, as herein referenced, has been assigned or transferred to any other person, firm, partnership, entity or corporation, whether by operation of law or otherwise. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 4 of 12 Settlement Agmt f► 1' 2. This Agreement is binding on the successors and assigns to the parties of this Agreement. In this regard, the Swensons and their successors and assigns have an ongoing duty to disclose/provide a copy of this Agreement to any successive Owner of the Swenson Property inclusive of the ongoing obligations related to the Indemnification as well as ongoing maintenance obligations that are contained within this Agreement. 3. It is further understood and agreed that, if any portion of this Agreement must be held null, void or unenforceable, for any reason whatsoever, that the parties may enforce the remaining portions of this Agreement. 4. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters herein set forth, and shall not be modified, except in writing, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the.executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 5. The terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. 6. This Agreement has been entered into in the State of California, County of Riverside and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California and shall be deemed to have been made and/or performed in said State and County. 7. The parties represent and warrant that they have carefully read this Agreement and that the parties have the sole and exclusive power and authority to execute this Agreement and do so of their own free act. 8. As between the parties, in the event of litigation over, regarding or relating to this Agreement, including issues as to its enforceability, interpretation or any alleged breach of same, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover his, her or its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 9. Each party to this Agreement shall bear his/her/its own attorney's fees and costs. 10. The parties represent and warrant that they have carefully read this Agreement and had the contents and legal effect hereof fully explained by legal counsel of their choosing. 11. The parties represent and warrant that the undersigned have the sole and exclusive power and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of all named parties to the action and do so of their own free act. 12. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and when each party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and all counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement, which shall be binding in effectiveness to all the parties. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 5 of 12 Settlement Agmt. 210 Mar 10 2015 06:37PM HP Fax 6262847030 page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the dates which appear below. The undersigned hereby warrant that they are legally authorized and entitled to settle and to release every claim herein released and to give a valid, full and final acquittance therefor, CASE SWi~tdSQPd and LXSA 5WEN5ON �.-------_-----••-_----- Dated: 1 _gase- w s n Dated:. � CY �..� _ wensan THE 5NCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION A Callfornla NO"• -Profit Mutual £teneflt Corporatlarr Dated: S��ciuonSaulcmcntAgmt.Flna1.03041 S.wpd Pup 6 of 12 ScBlentent Agmt. 211 EXHIBIT A SWENSON NOVEMBER 20, 2014 ARCHITECTURAL SUBMITTAL: I. SHEET INDEX PAGE TITLE DATE C7.0 Technical Site Plan 10/28/2014 C2.0 Overall Preliminary Precise Grading Plan 10/28/2014 C2.1 Enlarged Preliminary Grading Plan 10/28/2014 C3.0 Easements & Utility Plan 10/28/2014 L1.0 Illustrative Site Plan 11/10/2014 L2.0 Illustrative Planting Plan 11/10/2014 L2.0 Illustrative Planting Plan 11/10/2014 L2.1 Planting Plan A 11/06/2014 L2.2 Planting Plan B 11/06/2014 L3.0 Lighting Plan 11/10/2014 L4.0 Construction Details 11/06/2014 A2.02 Enlarged Site Plan 11/06/2014 A2.01 Overall Site Plan 03/17/2014 A2.10 Floor Plan 11/06/2014 A3.10 Exterior Elevations 11/06/2014 A3.11 Exterior Elevations 11/06/2014 A3.20 Colored Elevations 11/06/2014 A3.21 Colored Elevations 11/06/2014 A6.10 Roof Plan 11/06/2014 A6.20 Details 07/23/2013 A6.21 Details 07/23/2013 II. COLOR BOARD - prepared by Prest Vuksic III. RENDERINGS SUBMITTED WITH THE PLANS SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 7 of 12 Settlement Agq *A iIIOta� SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 8 of 12 Settlement AS". Homeowners Association Architectural Review Committee Ruling December 31, 2014 SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Case and Lisa Swenson Case and Lisa Swenson 62 Ellenwood Ave. c/o Barry Swenson Builder Los Gatos, CA 95030 777 N. Ist Street, 5th Floor San Jose, CA 95112 Re: Your Architectural Application for Proposed Development of Your Residential Lot Located at 77210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California ("Proposed Residence") Dear Mr. and Mrs. Swenson: The Association's Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") has reviewed your Architectural Design Submittal of November 20, 2014 for the Proposed Residence ("Submittal") and provides you with the following conditional approval of your Submittal, as more particularly enumerated below: ASSOCIATION'S GOVERNING DOCUMENTS The Association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements ("CC&Rs") provide as follows: Article VIII 8. Architectural Control. 8.2. Review ofPlans and Specifications. ... The ARC may also issue rules or guidelines setting forth procedures for the submission of plans for approval,'... The ARC shall approve plans and specifications submitted for The Association's Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by this reference. AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 ♦ (760) 346-9918 fax 214 its approval only if it deems that the installation, construction, alterations or additions contemplated thereby in the locations indicated will not be detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding area of the Properties as a whole, that the appearance of any structure affected thereby will be in harmony with the surrounding structures, and that the installation or construction thereof will not detract from the beauty, wholesomeness and attractiveness of the Common Area and Association Maintenance Areas or the enjoyment thereof by the Members.... 8.7 Scope of Work. The ARC shall review and approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all plans submitted to it for any proposed Improvement, alteration or addition, on the basis of (1) compliance with Specific Plan 121-E and all applicable provisions of this Declaration and the Rules and Regulations, (fi) compatibility with the development within the Santa Rosa Cove community in terms of architecture, mass, height and bulk of structures and landscape design, (iii) consistency of the building architecture, building materials and colors with the design theme of the Santa Rosa Cove community, and (iv) aesthetic considerations and the overall benefit or detriment which would result to the immediate vicinity and the Properties generally. The ARC shall take into consideration the aesthetic aspects of the architectural designs, placement of buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior finishes and materials and similar features. The ARC's approval or disapproval shall be based solely on the considerations set forth in this Article VIII .... The Architectural Committee may consider the impact of views from other Dwelling Units or Lots and reasonable privacy right claims as factors in reviewing, approving or disapproving any proposed landscaping, construction or other Improvement. RULING The ARC, in reliance on the recommendations of the consulting architects (Bradley C. Hammerstrom of the Diehl Group Architects, Inc.), hereby CONDITIONALLY APPROVES ,the Submittal provided, however, that the items listed below require further information, plans and/or revisions and will need to be submitted / resubmitted prior to the commencement of any construction: 1. Drainage — The overall drainage.from the hillside lot is still of a concern. How will the on -site drainage flow? Where will it flow? Will there be a percolation trench? What modeling of the proposed drainage plans have occurred since the August 2013 and September 2014 rain storms? Receipt of confirmation that the proposed drainage plans are sufficient to handle any run off and erosion from similar rain storm events, without further taxation of the existing Flood Control Channel. Further drainage plans and how drainage will impact the community and the Association's needs to be provided. DRAINAGE IS NOT APPROVED. 2 AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 . (760) 346-1161 4 (760) 346-9918 fax 215 2. Applicant to be responsible for and/or indemnify the Association or its members for the maintenance and inspection, costs associated with any approved drainage system on Applicant's lot as well as, any modifications, if required, of the existing Flood Control Channel (Applicant's Drainage System). Applicants shall be solely responsible for and shall indemnify the Association for any costs of any maintenance, ,inspection and/or cleanup of any rain run off and/or mud or sediment erosion that may flow from Applicant's lot/Drainage System onto the Association Common Areas, including streets, or any neighboring properties. Applicants agree to follow the maintenance and inspection obligations as set forth in Paragraph 9.2 of the Association's CC&Rs as they apply to Applicant's Drainage System. Applicants to provide to the Association's BOD annual certificates confirming completion of the required maintenance and inspections, including certification by a licensed civil engineer as required in 9.2 as to Applicant's Drainage System. 3. Driveway Wall —Insufficient information provided. NOT APPROVED. 4. Rock Fall Hazard — Note page C.0.2 of the submitted plans has a note that states "rock fall hazard note" and that insufficient information has been provided NOT APPROVED. 5. Grading: Not approved without submission of Final Grading'Plans and proof of compliance with the recommendations of Earth Systems Southwests' Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated March 26, 2013. Applicants further agree, at their sole cost, to allow Mr. Hammerstrom or his (HOA's) designated representative notice of and access to all site clearing, grading, soil compaction and bedrock cuts and shall be provided access to all geotechnical observations ,analysis and testing. 6. Landscape — final landscape plans must be submitted for review / approval. 7. Schedule — in light of the CONDITIONAL APPROVAL and the further information/submission requested herein, the Construction Schedule is NOT APPROVED. 8. VARIANCES — Applicants and their Architectural consultant represents that no variances are sought. To the extent there are any variances required which must be approved by the Board of Directors, it is hereby requested that the Swensons and their architects, Prest-Vuksic, and the Association's architect, Bradley Hammerstrom of Diehl Group Architects, Inc. get together to review the 7 page May 16, 2014 letter from Brad Hammerstrom which references approximately 10 possible variances to determine if actual variances for any of those items will be required and report back to the Architectural Committee for further determination. Any variances must be approved by the Board of Directors. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 9. Applicants to submit written confirmation that the remedial measures set forth in Mr. Vuksic's letter dated July, 8, 2014 addressed to the Members of the Architectural Committee are included and incorporated in the present Submittal. AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 ® (760) 346-9918 fax 216 10. Applicant shall post a completion bond in an amount to be negotiated with the Architectural Committee to ensure completion of the Applicant's Drainage System in the event the Applicants are unable to complete Applicant's Drainage System for any reason after the commencement of construction. 11. Applicant to. execute an Architectural Improvement Agreement to be recorded against Applicant's Lot to incorporate the conditions contained herein as well as a Type 1 indemnity/insurance requirements for the benefit of the Assoc iation/BODs/Managing Agent and a deposit requirement equal to the projected amount of architectural/engineering fees that the Association may/will incur to review additional plans and assure completion consistent with the plans submitted and to be submitted to the Association for approval Architectural Review Committee THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 4 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 ♦ (760) 346-9918 fax 217 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines Lf \ May 16,2014 DIERL GROUP ARCH IiECrS Purpose and Process The pupose of this report is to advise the Architecutrai Review Commitee of the Enclave Mountain Estates regarding the proposed Swenson home project. The intent of this report is to review the proposed project against the Governing Documents(CC&R and Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines). Relevant Sections from each have been excerpted here for reference. My judgement regarding whether or not the proposed project complies with each excerpted Section is provided, along with my comments. It should be noted that the proposed project has unique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the community: D The lot is combined of two lots, each of which is much larger than any other single lot in the Mountain Estates t' The lot is undeveloped, yet partly disturbed, and not fine -graded, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates 0- The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates 0- The lot is the only lot in the Mountain Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. Ia The proposed home is elevated roughly two stories above all other homes. � The lot does not have the typical front yard, side yards, rear yard setup like all other homes. P The proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes, like no other home in the Mountain Estates It should also be noted that the Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines were last revised 5/6199, which post-dates the anexation of the Swenson lots to the Mountain Estates in 6/14/93. In the chart below, 1 have provided a quick means to check the compliance, or not, of the various Sections cited. Some Sections are advisory in nature, rather than prescriptive, and are included due to their relevance to the Swenson project. Those Sections have no relevant Comply response so "Na" is shown. Where additional information or confirmation is needed a "more info" or "Yes, Conditionally" response is entered. Blue highlights indicate my emphasis added. Respectfully, Bradley C. Hammerstrom AIA Complies? Governing Document Section Excerpt Hammerstrom Comments CCR Article Vill Architerhiml Rnntrni Yes Yes, conditionally 8.1 Members of Committee "The ARC shall have the right and duty to The design of the home itself "conforms" to the design and promulgate reasonable standards against which to materials of other buildings in the project, which is quite examine any request made pursuant to the Article, diverse. The cast stone walls are intended to "conform in order to ensure that the proposed plans conform harmoniously" to the surrounding hills. Asa side note, i harmoniously to the exterior design and existing would point -out that the Mountain Estates lake, waterfall, materials of the buildings in the Properties." round non -granite boulders do not, in my opinion, "conform harmoniously" with the existing materials. 8.2 Review of Plans and Specifications "The ARC shall approve plans ... only if it deems that Some homeowners certainly feel the project will be the [project] will not be detrimental to the "detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding area", appearance of the surrounding area of the i.e. their back yard views. The Common Area is not Properties as a whole, that the appearance of any affected, except visually, it could be argued. if the cast structure affected thereby will be in harmony with stone is done convincingly, then I believe it will not be the surrounding structures, and that the installation "detrimental'. or construction thereof will not detract from the beauty, wholesomeness and attractiveness of the Common Area and Association Maintenance Areas or the enjoyment thereof by the Members..." Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 1 of 7 218 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governina Document Section Excer t n/a more info more info n/a n/a n/a n/a ALiA RC "Decisions of the ARC and the reasons therefor Advisory re: time limit to respond shall be transmitted by the ARC to the applicant... within forty-five (45) days after receipt by the ARC of all materials required by the ARC." 8.7 Scope of Review "The ARC shall review and approve, conditionally (i) I am not familiar with "Specific Plan 121•E". approve or disapprove all plans submitted ... on the (1I) The design of the home itself is compatible in terms of basis of: "architecture, mass, height and bulk". (I) compliance with Specific Plan 121-E and all (ill) The project uses consistent materialsand colors. applicable provision of this Declaration and the (Iv) This Item is subjective. Rules and Regulations, (if) compatibility with the development within the Santa Rosa Cove community in terms of architecture, mass, height and bulk of the constructions and landscape design, (fit) consistency of the building architecture, building materials and colors with the design theme of the Santa Rosa Cove community, and (iv) aesthetic considerations and the overall benefit or detriment which could result to the immediate vicinity and the Properties generally." "The ARC shall take into consideration the aesthetic This is under consideration still, with the only remaining aspects of the architectural designs, placement of issues being, perhaps, the "placement! of the building on buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior the east side and the look of the cast stone with regard to finishes and materials and similar features." "aesthetic aspects". "The ARC's approval or disapproval shall be based Advisory: ARC does not grant building permits solely on the considerations set forth in this Article Vill, and the ARC shall not be responsible for reviewing, nor shall its approval of any plan or design be deemed approval of, any plan or design from the standpoint of structural safety or conformance with building or other codes." "The Architectural Committee may consider the Advisory re: view impacts impact of view from other Dwelling Units or Lots and reasonable privacy right claims as factors in reviewing, approving or disapproving any proposed landscaping, construction or other Improvement." "However, Declarant does not warrant any protected Advisory re: view impacts views within the Properties, and no Dwelling Unit or Lot is guaranteed the existence or unobstructed continuation of any particular view." 8.8 Variance "The ARC may authorize variances from compliance Gives the ARC power to grant variances, which, given the with any of the architectural provisions of this many unique characteristics of the Swenson lot, may be Declaration, including without limitation, restrictions justified for some provisions. upon height, size, floor area or placement of structures, or similar restriction, when circumstances such as topography, natural obstruction, hardship, aesthetic or environmental consideration may require." Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELiMINARY- Page 2 of 7 219 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary- Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governing Document Section Excerpt Hammerstrom Comments Article X Use Restrictions No nta Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes LaLA GIERL GRUUPIIRCHIiECiS 10.3 Nuisances "No horns, whistles, bells, or other sound devices, The outdoor TV might be considered an"other sound except security devices used exclusively to protect device" and be disallowed. the security of a Dwelling Unit and its contents, shall be placed or used on any Lot" 10.10 Outside Installations "No fence or wall shall be erected, altered or Advisory: walls and fences are in ARCspurview. maintained on any Lot on the Properties, except with the prior approval of the ARC." 10.15 View Obstructions "...each Owner, by accepting title to a Lot, hereby ARC has no duty to preserve anyone's views. acknowledges that: (a) there are no protected views within the Properties, and no Lot is assured the existence or unobstructed continuation of any particular view, and (b) any construction, landscaping or installation of Improvements by Declarant or other Owners may Impair the view from any Lot, and the Owners hereby consent to such view impairment." "No other Improvement or obstruction shall be The project does not "unreasonably obstruct".the view from constructed, planted or maintained upon any Lot in anyone's lot. such location or of such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any -other Lot in the vicinity thereof." 10.18 Construction of a Dweilin Unit "No Dwelling Unit or other structures (other than The pad appears to not have been "graded by Deicarant", chimneys) may exceed a height of twenty-two (22) so this provision is, strictly, not applicable; however, the feet above the finished pad as graded by intent is followed in that the Dwelling Unit -including the Declarant " chimney --is less than 22ft high. "All mechanical equipment (including without AC equipment is hidden on garage roof, Pool equipment is limitation pool heaters and motors and air conditions in underground vault. units, wherever located, must be hidden from view from all Lots, Common Area, streets and the golf course adjacent to the Properties:' "The front yard landscaping on each Lot shall Strictly speaking, the project has no "front yard", but contain not less than two (2) lights. Such lights: perhaps the yard areas between the retaining walls and the (1) shall contain a maximum of one hundred fifty storm channel could be considered the "front yard". Those (150) watts, areas have no lighting planned. Assuming the intent of this (ii) shall not cause any glare on any adjoining provision is to require lighting In the publicly visible yard of property or streets, a home, then the project's entire yard area should follow (iii) must be controlled by a photocell, these requirements. I believe, however, that the consensus (iv) may not be colored, but may be incandescent or of adjoining neighbors would prefer no lighting in these fluorescent, and areas. A variance should be considered for this provision. (v) may not be mounted on the Dwelling Unit or any wallsposts orpoles." Architectural and LsndRrAnP_ nPcimn r.,imaiinac I. Desi n Philoso h "...a small group of unique homesites.... Their Reasonable differences of opinion are possible on this, but uniqueness requires a sensitive and respectful in my opinion the project meets this goal, inten ration...with the natural environment." Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 3 of 7 220 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Yes Yes Yes n1a nta n1a n1a uuu uucuuie "oacuun CxcerpE "The intent...is to encourage and cultivate quality design ... while still allowing an individual expression..:' "A principle concern is the preservation and creation of value." "The character of the architectural design should be expressive of the desert environment. Colors and materials should be composed of tones and shapes responding to the adjacent improved and natural avnn _n 11 A. Design Review Procedures A L /% OIEHL GROUP ARCHITECTS meets this goal, in my opinion. ainiy the project will create much more value on the nson lot being developed, as compared to its current e. Reasonable differences of opinion are possible rding the "preservation" of value of the lot and of the e neighborhood. in my opinion, the neighborhood's would not be diminished by this project', but oved, by virtue of one less vacant lot, poorly graded disturbed. project meets this goal, in my opinion. 1. Design -Review Process "The ARC ... may require that changes be made to Advisory: These guidelines are not exhaustive. The ARC comply with the [Governing Documents] and such may use it's discretion and has broad powers. additional requirements as the ARC may, in it's discretion, impose as to structural features of any proposed Improvement, the type of material used, or other features or characteristics thereof not expressly covered by any provisions of this document, including the siting or location of any proposed Improvement with respect to the topography and finished ground elevations." 7. Other Approvals "Approval ... by the ARC does not waive the Advisory: ARC does not grant building permits necessity of obtaining the required city and any other public agency ermits and approvals." "Any... approval as given by the ARC refers only to Advisory: ARC does not review for Codes, Engineering or its conformity with these Design Guidelines, the Safety. Declaration and such other rules as may be promulgated by the ARC. The ARC ... makes no representations with respect to plan conformance with governmental codes, engineering or structural design ... or design for structural safety and conformance with building or other codes." 2. Pad Elevation "Each homesite has a finished grade elevation as It appears the project does not have a City approved pad approved by the City of La Quinta. No fill material elevation --or a level "pad" at all. The Swenson lot is unique may be placed on the lot to raise the approved pad in that the lot is raw except for some verycrude grading. elevation." The intent of this provision, in my opinion, is to maintain all pads at their originally designed elevation. Strictly speaking the Swenson lot has no originally designed pad elevation, so this provision does not apply. in my opinion this provision is not meant to address the use of fill, per se. Diehl Group Architects, Inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 4 of 7 221 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governing Document Section Excer t Yes No Yes a7 No n/a Yes Yes, conditionally No No Yes OIEHL GROUP ARCIIJIMS 3. A roved Roof Height & 5to Limitation naunucrsirom uummenis "The highest point of the roof structure must not The highest portion of the roof is 20'-3". Sldctly speaking exceed twenty-two (22) feet from the approved pad the lot appears to have no "approved padelevation", but elevation" 6. Garden Wail Requirements the intent of this provision is met. A. General: "All homesite owners are required to construct A variance should be considered for this provision, since garden walls where their property adjoins another." the lot is unique —it adjoins the property lines of lots 16-21. The property line is along the top of the storm channel retaining wall. it Is unreasonable, impractical and, i believe, undesirable for these owners to have a 6-foot garden wall atop their storm channel retaining wall. "No wall will. be permitted along rear property lines The project conforms with this provision, although defining without ARC approval. Homesites one (1) - five (5) the "rear property line" for the Swenson tot is difficult. No are excluded." property line "garden walls" are proposed.A retaining wall is proposed along the first 144-feet of the left side of the driveway, going up. B. Wall Height and Finish: "Six (6) foot high masonry block walls must be A variance should be considered for this provision, since provided along common residential property lines to the lot is unique --it adjoins the rear property lines of lots 16- enclose side yards." 21 and adjoins no side yards. The Swenson's "side yard" Is "Walls must extend from the front of the residence difficult to define. A variance should be considered for this provision, since to the rear property setback line." the lot is unique --the rear property setback line is 110 ft behind the garage, up the steep mountainwhere nobody, I "All garden walls shall be masonry and at least six believe, wants anything built. This provision does not `apply since no "garden walls" are (6) inches thick and appropriately finished to match proposed or required (if a variance is granted). or compliment the exterior of the house." C. Garden Gates "Shall be substantially construcled .... Sid yyard The projects meets this provision. gates and gates to service areas must be of a solid composition to visually screen such areas." 7. Service Areas and I Itility entrance Locations Electric meters and panels, gas meters, sub- This level of detail is not provided in the materials provided. panels, telephone and television entrance panels, The design team should be made aware of this and similar items must be out of sight when viewed requirement and future inspections should enforce this. from the golf course, street or adjacent homesites." 8. Residential Exteriors B. Materials/Colors: "All exterior materials shall be authentic and It could be reasonably argued that the proposed cast stone genuine." is simulated, not "authentic and genuine". But, I think the consensus of all -concerned is to conceal the required retaining walls with simulated stone. A vadance for this provision should be considered if this is the case. C. Roofs "The slope of all pitched roofs shall be no flatter The plans show the main metal roof is sloped at 3/4:12, in than 3:12 ratio." apparent violation of this provision. i do not understand the intent of this provision. Given the elevated lot the rooftop is not visible In any of the photosims provided. A variance should be considered for this provision. "Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall not be Sheet metal shrouds surround rooftop equipment on the visible from adjacent properties or public areas." garage. This provision is met. Diehl Group Architects, Inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 5 of 7 222 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Nome - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governing Document Section Excerpt Yes, conditionally Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes, conditionally Yes Yes No No ALA OIEHL GROUPAiCHIrEcts E. Roof Gutters: "Roof gutters shall be constructed into the roof The plans show no gutter at the main metal roof, which has structure with downspouts being run within the a slightly curved eave when viewed in planview. Other roof walls. Exposed gutters, downspouts, or scuppers areas have concealed downspouts. If gutters are provided are not acceptable." on the metal roofs, they should be concealed. L. Drfvewa s: "All drives shall be brick, stone, concrete pavers, or Pavers are shown on the plans. concrete either stamped, salt finish or punctuated by the masonry used on the buildings. Asphalt driveways will not be approved." 11. Exterior Lighting. "Exterior lighting shall be low scale and directed Proposed lights in soffits are deeply recessed. downward, recessed, or shielded so that the light source is not visible or obnoxious..:' 1. General Guidelines. "Any portion of the homesite not used for buildings, A variance should be considered for this provision, since patios, driveways, or sidewalks shall be landscaped the lot is unique --much of the lot area is planned to be left in accordance with these guidelines and shall be undisturbed. irrigation and landscaping is not desired provided with an automatic irrigation system." except where screening landscaping is planned to shield the views from adjoining lots. Some adjoining homeowners would prefer no landscaping in the undisturbed areas. 2. Exposed rock surfaces shall be treated with an The lot is unique in that the majority of site is "exposed approved 'desert varnish' (also called an oxidizing or rock surfaces" planned to remain undisturbed. Where any aging agent) such as Ecnite or Permeon. This "grey" disturbed rock surfaces remain after grading and process restores the natural desert coloration to landscaping (whether pre-existing or ne*-created), this disturbed surfaces. The color shall match as nearly provision should be followed. as possible the color of the surrounding rocks/mountains." 4. Li htfn . "Any landscape lighting utilized shall be shielded to No landscape lighting is proposed in the 'undisturbed prevent nuisance glare onto adjacent properties or areas" outside of the retaining walls. Driveway lights and the golf course." others shown on sheet L3.0 Lighting Plan are shielded. The project meets this provision, "Lighting shall be automated and controlled by a The plans do not contain this level of detail, but the design timer inside the house or photo -cell electric system, team should be made aware of this requirement and future and shall be active at all time, including those inspections should verify. periods when the house is not occupied." "All outdoor fixtures shall utilize incandescent or The project meets this provision. florescent lamps. No lens, which is colored, shall be permitted." "Walk lights may be used along walkways and The project meets this provision. driveways and shall project downward only," "Fixtures shall not exceed fifteen (15) inches in Sheet L3.0 Lighting Plan shows "path lights" as Vista height." model 2128 at 17-inches tall, in violation of this provision. 6. Maintenance. "The homeowner shall maintain all plantings in a A variance should be considered for this provision, since healthy growing condition." the lot is unique --much of the lot area is planned to be left undisturbed. Irrigation and landscaping is not desired except where screening landscaping Is planned to shield the views from adjoining lots. Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 6 of 7 223 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of OCR and Design Guidelines May 16,2014 OiEHE GROOPARCHITECTS Complies? Governing document Section Excerpt Hammerstrom Comments No "Dead and dying plants shall be removed and A variance should be considered for this provision, since replaced promptly." the tot is unique —much of the lot area is planned to be left undisturbed. irrigation and landscaping is not desired except where screening landscaping is planned to shield D. Construction Standards the views from adjoining lots. 5. ARC and Association Access to Homesite. n!a Advisory "In -progress building review inspections wilt "be required during construction to assure compliance to the approvedplans." Na "Each of the following 4 inspection must be Advisory scheduled... 1 st Inspection - When forms are up and prior to the pouring of the foundation. 2nd Inspection - Framing Inspection to verify conformance with submitted plans. 3rd Inspection - Landscape Inspection to verify conformance with submitted plans. 4th Inspection - Final Inspection." n/a "If any irregularities are found, the work must be Advisory revised to conform. All homeowners and builders must sl n attached "Inspection Form"." END Diehl Group Architects, Inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 7 of 7 224 225 EXHIBIT C SwensonSettlementAgmt.Flnal.030415.wpd Page 9 of 12 Settlement "Me. 40-004 COOK STREET SSjM7. 4 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92211 T 760.34 1 .6460 f 760.346.E 618 To: Enclave Mountain Estates HOA — Board or Directors From: Charles Greely, PE, LEER AP, QSD Subject: Swenson Residence @ Mountain Estates Date: January 28, 2015 Please accept this memo as our formal response to your request for engineering review of the precise grading plans associated with the proposed Swenson Residence construction within The Enclave Mountain Estates located in La Quinta, California. Pursuant with you request, Dudek has reviewed the grading and utility plans (with a submittal date of 10/28/2014) associated with the residence primarily for concerns associated with drainage from the site. Dudek understands that the City of La Quinta is reviewing the plans for permitting concurrent with our review. This review in no way intended to supersede or countermand the plan review provided by the City Public Works or Building Department personnel. The following is a list of comments and/or concerns associated with the plans: 1) The drainage system is comprised of a series of area drains connected to a localized storm drain system that terminates in an underground retention system adjacent to the driveway. Though sizes and material specifications are missing from the plans (and should be added in future submittals) the system appears to consist of 4" to 12" storm drain piping with minimum slopes of 0.5%. Hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) calculations should be provided to verify that the system has adequate capacity to convey up to a 100- yr storm event into the downstream retention structure. 2) The underground retention system is comprised of a sloped 48" diameter pipe connected to a drywell to facilitate percolation. The location of the drywell is approximately 1' from the limits of the existing culvert pipes that convey drainage from the channel system underneath Loma Vista to the downstream drainage facilities in the La Quinta Resort. The close proximity of the proposed drywell to the existing culvert pipe causes concern for the following reasons: W`NLN.DUDEK.COM 227 Memorandum Subject: Swenson Residence @ Mountain Estates a. Constructability — Can the drywell be installed while adequately protecting the existing culvert pipe from damage b. The drywell will dispose of storm water through percolation to surrounding soils. The result will be additional lateral pressure on the culvert pipe during times of percolation. The culvert pipe needs to be analyzed to verify that adequate structural capacity exists for this load case. c. Are collapsible soils present around the drywell that could cause structural damage to the culvert in the presence of percolated water? d. Has adequate geotechnical testing occurred to verify that the drywell will completely percolate within 72 hours to satisfy vector control concerns? e. The proposed underground retention system will encroach into the exiting private drainage easement. Will special permission be needed from the HOA for this encroachment? f. What maintenance protocols are (or will be) in place to ensure the system is inspected and maintained? 3) The project proposes to construct an access route from the private driveway to the drainage easement for maintenance equipment access. The proposed route requires tight turning movements that may restrict anything but small equipment from access the channel. Additionally, a 10' wide gate is proposed to restrict access to the channel. The applicant should show justification for the proposed gate and demonstrate that the turning movements will not restrict access for typical maintenance equipment (backhoe, track loader, skid steer, etc.) If a gate is proven to be justified, we recommend a minimum width of 15 to accommodate the full drainage easement width. 4) Based on the quantity of impermeable rock material that currently makes up the lot, we would not expect a significant increase in runoff associated with the building footprint and associated hardscape surfaces. Therefore the proposed construction should have no appreciable impact on the existing flood control channel and no increased risk of exceeding the channel capacity. Please note; this plan review is based on preliminary design documents provided by the applicant. Dudek anticipates that final design documents (precise grading, H&H study, fire department approval, CVWD approval, etc.) would be prepared and submitted to the City and HOA for final approval. 8050 DUDEK 2 January 2014 228 Memorandum Subject: Swenson Residence @ Mountain Estates Based on our review of the preliminary engineering plans, we recommend that the HOA Board approve the submittal subject to the review and approval of final design documents that address the items noted above. Should the Board have any questions or wish to discuss our review comments, I can be contacted at 760.601.3411 or cgreely@dudek.com. Sincerely, Charles Greely, PE, LEED AP, QSD Senior Project Manager { 8050 January 2014 229 EXHIBIT D SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 10 of 12 Settlement AM. 231 *A—M.] c � SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 11 of 12 Settlement A`g . A 233 SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 12 of 12 Settlement Ag". • Irrigation systems are to be kept in proper working condition to avoid unnecessary loss of water. Owners shall be responsible for adjusting, repairing, and cleaning such systems on a regular basis. • The irrigation system shall be designed and be checked regularly to ensure that water from emitters or spray heads is not spraying onto walks, or driveways, or off the owner's property causing excessive water loss, staining or irrigating areas not designed to receive water. 7. Modifications to the Landscape. • Any modifications to the landscape, visible to the public, or adjacent properties shall require approval by the ARC prior to the modifications being made. D. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. 1. Owner/Contractor Responsibilities. • Each Homesite Owner and their general contractor will hold both the developer and the homeowners association harmless from actions of the owner, general contractor, sub -contractors, suppliers or any other person connected with the construction of the home. A general liability insurance policy from the owner and/or the. general contractor naming both the developer and the homeowners association as additional insured must be received prior to final approval of working drawings. • Each Owner is responsible for hiring contractors and subcontractors licensed in California. • The Owner is responsible for making certain that all construction personnel are familiar with and obey the rules governing their activities. • Each general contractor or superintendent is responsible for familiarizing their employees, subcontractors and suppliers with all relevant construction requirements and provisions in these design guidelines, and enforcing them. Each general contractor or superintendent is responsible for controlling employee work hours,- and controlling any activities of employees that may be deemed as an annoyance or nuisance to other homeowners. • Each general contractor or superintendent is responsible for providing Security personnel with an up to date listing Revised 5/6/99 25 235 of names and telephone numbers of all employees, subcontractors and suppliers that shall have access to the construction site. • The Owner and/or general contractor or superintendent is required to construct the Residence and surrounding Improvements according to the plans, specifications and revisions approved in writing by the ARC. • The - use of property adjacent to homesites under construction for vehicular access purposes, parking or material storage will not be permitted without the written consent of the adjacent homesite owner. The written permission must be on file with the ARC prior to use of the adjacent property. All adjacent property must be returned to its original condition at the end of construction. 2. Temporary Construction Facilities • A temporary water riser together with 150' (minimum) of 3/4" heavy-duty rubber water hose irrigation facilities for dust control and a hose stand shall be provided and installed. • A metered power outlet shall be provided and installed in accordance with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation, the City of La Quinta, and the ARC. No signage is permitted on the temporary power poles. Pole shall be painted a gray or tan color. • A temporary portable toilet in good condition shall be provided with a bi-weekly chemical maintenance program. These units shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary and odorless condition. Toilet facilities shall be located in such a manner as not to infringe on neighboring homesite owners and shall be placed so the entrance faces toward the house, away from the street. Color shall be gray or tan. • It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure there is no drainage onto adjoining property during construction. • A minimum three'(3) yard steel roll -off dumpster shall be maintained on the homesite irt clean exterior condition and free of graffiti for the duration of the construction phase for adequate containment of.all construction waste. A bi- weekly dumping service shall be maintained so that overflow and unpleasant odors do not occur. Color shall be gray or tan. Revised 5/6/99 26 236 • Construction Trailers are prohibited. 3. Speed Limit. • The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. 4. Site Signage. • No signs other than an approved builder and site address sign located on the plan box or standard ARC homesite identification signs will be permitted. on homesites under construction. 5. ARC and Association Access to Homesite. • Representatives of the ARC and the Association shall have full access the Homesite and buildings while under construction. • In progress building review inspections will be' required during construction to assure compliance to the approved plans. It is the builders responsibility to nbtify the Mountain Enclave's management . association representative of builder's readiness for each inspection. Each of the following 4 inspections must be scheduled 10 working days in advance of necessary inspection: Ist Inspection — When forms are up and prior to the pouring of the foundation. 2nd Inspection — Framing Inspection to verify conformance with submitted plans. 3rd Inspection — Landscape Inspection to verify conformance with submitted plans. 4th Inspection — Final Inspection If any irregularities are found, the work must be revised to conform. All homeowners and builders must sign attached "Inspection Form". 6. Site Conduct and Safety Precautions. The general contractor, job superintendent, and their employees, subcontractors and suppliers shall: • Comply with all of the construction provisions established in these Design Guidelines and the Declaration. • Not consume alcoholic beverages. • Playing of Radios, compact disc players and tape decks are prohibited. • Not damage or disturb the work of others Revised 5/6/99 27 237 • Take all necessary precautions for the safety of all persons, materials, and equipment on or adjacent to the site. Furnish, erect and maintain approved barriers, lights, signs and other safeguards to give adequate warning to everyone on or near the site of dangerous conditions during the work. » Not disturb the residents or guests of the community. No children, guests or pets are allowed on the job site. 7. Site Maintenance. The general contractor, job superintendent, and their employees, subcontractors and suppliers shall: Maintain the site in a neat. and clean condition, neatly stockpile all materials delivered for or generated by, the work and immediately remove any waste material or debris generated by the work on a continual daily basis. » Contain all blowable trash and bottles, cans and lunch debris. , • Remove all equipment, materials, supplies and temporary i structure when any phase of the work is complete, leaving the area neat and clean. Equipment not in daily use must be removed from the job site and adjacent homesite if. used. "Equipment may not remain stored or parked over the weekend". Keep the streets, gutters and adjacent property clean and free of dirt, trash, debris or other material related to or caused by the work and clean up all street spills. Maintain dust control on the site and adjacent homesite if utilized. • Blocking of mailboxes from normal mail delivery is prohibited. • Parking is prohibited if front of existing homes. 8. Disposal of Site Spoils. • Any spoils generated from the site grading must be placed on the Homesite. No material may be placed on the street, golf course, common areas or adjacent homesites. » Storage of spoils on adjacent property will not be permitted without the written permission of the adjacent homesite Owner. r �_. Revised 5/6/99 28 238 9. Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to: • October 1 --April 30 Monday through Friday - 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. • May 1 through September 30 Monday through Friday - 6:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. No construction -related activities shall be permitted during Saturdays, Sundays or official holidays. 5 Revised 5/6/99 29 239 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HERMANN St ASSOCIATES 1Yp_NPMBa3i ttt tit]- F-n 9iss.. m a S.—Y ring - Rvm'vig The A]— Gmap 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, S-219, Palm Dm CA 92260 1.46A750 TheM—Gmup.cmi f. 760340.0099 R • VUKSI A ARCC SHITECT - - - 6lM OEffiiT u ATTACH M ENT 4 NOV 16 2015 � LA gUINTA ')EVELOPMENT 240 241 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-21 O LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS P-RE-SUBMITTAL 09,152DIS SDPICUP-USMITTAL H. SHEET INDEX Sheet No. Sheet Name A0.00 COVER SHEET A0.01 SHEET INDEX PROJECT DATA C1.0 TECHNICAL SITE PLAN C2.0 OVERALL PRELIMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN C2.1 ENLARGED PRELIMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN C3.0 EASEMENTS AND UTILITY PLAN A1.10 OVERALL SITE PLAN & VIEW KEY PLAN 1-1.0 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN L3,0 LIGHTING PLAN A3.10 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.20 COLORED ELEVATIONS A3.21 COLORED ELEVATIONS A6,10 ROOF PLAN A2.10 IFLOOR PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION OWNER IRE AND MIRS. STIMI ON 62 ELLENWOOD AVENUE -- — LOS GATOS, CA 95030 APPLICANT PRESTVUKSN: ARCHITECTS 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP NO. 28335-R, IN THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 259, PAGES 42 AND 43 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTRY RECORDER PROJECT DESCRIPTIOWLOCATION CUSTOM HOME LOCATED IN THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 2XWNG ZONING: OPEN SPACE (OS), WITH HILLSIDE CONSERVATION (HC) OVERLAY SPECIFlC PLAN LA OUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, SP 121-E, AMENDMENT 05; PLANNING AREA III, RESIDENTIAL LAND USE - LDR AREA DATA GROSS BITE AREA: 316 ACRES, 137,650 sf NET SITE AREA: 316 ACRES, 137,650 sf BUILOING AREA: MAIN LIVING - 5,222 sf GARAGE - 706 5f BIALMNG DATA OCCUPANCY R-3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION V-B SPRINKLED Y N0. OF STORIES 1 GREATEST HEIGHT 1T-11" VICINITY MAP �`�llll,Uy'- HERMANN DESIGN GROUP Engineering • Planning 7��PMB 332 HIGHWAY 111 is •Survey •Environmental P R EST • V U KS I C LA OUINTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group A R C H I T E C T S LICA 2754 EXP 4130f14 T: 760.777.9131 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA F: 760777. 9132 L 760.346-4750 TheAltumGroup.com F, 760.340,0089 T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 SHEETINDEX PROJECT DATA Scale: Sheet A0.01 242 243 - I sf r j '. - E:S LDS OO4 I � � % � � ,. mac.}=.—���.,, � ` i i) �'J�'•Y— �.- � --� � APN ;� ��£/ __ �---� _:. .;:-. - ".- •���\ gar(- 1�(' +•. 15 J f -:J, { - sxs FALL r'rr'7. - I \ r _ I Ell xtom'... 1 y 2ao-o1e { r� t V % t� j f I : MmrrNa WANE NOT 16 t ON WALL wOPM -�l � ' � '1�`z�\�'.._ r\': �- ,, ss•Ne�rays rc-�slc,r-1 I �{ � 40PY,Oq,w •.!' - ITme CONTROL ACCESS / �yt ,. PLAFRRY 5APN f''', eso-soo-m, 1 ic; f Fqo M CLEW 'r J _. w: �_.. �CT h :[GIINO LWk ' `.. .. �, A �F r+ � `�'r�-' � uMuwW. mI,wLR 1ERIPnd esa-mPo-oPs r . �w MTV! i a e waF+e' !, "� "t � 11 ,,v. s' i.. Gse-s""GG-ma117, 20 tald {1 J eso-2�oo-D14. ,...a" '"W. on LW + q a � XV, 18 -- -'- — — — * .I .�... EXISTING r. TRACT MAP NO. 25237NO 228/95-99 esaoTa �> x y iRWyOFy✓OL �„ / La so IN �.: 84EIRfAJ 81fEY�10l� HERMACA DESIGN GROUP S P R EST n V U KS I C SWENSON RESIDENCEARC'RE s/7/20,5 SDP/CUP RE-RBATTAL PST MAJ C� 9/15/2015 SDP/CUP RE-SBBIRTAL n-,,, FLORA ROAD _`:I A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUErEA p 77410LOMAVWA LAaN►A.CAMM PALM DESERT. GV.=11ILO 7&710 prod WFuing Sate 219, mL Desert, G 7ft?OmAN m AVE. EJTE 2ET0 iiV.p U 0# zFes ow. QSOMa T.M.TTF.6131 iehl t 7603" 4750 lkEeAldamfYDnp.meaL f.76030 .0089 o 0089 e0A 'r F. M.TrYM32 LEOEnn CENTERLINE --------------- FASCWENI/SURACIE LINE DAM diwiE'WINE —.--� RIGIR-OF-MY — -- PROPERTY BDIWe1VTY STERN DRAIN PPE MNl/RETAe�TG WALL FF FWA FLOOR ELEVATION PE PAD ELEVATION )DLX PROPOSED DEVATDN (AIM) DOM ELEVATION smPE PI[ P!R[IC MR E1SO" sm SEWER CLENW BIT BLONDR, SLN SEYWB NVNME WW WATER NETER WY WATER VALVE F-I TIRE NIdNNr PA PUNIER AM FS FINER SBRFACE TO FINISH GRADE TIT TOP OF WALL TRW TOP OF RETAI WALE F. FLOW Irr ON NNvn ROW RERR OF WAY CO CLEAN OUT TO TOP OF GRATE ^^{{ jE'� ET'--! WADSFAPE (TYPE PER PLAN) QcF� N17DRAL BOULDD6 I� � 1FdYM RN'ARCAAq N ORO= WATd SITE PLAN soft r. w show C1A 244 245 1 Lstt-DDD-o1L � '�� 16 �r� I 'I 1��AI` - _,-. ", •wilt. _.._�. al k ON s Rb' \.-f I T7 Q"Fv'i.t;j `fit %1 ,,��, i w `ElF 4TAkL AL+.1 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES TF-MOLONIAVICTA LAQUIlfrA,CAaa'a! ��iiw AP�i'tDMCONIROL / _~� � 4•, � J- /r TRACT MAP 25237 NO 22B/95-99-99 SUB6frTALS/REVG*w � HERMANN DESIGN GROl1F � LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - �$ • Ple2mhTg 5/7J2015 SDPJCIF RE -SUBMITTAL PLANNINIG PROJECT MANAGE •""'•�J • BTiv1nOLLmcmbl M/15J2015 SDP/CUP RE-SUBMI 77.772 FLORA ROAD SUITE The Alturn.Group PAW DeSswT. CA itt711 73-710 Fred Wlub%DAM Suite 219, POIm DNS, CA 92260 ,—... LION ZY54 EXP. 4M 14 T: 700.777.9131 t 760-W.4750 MmAld>mGaoop tom f. 760340X" Nn F: 7C0.TT7.0182 LEOEPD (i CDKRl1NE . _... ------ EASEMENT/SEIRACI LIE --»� NIGHT-DF-IIAY PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORM DRAW PIPE MAL/RETANNG WAIL FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION PE PAD ELEVATION ax PROPOSED ELEVATION Wx) DUSTING ELEVATION PUE PUOD UTILITY EASEMENT SW SEWER CLFAROIT BO RUNOFF SMH SEWER MANHIDLE NM WATER METER MV WATER VALVE FH FIRE HYDRANT PA PLANTER AREA FS FINISH SURFACE FG FINISH GRADE TIN TOP OF WALL TRW TOP OF RETIRING WILL FL FLAN OE 0 RWEFI RON RIGHT OF WAY CO CLEAN OUT TO TOP OF GRATE P T i'r_o HARDN'APE [TYPE PER PLAN) Q,Dotj 1� UANRAL BOIAOERS iMW TTDCL EO➢WIWLAB NOTE SEE ENLARGED PREUMLWTY PRECISE GRADING PIA. SHEET Cal, FOR ADdIpNr1 DETAIL, LLEVATNOM AND STORM DRAWN ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE FFIE DEPARTMENT NOTES T. PAVED ACCESS WILL NOT EXCEED 15E 2. AD= ELL a DLSrtn TO WMISMID WE ow or fOmO HWILLG OVER 2 MLM DRAINAGE NOTE THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO MEET WATER QUALIFY (0-4) REDUREMENTS THIS INFILTRATION IMP MILL CONSIST OF A PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER TO CAPTURE DEBRIS ND N IIELTRATDN FACLIR SUCH AS A PERFORATED PIPE IF CAPACRY OARYFD S EXCEEDED, ETER04CY OVERFLOW IS COUT OF THE CRATED INLET VA A ROCI( UIED SWAE AND KEG, THE AAACENT FLDOO CONTROL CHANNEL ROCKFALL HAZARDS NOTE THE ACTUAL ROC FA L HAZARD MOCATIDN HAS NOT BEEN FORUALLY DESIGNED PRELIMINARY DESIGNS INCLUDE A STRUCTURAL. IARRER WALL OR A STANDARD RETANNG WALL WON SLOPING MIFILL TOWARDS THE ASCENDING SLOPE, ISSUES WITH A BARRIER WALL ARE .FACT Lnes AND ASSOCIATED SOUCIURIL DESIGN. THE DKSE TO COSTRIICT. AND NEED FOR REPAIR AFTER A ROCIIFALL EVENT. ISSUES WITH A STANDARD RUANNG WALL WITH SLOPING RaL1011 5 THE WED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE HIM OFFSITE OR WIINN THE CURRENT EASEMENT. THE SLOPING MINLL S INTENDED TO CUSHION THE WAIL AND ABSORB RE IMPACT NO. THE ROCNALL HAZARD !LIGATION NEED TO BE EVALUATED FROM COSTS, SPACE AID ESIHETGS STARIPONTS, THIS WORN WILL BE PERFORMED DU RD FDA. DESIGN. 1S THT DANSWAY C-4 WALL CLADDING DRNEWAY SECTION A -A NOT TO SCALE L DRAM BCATr P P R EST a V U KS I C` OVERALL REUMINARY ARCHITECTS PRECISE GRADING PLAN Cab: 1•-w 464908WNPACLOAVECI'E200 Pfi"110 117.CA -- .. - Chat C2.0 T: 7CQTN.I7W k7C0.77C .-.. S. 246 247 \ ll ry• ` 4 }} L I } 1 RAW �.v-fir} 'I''TOP'�F� . E PI NM�� i •'� 1 � "�L/ , ! M N J I9GMNf.• - L�'•�. `1 f ��\ t •l ��� -r1�Yj �I SITE �1�1( I/! /�, ✓rf / � - � 1 1 i PROPOSED ESIIDEENCCE .. rCDG,!LRNF y - FF=67.50 LUZ PV PA , y I . � \ ' �.._ _ �y •�� Cj �rF.�..� u+oEWumuNOPooI 1 l ,� •�. �_.,� ''M .s: WQN eDupeEtl '�� �aLWrypn ++Mar 'lk. 1 ei wf0°�o4'�Mc `rl M IT4WDRW iEE' Awl r `\ l 1 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-MO LOML VLSTA , LA OI KK AMA SUB! i IIiT� HERMANN DESIGN GROUP P R EST V U KS C LANDSCAPEARCHRECfURE •R�a1T&e&% .naming s/7/2oTs mP/CUP-sraMrTULL PLANPnL77C6 NAYLFI i7 • Survey . lInvir.otna,M,M.a W/YS/IOIS SWICLP K-USWTrk 77an�ROAD F A R C H I T E C T S 11Ee Nhm, Gmu PALM DESERT, CA 92211 44 O SAN PABLO AVE. WE 200 PALMDSNW,CA 73710 Fred WNuing Drive, Susie 219, Paln1 Desist CA 92760 L" 2754 EXP. 4IBOM4 L760" M TEe/UtconGODpA'®L f. 76030.E T.T&D,TP0f4IX{ P:MT?OAM T: 7e0.m.B1S1 F. 780.m.9132 LEGEND Q CENfERINE EASEMENT/SETBACK LINE _....-�-• _.— DINNER aAAFYii SWEL RIGHT-OF-WAY STOW DRAW PPE WALL/IETAE WALL FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION PE PA) ELEVATION OX PROPOSED ELEVATION ("A D=NG ELEVATION PILE PL$C UnLTY Edo" SCO SEWER CLFINDUF 80 BLCIOFF SUN SEWER MA14OLE WM WATER METER LN WATER VALVE PH FIRE NARNNT PA PUNIER AREA FS FISH SURFACE FG FINISH GRADE TW TOP OF WML TRW TOP OF RUNNING WALL R FLOW LINE INY INVERT ROW RIGHT OF WAY CO CLEAN OUT y �TG TOP OF CRATE i`i. l HARDSCAPE (TYPE PER KA SID AIURA ODU ➢ERS FINE ,WwE T11RAIrNpIrliD � OVERALL PRELMWJO PRECISE GRADING PLAN, SHEET C20. FOR ADDI ORAL MAT. EIEVATNIS FOR WALL AND DRNEWAY. FIRE DEPARTAFN7 NOTES T ACCESS WILL NEFF WYE AN LIP OR DOWN GRADE OF MORE THAN IS( 2 ACCESS WALL BE DESIGNED TO WNI6TAND THE WDGHT OF 60,ODO POUNDS OVER 2 ACES DRAINAGE NOTE THE U DFFACCROUIIO MENTION SYSTEM IS DOM TO MEET WATER OUA TY (0-4) REOHIREENTS THIS INFILTRATION BMP WILL CONSIST OF A PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER TO CMRAK DEBRIS AND AN WILTRATION FACILITY SON AS A PERFORATED PPE F CAPACITY 6 EXCEEDED, EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 6 CTNEYM OUT OF THE GRATED INLET YM A ROC( LINED SINE AND INTO THE ABMDDN ROOD COMM CHANNEL R=FALL HAZARDS NOTE THE XIM ROCIVNL RVARD MOIGNON MS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DESIGNED PRELLMIM DESIGNS INCLUDE A STRUCTURAL BARRIER WALL OR A STANDARD RETNNING WALL WON SIDPNG RACKFU TOWARDS THE ASCENDING SLOPE SWES WITH A BARRIER WNL ARE IMPACT LAAK AD ASfOCMWD yKol . DM BC DMIRE TO Co16TRUCT° AD NEED Tyr AU NI, DEMEAN A G(dIALi. IMELET. IBM NIH A 3F'M RE"WNG RAU Mk "0"" B"na IS NE REED FOR ADCIDINL SPACE ETHER DFFSITE OR WITHIN THE CURRENT FASEMEN THE SLOPING BOO 6 IN TO CUSHION THE WNL AND ABSORB THE IMPACT 9DCK THE ROCKFALL HVARD MOMATION NEED TO BE EVALUATED FROM COSTS. SPACE, AND ESTHETICS STANDPOINTS. THIS WORN WILL BE PERFORMED DURING FNLLL DESIGN N OREPDO BONA ENLARGED PRELIMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN earn r - e Bank C2.1 248 249 k 1r rI 'J PUIRFR AREA •� J , � � P I, /, f • f / �'�f •:i' � yam. '•' r� �` __��//..JJ E.IR,O h ' ` .V• T'd � I wVtw rFM �HEhE rF �. EIECIRGI+ jM, vnuEr TRANSFORMEfl I SWENSONRESIDENCE d/7rOE55td,DBp `Sail¢ at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES ylspnEs snW/ar a su�WRAc 77-21O LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA. CA 92253 E145TNC ACCESS, MUIY ANO I10 EASEMENTS TO BE OUTCINMED EXU NG AND PPA)FOSM EASEMIRM SCALE: 1"= 20' DfhEWAY/UTUTY SECTION A -A -. NOT TO SCALE HERMANN DESIGN GROUP j LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Engineering PIeRflIT� P R EST V U KS I C PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT 77-772 FLORA ROAD. 'Survey • Eitirf757ttmcntal A R C H I T E C T S SUITE A The Altum Group PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE. STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA LICIF 2754 EXP, 4130114 T: 760.777,9131 L761L346.4750 The AltumGroup_com C760.340.0089 T: 760779,5393 F: 760.77%5395 F: 760-777-9132 1EGEIND E CENTERLINE •••'•-••-••-• _ EASEMEM/SETBACK UNE _ — -- -- STORM BRAIN PIPE RIGHT-CF-WAY PROPERTY SOUNOARY WAU.1 DARING WALL FT FIRM BOOR EIEVADON PE PAD ORATOR ROW PoGHT OF WAY PUE PUBUC UTUIY DSEMENT SOD SEWER CLEAN UT 00 &EACH SMH SEWER "HOLE WM WATER METER WV WATER VALVE FIR RRE H1'BRAM PA PLANTER AREA CAN CABIE TELEVISION HARBSCAPE (TYPE PER PLAN) STREET VACATION NOTE A SEPARATE STREET VACATION APPUGTON HAS BEEN SUBIRDD FOR AGENCY APPROVAL TO OUTCL4M THE PORTION OF EXISTING EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON N GRAPHIC SCALE EASEMENTS AND UTILITY PLAN scale: 1" = 10' Sheel: C3•0 250 251 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 'Engineering 'Planning P R EST V U KS C 76365 HIGHWAY 111 Survey - Environmental PMB 332 SWENSON RESIDENCE LAOINTA,CA92253 Group Y A R C H I T E C T S � The Altum scale: LIC#2754 EXP. 4/30/14 73-710 Fred Warin Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES T: 760-777-9131 g 49-530 sAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA sneer. 77-21CLOMAVISTA LAUUINTA,CA92253 F: 760777. 9132 t, 760346,4750 TheAltumGroup.com f. 760,340,0089 T: 760,779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 F --:::+4 OVERALL SITE PLAN u16•=r0^ A1.10 252 253 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA • LA OUINTA, CA 92253 f OBS. i I j I E � I � I I I I JES - _ 4 �•�rT eQ^rFrC7__ � r 1 — I f7. I I � 1 � I II i 1j o l 77 _ l � I SUBMRTALSIREVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP ` RE-SUBBP R EST V U KS C ILLUSTRATIVE _ • Engineering • Plannin SITE PLAN D9/22/2015 S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE L�. � � g g g DP/CUP IOAL PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT _ Survey •Environmental 77A SUITOELF CAD The A]tum Group A R C H I T E C T S Scale: .,,; -, -0. PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 91,eel: L 1.0 LICE 2754 EXP 4130116 t 760 346 4750 TheAltumGroup cam f. 760.340.0089 T: 760.779.5393 F: 760 779. 5395 T: 760 777 9131 F: 760, 777.913 54 255 12 SPOT L16HT V15TA 12 VOLT 6R-2550-15SN-MR 20 W MAX O 22 DRIVE WAY VISTA 12 VOLT 6W-5265-Z-LED 90 W MAX O I S50 LIGHT VISTA 12 VOLT PL-40I6-N-LED 20 W MAX { 9 PATH LI61R VISTA 12 VOLT PR-2152-155N-LED 20 W MAX i• r SUBMfTTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP LANDSCAPEARCMITECTURE Engineering •Planning P R EST • V U KS I CgMI LIGHTING SWENSON RESIDENCE ���i1k PLANNING Survey Is • Environmen[al PLAN _ PROJECT MANAGEMENT 77� CAD A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUITE 102 The Altum Group 77-210 LOMA VISTA • LA OUINTA, CA 92253 _ PALM DESERT, CA 92211 LICK 2754 EXP 4/30116 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 TheAltumGroupcom f. 760,340,0089 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA Sheel: T: 760,7796393 F: 760.779.5395 L3.0 T: 760 777 9131 F: 760.777.9132 L760.346,4750 257 Wt '00LOW awnac rn o1w: SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA92253 SU BM ITTALSIR EV I SIO NS 0 2015a MUPRES MITTAL ag152015 aDPICl1P RB BWE.AA HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 70365 HIGHWAY 111 PM B 332 LA QU INTA, CA 92253 LIC* 2754 E%P V30114 T: 760 7T7 9131 F: 760 777 9132 BIB- Engineering Planning • Survey •Environmental The Altura Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t, 760.346 4750 TheAltumGroup com f 760. 340. 0099 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 �R ME- t r. uc�it16aa u1ro.L-4f�'. NATW.Ia WA. 'M3R n 91MFN1 �iIYY� s tGZTK tfi n na. r.yw e•i'FRlOg6•D7yW7fn(ry,r3�[ �•qYk' l� 61lIiMIRlC WIlF.. fAlWl POLQR 1p YAFrJ1 dNM6cWRLq tEFMIAGFP 11RpA11 A] 9fEFL ie'12E'RSiCn PR rup [p p'ff nMe ffriY,wRd CBel+� 1NC+!!k too I�fF.aa - 1 'P! e,cR Wear' ad6uR f8i V.OL�r GOIOR YfFi a/9' YY�� F_F 5i"SA f & WEST ELEVATION x4• = 1••Q- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Scale: 114" It 1' 0" Sheet: A3.10 258 259 ' IN7 IT wef -vj RESIDENCE SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS "ERMANN DESIGN GROUP 7 5PMB332Y711 En meerng Planning Survey Environmental I II P R EST - Y V KS I C SWENSON ei102015e� �cuP RrrAL OB,15201a aDP/cUP g-ESUBMUBMITiAL LA pUINTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group I ARCHITECT S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES -- _ LIC# 2754 EXR 4/30114 T: 7607779131 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA 77-21OLOMAVISTA LAOUINTA,CA92253 _-_ F: 76G7779132 L760.346.4750 TlleAltumGr011p.00M E760..3400089 T: 76G 7795393 IF 760 779 5395 K—TE LEGEND Q —P® 'Pp�'R� 44. PiA Y+Fh4q �" rinF"�da, n7olE n.c [ —a — �r+ussxa e e At+PA.nu AI![D iD iM1[Jluggp!/t iFAMES it 3a6h RA::J e.M TTlIYED NID A1mED, WLGA' E fiRI aG•Qp1[ 11 arrF'ar £1gRISrWM9giD RH119f£9. WLOit1Mi15 pE Ui! QHH 6AU=Il — �. IValfrllrWA Ir 1 RlAIiAWPD4. m:w da ]Y,�166}i Rr ar ru w mrw as! wom M� d EAST ELEVATION 2. I H' • 1'l,P EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Scale: Ib1 1 v= Sheet'. A3.11 260 261 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS Engineering • P HERMANN DESIGN GROUP Survey g P R EST • V U KS C h S W E N S O N RESIDENCE 7� PMB 332 111 Survey Environmental in> ran wannrec LA OUINTA, CA 92253 1 u,.r. cu•. w.rn ------ P ARCHITECTS p �nasu RnA sueumAL The Altum Group 11A4ROI�NMS119MITTAL_ _ Scale: at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES LICN2700779130n4 73710Fred WaringDrive,Suite 219,PBhnDesert,CA92260 W 152o155DPICUP RESUBMITfAL T: 7607779131 44�530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA Sheet' 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 F: 760 777 9132 t. 760.346.47T TheAltumGmup.mm f. 760.340.0089 T 70D 779 6393 F760 1 5395 WEST ELEVATION COLORED ELEVATIONS A3.20 262 263 NOTE: MOUNTAIN OMITTED TO SHOW ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION u4 T.T EAST ELEVATION SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGNGROUP 7aP Engineering Plazung Survey Environmental El Is P R EST \ KS I r SWENSON RESIDENCE mmo,pcw,oSOMA ,AY11tTS LAQUINA,CA92253 V snTrz4u Iron susyl�T.0 The Allum GrouF � A R C H I T E C T S et THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES I L04rz01411-MITTAL 09152015-CUP RE-MITTAL UC# 2754 EXP 4"0114 T: 760 777 9131 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 2l9, Palm Deser[,CA 92260 44.530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 F. 7807779132 [. 760.346.4750 TheAllumGroup.com E760.310.0089 T: 760 779 5393 F 7007795385 COLORED ELEVATIONS Sheet A3.21 264 265 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210LOMAVISTA LAOUINTA,CA92253 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP ' Engineering •planning 111 78365 PMB •Survey Environmental BIB P R EST V U KS C anezmssov�cwaesusmnrn= 332y LA OUINTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group p A R C H I T E C T S OB_11]011 S9FL9P aC.'uM1t11Rk ----- LICK 2754 EXP 4130114 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 T: 760 777.91 gq_530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA _ F: 7607779131 32 t. 760.,346.4750 TheAltumGroup.com f. 760. 340,0089 T: 760 779 5393 F7607795395 0' 2' 4' a 15 ROOF PLAN Scale: A6.10 266 267 GTDRAGE / ANECTRKAL METER — D WIN PANEL P� GAS METER �I f ff f I !1 ABOVE SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-21O LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 59'SILL AmAx11LXM K SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 78365 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 OJ 102015 SOPIGIP RESUBMITTAL LA OUINTA, CA 92253 011152015 SDP/CUPRE-MITTAL LICf12754 EXP. 4/30114 T: 760 777 9131 F: 760 777 9132 r r HIGHL GLSS _ 4/ RODF LINE Engineering • Planning • Survey •Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 L. 760.346.4750 TheAltumGroup.Com F. 760340,0089 I11 11 YI 11 l II 11 ROOFLINE I I I I ABOVE I I lfj IN I III II I II IV I II 11 I — r1 IN I II I II 11 1 II IN I II II I II II I IL II I 11 II I II Ir I II II I • 711 Ir ll , III II I pv _ l III II / r / / / / / / / r / HIGH SIL 10U SILLL / / __------_.-- PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 4.53E SA11 PAOW AV6 $1B PALM DESERT, CA T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 0 FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN Scale: ........... Shee.i A2.10 268 269 &A PLANT LI5T SYMBOL QTY E�ITgONg SIZ: WA1e PLANT L15TM If NA A LSE SYMBOL QTY BppO MM5-N AM SIZE WA / s S)OWDS 4 GAGTI UTSaG7eet I•A.LON •O' •O% 01 LOW � • bAVO O•itrlTTIYIA VAtIlATA ! DK O] LOW / _ • IAIUCINl0111A 'IKo eIQA• 4•e• Lulrna '\ T �A .y+pA 1rAM/LLIJ ! bK O! MOD ?2 NAv IAI•lT Ylfo G.o•f' 1 .K Oa LOW I] niwve M�IILANA e•xnlN II.ANr• ro eu a] Luel � ,. IAIN[INlOIUA rLORIp.M •O" 9e% OZ LON • TAK IAL— I. 64 O ] LOW 1>Ll! rALO VdO!' 4'i' L4DSIr 4M•t'! A•AN' AN{OO' Of HOO ] WNDLA pgrM.A HAPVe' S OK Oa MVO 2 ALALIA —11 �LATLLAW ALALU" .O' eq% O� LOW 4'ti' GKIreA � IT •LMINOGALTJ• MU•dlll •OIDd DAI.lL LALTR' S rALMYr2••Ifi MUNI ]O• DIA IS iK O] LOW O• NOD ' M%ILA% RT. " NL! rO/T' 9 DON.AAN41nA 11Ly6MrlA' ..AL Dn NOD �' 1, 5 LHILOFl• LI1lARK 9!•RI WILLOW' e0' [O% Of Mvo 4'd' L41IlN W GAe•ALFlNIA FlANOUIIHh ! OAL O] LOW 'neD .Iw a IAMDI!!' I• oI .A•ILiu•ro lOAL O]Low l WA.WwrewA llLntlaA c41rOlU11A rAN IhUI' inM=hL II•• on Mm ,y FIL VINES ! 6 �DV¢R I] lY}.eDA(WILI-.A 6M6loA KJIeAT' ..K •TK ea IW 3 rIVMI%•L�eLll ]4 •O% Of MOO N NOWLI!•LOM�IATA NNWIIAN nLue nr�' IiAL Oa— P,'sMT DATD rK r1P.fi14NA MKONOKI' la'- ]D' ehLllpl 4n' DO% • LANN MN oa LLT'1 !' 64 .A A •N•6011 TNLLNNi INOI.O •.A, Oa LMr A AIAV! N.ALANA ]4' DO% ill®! 4A.ftrer • •K O! MOO 91ML ! AWI.IRION LOII.MNAHh '}!. ILAN ORA•! ll�• 4 � rOM� TAIL O3 LOW ] JMIl4•IM TIWIIIUKII'OUA 'TAIMRNf 1NIIlR• f OK a.— 1 PVLIN.A rANR'II TIOLINA' ]4' DO% O� LdM r w yT ID WIiAIU, ..AL 0a MOD 9HI•UI% ! GAIGTI 'VY � K Oak N BMIA. NMPINLLA ..Al 03 LOW D011lCi•f TO MhTD%%AiVU1 v!•!ST LAiilh' 1LYl'J1 NO• NeAO w.TMAL DlLOM•O.•D IRAMITO M LM,91H•L W M �M/.NhAf f fAi O1 Ldv 1� ALL Grt L I'LL1.LOBO M .0 OTAINf9 YY IUTI T LC'LOR TO !! LOITLIMMAIIY O •NKTUIO.OLK WI ••.sNw•a.srA•r•.0 44 '• .I.I•LO.IAI s�v.oa2c•r i.AL Ds Lew 4T LAr•eCA T.IDDRATA IQO.OR EMI' ! I4 03 LOW Pa 4ia! �4r M ellC.LIA IARIIb•A 'w11TTLmIMr ! iAL 03 LLIN ]! TA..re5 LlM10NII 'LOI'r•. HOLHTAIN OAMW ! bK On MVO I. OPAL4 •++LLLA '.A .Q.:' +" • sK Of MOO i —A —I-- --A •TAw •TAIr' ! OK Oa MDO yg03 Oe4r+ a.K Of IA7D � i2 EM O;A {O BIiBMIrrAl.61RE1!?roNB '� DESIGN GROUP 7j 1I"IERMANN LANDSCAPE ARCHfEMENTE SWENSON RESIDENCE W/72/2015 SOP/CUP RC-5L9NInAl PLANNING PROJECT /MNAOEMENT 77a09wl�OLF at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES ROAD 77-210 LOMA VISTA . LA OUINTA, CA 02253 _ PALM DESERT, CA 92211 LICN 2754 EXP. 4I3Nt6 * T: 750.777.9131 F: 760,777.9132 ATTACHMENT5 Engineering Planning Is'P • Survey • Environmental The Allum Group The • R EST V U KS I C V ILLUSTRATIVE PLANTING PLAN 5�ele:_- rll•-,'-0• 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Sul le 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 L 760,346 4750 TheAlturrtGroup.com £ 760340.0089 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE; STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA T:760.779.6393 F: 760.779.6396 Sheer L2.0 � • O 270 271 `` `�.,� Imo^ z--•,s,�x.1� � �'� --._ �� '�_--�__._— ��—,y � �'� I p -�sj � -. �....__��� j't- y�..• 1E ��r �Sy�t� �'a _ J�f --_.� � A A derI 1S� ram... I• 4�t a4 � ,,it.,,..�- � ! w _ -_-�+- (!,J g'I• `-y,�'• �� j'i �•�'�i`"„}-jY�„ ,. M.sc - ri u_^r. = ar+,��;�°`+"s 1 � �_ _ /' � � v� :: � �� fir® ���'�'��' � �; , ��► :�,� "��-r,�,,, _ ' � .��= h+r F41 $0I - VC' ram+ iy 471 r � -cr + ; - •t..- '. �!;'� *�/ II^' 'tv '.' � � \ f �>f rA� Tom' ji�'- _Tj�r�15• ' � ��� � ': � I - �t..,T� A �t� Jy ,�,° ^�Ay7 ^•an5 � � � �r+` 1�[M��'�'+ �- !Zi �,"� l�' lit\ •/f` `f,.� t bilk .I� �„ "w , ,; A y N A r .•f �I `fir •"-.�«J"r •^�' ,�. \'rP: pf �Lr- \ � '�F ,w. w k 4T 'GR �1ATA 5 eK O] LOW �� \ # ^■�� � � --- -_ , PLANT LIST ]5 TACH:ICD 12MONII 5 eK 03 MOD SYMBOL OTY. BOO .'I(,,A� NAME SIZE WATER - -- f. !'LANT i 5 50ubAINVI 2A LA tlL A' S eK oa MOD GOMON AME USE O SYMBOL QTY. SIZE WAT F4yf]�TA'I`.'{I AI�1 .NA E ER a —IA eaulxrlronr+le 5eK oa MOD VINES 0 6ROUNPGOVCIt [r4IMM�N IW'iM USE !.ORAL PO�MfAIN• „ ,PALMS ! 5f�EG!I NS O ; .—IBTG40N VIMIWLLI6 'CITIES JOIM' a eK 03 MOD 3 .NVITUB rAMMRI001MLIA 5 OK OS MOD - �B TSLOMA BTAN6 5 bK OD MOD ® `d MAW S A.L OS MOD ; 1 � �, 1r�Ty, ��UfJJJ a.DLD eTAR• 30J�!iEl�]�LC?GK L1 �� �y ��.1`i3i} �� 5 r 11 A'I—% 4�6eG'llr'lla O] LOW ® Pa.1.DCV TO MATLM NATLRAL tl -`a 1 �] 1 Q I] Lhp.'SBA G,•1KWTA' Bl•/inY 5 6K OD MOD ® � �'L•� 4J ®w 5/O MINX, W- HILL f ldAyl D!W^rd^f^AW YANtlBATA 5 OK O] lqV ALL GVr SILL eLORO TO BTAIW NATINA' \ , ,\ �LE••AA�+J��j-j COLOR TO tY cO/TLIMSNTARY TO "'I ROGK �`v 5 T MALLSIIDSIIeIA RIOIDA NAeNNLLS' S eK OD MOD. B� .A1LN 'LRSBTA• RIJd[yi ^`• ]3 AbAVS �wRRYi nT.IRO LNO,4' I BK O] LCMN \\ \ � � � • iI IARKINBGNIA RLRIDLN --SOK O] LOW I] A5AV5 AMpIILANA 15 6K O] LOW 'l. TLIT. HALO VC•DS' 4'-0' LKI�SR LSMIIRY •CANT' Y • A}A AL"A- 156K O]LOW , ,� II R Y��y W ] NANDIW DOMSBTIGA '1lAVSNLY 5ME00' 5 eK 05 MOD ] —IA6RMBI1 LATLLAW KKIA' b' e0X 4'-0' LKIRI• O] LON ® ] >LK•i?:W L•c•r.,s.T�Lw. N+NA 5 OK 05 MOD i O 11 GNINOGKI00 ORU50NII eewDeN SARRSL LK9 ]O" DIA O] LOW � *. � ' ] LNILO'IB LINSAIUO BO' BO% 05 MOD O 5 N1L11(LGI0J8 MAbINATUe VVVI✓✓� 9505RT WILLOW' 4'-0' LKI�SR ] —cmRNLS ■OBT CpMAMVILLG 1r05CiKA• 5 bK o5 MOD 1 i M LTT O' 5 eK O] LOW , ` '� t b WA5111NbTONIA FILII 'cKI�OIWIA FAN /KM' 15' NT ]4' —1— 05 MOD 19 1511D S IB! 01�N.L+IIA CABILARIB 5 bK O] lOW ] MIOLNI%ROCo6.[NII ].'BOX OSMOD VINES (yJ T•bMY DAIS ACM' 5 F- JIwSA MKppµyALl, ^NR ID'-]5' LKIf•Gl 45' B LAIS9 MIN /^�\ 11 M B AI—I-LSA DMSAM x T. NONAJIO eL014RATJB B eAt OTIC I OK Be MO0 OD MOD 13A�+7 4 ABAVS BIBALI�NA 'eIBK' 24' wS0x O] LOW © e4 NAI4VIAN GLEE SYSB' DKSA OR55611 BeAL.. O] LOW y'1 .. 5 pYLi>ON LbwO'.BBIMA bRASe TRCS' ]A' DOK +-'OHYT'NL O] LOW B TMILINB INDI60 BUBN' f�ii.Ff�'bRCi OAIIRr• 56K oB MOD S +.. Al , T NOLINA �ARRYI ® 24' SOX O] LOW NOLINA' 5HRUB5 It GAGTI. u eeNNA N5MwN1u 95BSRT LABBIA• 56K .]—SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •Engineering •Planning • P R EST V U KS I C SWENSON R�SIDENCE N/22/2015 SUP CUP RE-SUMM / PLANNING PROJECTMOLF •Survey • Environmental 77�SUITE A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES OAENT 102 The Altum Group 77-21D LOMA VISTA • LA OUINTA, CA 92253 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA LICB 2754 E%P. 4/30116 T: 760.777,9131 L760,346.4750 TheAlturnGroup,com L760.340.0089 T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779,5395 " F: 760.777.9132 5/ WME! PLANTING PLAN A Scale: Y" = r-0• ShBBO L2.1 273 ................ ....... WaIrMW OIL • V I U• FZA SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA - LA QUINTA, CA 92253 FIRM P411 Ur 0 r." 's R MIt V, U 14 .......... A V 4 Z 7 rn"1111111 G SUBMIRTAIS/FEVOONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP E ARCH] LANDSCAP ANNI 0 TECTURE Engineering Morning PREST VUKSIC 09/22/2015 SDP/CUP RE-SUMIT[k PROJECT MANAGEMENT EIG Survey En"T"na—t.1 77-899 WOLF OAD The A] turn Gmup A R C H I T E C T S SUITE 102 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE 20D PALM DESERT, CA LICO 2 54 EXP. 4/30116 1. 760.346.4750 TheAltumGroup.com E 760 340.0089 T: 760.779-5390 F: 760-779.5395 T: 760,777.9131 F: 760.777.9132 PLANTING PLAN B Sheet: L2.2 2F 4 275 I- s ri r' .ter PROPOSED �IDENCE � 1 � 7 �•.a!:c afA... G AIIE ^ • C � , LOT 20 77240 LOT 19 77270 LOT 16 48685 LOT 18 48725 'LJ '4 LOT 17 48705 dL SUBMITTAL-WREVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP " Engineering � Planning 76365 HIGHWAY 111 � � Survey Environmental P R EST � V U KS I C S W E N S O N RESIDENCE a�+e iG�s ^t�.-���+u.u�4��t-/�, PMS 332 LA OUINTA CA 92253 - The AIh1m Grow p A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES LICR 2751 ENP 4/30/14 T 760 777 9131 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Paln1 Desert, CA 922611 44-530 SAN PARLO AVE S7E PALM DESERT CA 77-21O LOMA VISTA LA DUIWA CA 92253 P T60777 9132 F 1 760 346 4750 ThcAltumCmup.cnm f 760 340 M9 T.'760 779 5393 F 760 779 5395 ATTACHMENT 6 OVERALL SITE PLAN VIEW KEY PLAN Sh- A1.01 276 277 --#46 " a 11L -Mb r� a_ —Al-ak a y �Rq _ ,a*� _ FM lb 04 r 46 ' "9FA ar a le w T s _ 4" - , Irv*,r T .'a q* _ m • �� Yi , 1 ' v '1e. „ L-'`` -. _•'�� ,.'' Ems, s TF r` !t - IP t Ida alt �i^ 1 d k 4,eK ,n _ - i Bib I= � N Ab i , s i P j Ir �64 F 7,4 P SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP.CUP. HCA GU BPI ITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL kf f jwk, v ''% •.� E + 4 H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 �p ` qL y'�A °'. •„f Ti • < G� ' y`_ , � •gib i r. J., Ir `�' - v ,.. �4'p•� s'iS� _' _ �' >.a� is �.. r ' a ay' IfMCI hp rAFJL • u t .. 1 a 9 i , � r x I� NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION YOUNG TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW Al 278 279 --#46 " f4k YA �l+ ii. -•ems i _ ; s 4% t C 4P% 71 9 t L jb SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 4 y i a jp IL AND �r bw IF jP OF �r 1F ` j �• ° ,y . �.. •ter . s ! ,.: '_ . M 3 tom. -x_ �r�� ! '� ,I.e - n . n iJ , y _ Y1 _ • IA r ., _ - .. M1 i j , ■• , a IF.�6 _ ot - it 0 J , s jr ey '. rib lie, 00 kf 16, kill � e SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP.CUP. HCA GU0IAITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL E + a H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 y,• �.Att t � � f a ! t � b- JF • . � . '�' •'a�.. �;.g� , • _ �F.!♦� . - �t� ,e a+• a* i . f s " ally. - 'r LIP tM t ? fir- v ! Mill - 7- s IMP NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION MATURE TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW A2 280 281 M ., - - I , . 3 5 « Mb - R •1 . r , . ;, .� � ��, - � • +�, �, re `_ a sad, a - � . �� a1 { s a t� '- - — - ,. _ � - ,: r F .� A r p : # •+¢' mow. _ � c + . _ - r 6s'.. � ->•' ,tiF e:• _ i ._ F L $ ., -. , '�,'^:; - 't� a 'ik - r� { F - ." ;y4' k .. Iw.•�",Py '.,. y, . - - .. -. ,. .d . - - � .ram �r '•� - j,_ ' 't+ , - a a -_ a: , ;. '1. - :.• „ .''- s 3. '11 E- ,: ti i. e. .''s _'1.. e. j _ _ - va` : _ - .. ,yr - _ .. - ., „ „ts_ _r +.r ti , `z � .. ,. �,. wa ._ ;. 'i �`' �: �' � :. •M is $a. e , - f r ,• � � - , ', 1 - '. r•- ^ " ', `1 'aq r,y� a4. .,.- -' s _'� ". +, !r a � - `' - _ w. •- - - : re• P - - • -.i. .' s.. ._ �.. ,. .. p � r -'•_ �r ,�. •i F .®.'--n S. .�. ,. . .�,,.•�; _:. - :. �-, :' .• ..� f._a+d -T1: �.. 1. a - ,. : �, . -a : r t.. re,!c•rF :. .. ,^ w _ r. 1. ,°:.-_� •w A. a a . , '+ - * 1 f - _ t - IF. ••il ._CA.4 _ '1 .. r - .;_.. �_;aP .,.. t zk •F ,�,. .. nF_ , A. u, s - a'- � "�' `qF' _ d. -. - 4: hT ^ ,.� ` ,�.: - �r _ _ R •�a� .t : ;: , Y +:: , w. a s. - 1- �_. , � p� �`-'�f . _ - ,a �F _ - 'k „ ,.f I�".i•, T _ - _ _ �.� . r y , y r` , _ ,.:r :- : F • d � 1 � � a w - d '� � i -,■fir - -'�! .. _� � .•� E ,Y ICp � - +F .� �' :#:._, �' ... . .. . w,.. l ° . � '. ,. 5 o .. 3 °k s �f'$ .. �,, v. . - : ,. r ,;' r v�" 1 : t ° :. - � - - iF aF � • .. �.: .r -..er " `'a q. r, .r ` . P . �. �•^ re _ . F , P1}:a I'Sd' F. „yj 't YA,•. .�w er. a" E ''�.?', .. , _ .�<� 4. 41,1y� _144,_ °: .� w T.1 la:''q '.. �, , '� r " A _ 1 : •}_ �p� a .._. al7��.' . � �. r ' Y' b¢. ' #� - � — " "� �, - '. •. • v, _ a q5F _ 4 e e ' �a , a 'a Y 4 - :IY ':1. � _ ., , ra - • ` .. r, • - 4. _ ° _- . •..'Fp is Ak - ",y r, �:- f '�' k, ,a*F' ,' '. : = u. T e w - � ,. .: .. • r "� P • e f y� �Y,a. _ - � -�wi - e�' i ® -. - s qyy :� _ .L.-. - ar.. - g • ., , ac w , _ - 4 � � - s N�. a a .. _ ,�, � � a, ,�+ t:.t.._ �,, i _ -• y re _"r �e 1_ ■ - , 'n�u, �'. ` — e' e� � '' - -�--: fa!L"� - t P.,.: ... 7r'. -,.• -. w. , �, 4 .. - ., e y + , °°- ,le _, �.. - ° 3 - ! --- • �. _ wti ;� j, a.,k _ •_ � �' .�. + �"'� _ '�' '. �' - 1 � n if t •. +' a. - ,. ! y a, � a _ ' ' ' t , " u - _ .. - � •w' _ IF:. •t '. �, {' 4'. i p � _ �' e 9 .ram` a •' _ M1 ® - AV LL w . • y r , A a p# - T fv r ' s ` "_" - 4 - _ - r`a• a .T - m r e` a IL �' , -' , ,.,^+' -� s • . _ .ter' Bert ti % '4A 3 g�TT ti ._ - �` _ - :"+aw - �' #i 'taf a ., _ r rt 1 - - a . ° �,. •�1 .� . F. F „ - i ,!" 1 �.. �:�+A- L r4.., "'r a _ q "r. - { `dL, .a.q, e _ /' mil y x i } 3_ _ ice$',° ,.•�, 1 op is IF w y _. _ - - i _.7.r ;'k-� , - -r �. %y�_Y - ° .c• 4 . �. ice' i ~ w �. - � � - . r� ' - sl , •� .. �. y -14 ,i r may, Y � „ , aJ y u �� - '�'. -.. 7 - �r _ _ -_ .r " _ d , - r • •. _ w - P�., r 4 Y a 1 i'+!' , 8� FIX :f y� d �,F-y � T. C ... - w i -'`4 Fa � .:., W CIF � ,x '' if i. _. u i M� w Via; "R : - + i �, i a q • :iw_"4 1F _ .� y 'f E _ Fla AN A. �► do qIw w r ILa. w• I` r fit_ IF ■ • 6 a C ' .: •,t' 1y ` _ �" . _ •Y ! a' .— F u y + ' �: lL ! ° u: + - .. 4 NAP I ' ri 4 , fin, N 4 ja le IWAA 46 7aF ai JF ssf 7 Vs it w ter' m 116-10 IN i t r 6 u ° -:t• - it i t-'I:y� F ' f ,� `�� • ,� 'r`' �! al „P _ _ ..,, �.�.�- -' 4 'ii. w To a* r= _ w - a - : � ,: '?71 1 �, >♦ i , ,.:. !f q � �'� � �Y . �y'i9re. , ' F - s. c * •.It00 r I di mh y lip ft y 4 y'atiT I " ' ' _'�r#' ` 4M4���19F 1� `►' 9 GI h ti Y F 17 a1. ^ - °'`- - y^ F +- e 1 x' r r 7_,h ,�'ti ,, , - '�• k. y fi iT d t 7 � � � � % � M�^ 1 � � � � � 1 y �4�� P. , e, � � s. w " � k 1C� � d Y i � F wall y T ql = "� "L 4' T Gi °y s ry k f i y& 1L� s _kq 41 L it w ` R f ice- � .,� � � � ° , ° � y � r i h � i'� � ey _�' � • +� V- r _�'!� .4.- -� �:� — l "e r — p - 1 A. ff jAL 010 0 IMN ma"I I )K r AIJULU bUULULK6 16 VAKILU rKUM LA16 I INU I LKKAIN 6U 11 16 VI 1ULL r K ULAh DER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATION DJ D a m 283 '010 MEMO k, J.. � � r �I 4 } ` "IF p j - I : r . '* nsy. i.� ' � ,. � Y _ E � .,< :: �,. • z d* sA" , RW F , JL:1 _ _ - i �z a F �, t _ __ _ n Y ,_ ',1 r 4 r °� i - a F x _ �,~ wr ,- " ■ 4' 4 �•, y s� - i' s u r�� _ { s. �,'' _ '� 7 F y r a y- Z. • - � ' _ - . '.: - �-, # _ * - o� a A"�' °i .. - a i,. u : _ . IF 11 e:. i jw ! ? w 9 ,a. u It, �is4. �: _i �F , . .. �. v ' • , : s -- •T _ + QI k - it - IF r ,�, n --°" - i _ • ^IY k. e r _ r . F E � 4 +� _ " '+ I" • • - ` i OF.- - y It z' r • Y r.� #. r i d b. F r �6 m a A i'. • n -�s aT +, _ i + F � r -... - ->, _� � __ : +, ,a � _� e - `� , � � "s dp .'' r �• T ��' �` .. - i i � ,•. � Y - '>� -A fge'=. - - , rt'n _ � :.r-*� ' , .'. •+ .-y� ; - LL,. '- . ¢` ' ', ti y $° , t �, � ,4 � � _ r ' - q4 { + ' - f '� : n , . t c3 fi n, '• a' { , _ ;,. �. io � 4 • . i ; h IF - - - -- ,.: r+,.+ s ,f r, +t �,. ..,•ts : i-- $$ y � 1 i'�. iFl� �4` Y - � � ' w i F � _ 'o' _ ors, _ - _ •M'' r� '* "•a. .t. - -- - _ i _� ,�*. w F s vl_t �'!♦ Sc�� ,A. 4i� 3 - r ' i . IN + Y _ l + J �- y,Ll •�. +e i {i * vxl • �- Arb �. i a 40 : yi I -it 0, . N" i is •, ,. is � A :, - r yy +�AL I r ii i ■` tl IL I IF�r, . + a }� E d 6 1iy • # r ir. "� ' • 'in,' = s� ". ' I T ' - q .: i _ ..-'k.,.. �Y° - • w ,c er' t "1. 1, 'y, • S: * qr L� ,# ■'+� !l'1` , R k = F - - - ' '� Yr - 3 _ _ ,y_ ■ ,�' "T • �: ,:. �• - fir' " +y'}� Mi ",1 ' ,.. i� i '!�' JL if y- -r � - .. :°•'+r r' �. N F'' � ra ?r �4. .}�1 � - �, M '� !�6: it 1 - � . .. •' T '� �- ,r ' - - .'1 t - '� _ .•� •�,, - i, a.. -r - r i E -3, .,, 41 _ • _ + - 5.�i + i' EF •�,. '; • taf' _ i"' ,� _ ,, -. .•�'I�.+�.,: .�_�„ � a. _ - -�: may, _ a, _ d- 'jJL ^�' r N.� '.�, ,j .' * -' - . -. is - a.- r: 4• _.. _ ,, • �! k.� �, 4:q ` '° _,t.-, all. - • r.Y '�'., - - • 11" - '� { � ^�' P - - +F-�: "'ram }_ '� • - - r• �r lit -, .-' ,. A c�3, }iia —� + � � 4:1! - - %' .. I: '- '-f!� -_ � �Fa - �•. .�- '�' w4 '�: � �r � ,wir . - F� •r. i s I!= .. J ,�� , . all - - - nt•�' iii - - .� .ar•'� ,E, w- ny,.: - r s •' �I '�Ea .. - - �' . a in - ;„ E. �, +1k - - - e s' LA dk AM lit - * + s IF • ar . � �` i' >. 11� = '�- �•. I�°} " � °�' * _ '� : �" E' �I � '.. `� q � a �-=y:, a _�� W sib y , IL ir i +k.,�, . M • � � ,- - L. :- _ ,yam'- j AN Y- _ I 3. - rY - � $, _. - Y � �s- � � iF• t �� - k - _ ems: -'. �' I . i , • _ sOWL a Tk KIM - JF _ y e - d _ - fiILI lk- 4 d i� i .MIN " � e 46 j+ n y a MP 1' ' • L - Ali IL - - - } • * * s _ " 1k s - V m •• i r< - • i lq� —40 Ip di 0 Ab 40i a Y 4 F e ',� A�` 1'�; a r• _ �' i +� • Y; r� 1 If ifi'y71� i y ,Y, �.t y � .�P %'�y,t. 5..-��'Y�7 � ��� y�� -r_ � �', +n- rG -. E•+ �%. {li #��� '����i � n Y�:�; � - ,Y�aMt _. r y y��t} ` 1 IF �• ��iyl 771 �j '� � � ,� � A '� is r ��n F � �l .��i 'g '', i !� - _ '' I1 •4 ^''. ILlLT ,r ,eY j Y Y LFyr ' r � r Y �.; 47: �1 w yy �L . � — y b �� . 4 4. n " V LT LT N:s oval • a # ■■■ _ 1 16 "I aLk tr Y wi T �n . .�5 . P )K I- AIJU LU b U LUL Kb DER COLOR IS TO BLENE nj D ICI IN 6U 11 16 V161ULL 1-UK ULAH B0 ULD EFL FORMATION w a m 285 r y _ AY "'''�; if�� ��� f.g �� �� dye �f `��� Yam!' yj�-•='i �.�.- wit JL'g"`�,.�... - IF SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP.CUP. HCA GU BPI ITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 - w " ILL � e r X ° s NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS - Engineering Planning -Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION YOUNG TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW C1 286 287 { 1�1)01 y 1 ! -jr 7y i � c SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 a # N, Ak 41 { r o ,y,y i �jw41 ` y i N 3 40 1p{ r aw " • do �* -Ab a . ; 4. i �j "Jii _ '''• '.SSE ,�+' SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP.CUP. HCA GU BPI ITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 0 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS - Engineering Planning -Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION MATURE TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW C2 288 289 Y ,• f r r _ i 5# 'l j� r.. + ' r 4 '• ' n ` is .40 r40, a n•; dYf ; ''" fir ,«= 4 "• A ..i•: a # _ n TV _ - �,•� _ d � !R _ +,� � - � 1 '-, _defers - r RL Pd 4�61 4 %1F ♦�, � �.F " " Via•. '�4 - "h raw 'i � _i?' � ', _ �` - :. s :' ' y ti A` r , _ r= � } W. rr `a x WIT e , _ d Ar : 5 �1' 6 y _ - , ei r - I�• ,4 W AN APO .aLr, • - SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 1.411110011 1 r { F s� d . r ' 1 a !• 1 I r � •� .. F' w: if - I ' y. a� t�4 �21 -; Y. 1. _ � F ,'- _, .. -n '. a .T• • F a :Tj e 4 6 # -t '_ _ '' - r ' g' -��. :, t 4 ., +' _, ,l •� '., '+'''L�'a + ,� :� _ - 4 �• P' �:'-..yam �� ,:,., �IM i I. ' Y y �IIr Y1Y4.}� t tl '� D , i:,6 ,, ley. - s ��k, �`.f .i' k � �' :. � - v.: '' ' 6 i _ .,'eY�_ � :.+�•r r'', a r ,.Mai J1' •. p e r �,y _� - . , Y' a*. • it a . 1.4 i . .. R "Il _ =y °Fr��,'+F, - �y�, 4 I , '•t n•: yy n _ i = �. � n. a \ ��•", � ! . �+ 11 � " ddd , ' IF AA lop Ali _ + 4 � ■ _ _ - - _- 'n iw •1 s - Y : pr + + F r 3 a rY �' R d5^ M # , - w+ • x- - - �, . .. - .'• . .,-. �- fir" , „ � G e ., p z41 ,� - � .. ,,F _ -. _�Y4 a .. k >,_ �. « � ,- _s4 ere_ •�i _ u I Mr Y m n, U � I .- a Y- .. -. � -;. - .- .s ;... _■ r � ;. . a - ♦ ,. �'' - , a M I a ,. k7. 4,jifr v �., -.V _ . • � n � - .. Y ,+# i �. '�, Lt.„,.,' ,. ;: ., 7' '". to ,_. Iay'�}1,y71r i 'A :. '�' 1 ,_ 'r.- +If 5 _ -. , 1:'r _ .., '�,. 4h6' .. ,. , L + t• .. I� •. ,I �' ^r-a yIy _M " 4 .. Y � ,e+°. , ?I � � _ P �4a � 4 ' � +I� 4 ■ . � •. , . ' 1 � a■K41lri � �", } " , .L eAI, _' p . , � � ._ '. W !® � ' s�,. ...�4 .b1 v . 'u ,,, , ' o �I,. - i ` '"7e a+i a P _• •. r- J r •, FyF •�...F ` # F ,�M,�. �. -p i�+. a itp �' _,. 1)':. - .4, � _ , �'•;",d - •' e ■ , k' s •. 1' ,. , p, J NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. . FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS UBMI-FFAL /RE I SION H ERMAN N DESIGNGROUP Engineering -Planning PHOTO SIMULATION 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PREST�VUKSICPMB 332 curve Environmental YOUNGTREES U23J2013 GDP.CUP, H 0 A GU0IAITTAL LA QUINTA, CA 92253 p A R CH I T E T 3f1712014 H 0 A G U 0 M ITTAL The 1tut7l r0 S Scale, 11J05J2014 H 0 A SUA"ITTAL LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A SU0"ITTAL T: 760.777.9131 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA Sheet: F: 760.777.91 32 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 eft- • VIEW D1 290 291 or - -0 ip lip —All qb M i Y i F g, Ilk 46 IL ^4 hF • � - '� � � � s ,:� � e � +{�, ... r � e • �' •_ c, � ;� I s � ,, �' �� - - - _, ..R ��• a _�,F� ' 1 i Y r ': '� - I i � ; �' NI �i• , - a db "Aft' r il�' !I �, •..-. , , + .r. ,� _ R " - ■ - _ - _ � � .. - 1'• r 'r4'' A � ,{. - w � � '_`� ' _,_,�, !+ !, - rt a _ r-+ w �' � ��, .r 1= r �^- e - i �Ili% - ,y,:�• �!'=.. ''fir :' ! ' '� .,Fa.� � ', . i � - i• i ,'I •, I.,- : - 1-• may, E i ' •Nib' a» _ _ _ - - ' : "- r - a"4 �r `� F♦ _ F ' g�« 0 wll ., + ,F .. .e i `,.'I •,.. ,gyp >r r �_P - IE ,:- �, ., : �.,. e _ *.- .., � 'i, _ � ` r _ $ �': :-+ � ■: Oar �� �• ''�I - � � �- �' � ar ...- � b6E� � r 1 ' ; ' - - _ Y i I�■411: �,rr E r P. � .• ` r: _ + � P � ° s. �a4' , � d � �y; ,I r ys . � . ! P . 1 �i � � � t�l l� � P ? � I. - �-'1',•,.}� a.. - '' � '. � ,^ � � .: i i �� � ,, I '�� a - i '..•+. - x :� ':� - �, - � � C hr w YE k Oil_ i Y I i' �F ■ �� �s►�I j :Y . i I 4 9 , ^ .■ _ ' +: _ y -,; ! r... ti140 / } . . ' i.- _.. ,f ice' M'' _ --= ^�' Or Fill +Irkr % a �'} _. It r - ! 'a;, - 'M'�.' - �' - h ' F n•r -'�'" +Y'. *i •k A 'Ic"', 'i. - x�. !_. , _ 40 IF 5=♦ - p g.": _ ,.:` '' 1 7t a Ax �'' i t _ - -s - -•'' .:t ila.i _ :#. y r. Y - _ ,Y � s- F : 7 rf 1 - -,•r • . 0 1% � - .■ � :r IA r p` � . - .! %� "• F ' - r,. :�' •� --+1,+, ,.�' n��., i � z_ a >. � - N! + a" 0. Y - _� f � ! o . 1 - - a• � '�� II - a1Y - . - , In ,t �,• ,.. � + x � � - ti q _ �• � ' i ` 5 F - i � s, IF t � * � � F � "_ � „4 � e"d' ■" -�_ i:a- 4' , t'--' _ .'' ��7L` _ '4a t ,� �� IF � i ,�.. c.,, ';.`. _ ,!_ i >.�' x :. s `4 i '-t ,.■'1,w., n^ - .'1 i:.r �. ! .1_ '�• 't+, f -y � •. - .x ■ ,,,. ,.. w � M� �• « I�' _ �^ '�• __ i - -A. '� � � F :« ,�' � + !�y,..:iE •. A � _ �s. ` rE_ ! aF "."� ��� i • i 'I . - :_ x I� "yy, y ! �. i. y ,. • r,r r _ .. +�46 _ a a IF ,+�` y '� , .!' i R. 4"'t I� `R ° - * - ,i _ Y.h:.' a _-�F far i•p ` P- y ! a -�k'' �' A lfir.* • � � Y!. ^P- - 's : ' - „-.>i ,�• • � � i � • �, ; � • ^ ! A.,. I., i(`. ` h,4 - I � ,5�# , „� _ t , # } � + ¢ � _ �. • ' ,- , j..� pis - 'i� -'P �� t '^x' '� '1 I 4111 �' L -.. .± ■ �� - x ^ :N # _ IF 'Pr,I!r, ., '�' i � P � 4 in f � } ` ^ '�_ I i { ' i • '` l- h 7 � Y,. i' -. �'P 5} :i. , �w 'I ' r +P - � ,: R+' .. - � ■ Iiy, r ' e Ik i ' , � 3 � � � � , { ; _ � u _ La ;�'� _ y, , r ' ai al - y _ r'.. .. - d 4t4: i t ti, • t i f�• r �' S K fi i 4 „- .r r Y } �' IF + . .— .1 w l� r ` . R ' ,• .. a ;� iP _ - - xy h• s '6: . _ :, _ x, �' ,FI _ R . _ . +' - _ f+'► ' i. .. J '� a. I •, I• ,1� �..j� + `I, _ _ - 1 " �. r. 'w i5; . ,��^,'�.• i r - ,� o , :. i' ♦ i x. 4 d - '4 J._ '-ri.'l�•• • - 1 ,,r . , ,�: f'nq -�' IL +'+ °�"•Y JN '" i' r r 6 „ i - . !� rY,� '9 ��,ii n k o' ' , :-, e.,� - ! • $ .: ly. n �' ., 3i - �. r,�• ,1 :. P. 9Y - 'Al • ,+1 _. * - - Y� q - : +. ;�. _ d - 1 , r- - YM s i is�'M pr ♦ ' r is A I� ;4 . , h Po rY " I' !" rr a " .' r ; , • ^ , F �'lY I Y t 4 ■ # °+ aw_ .; �' + ,'d � •ter ._ a' dF ' _ 11 r' ^1Y a r`,�r"� _ J� . : a - • 'F ;.. _. �t a p: + ■ 4 r r: �1 - ,2„ .W, •>i•'. _ , -fF. _ r k;'y'.: -; .r• , • . TT11FR , c _ 45 _ - Y .`,: I ♦ s +■' �' :h''- �" ,'1f -'`" T°"; -.a- .: h, F,�. ° • q�, d' ',,r.. . ' ! - • a :. Y • E :, , r am , w. , . ■ !": w S: '' •t ° *.. . 5g - - c} �.. y Y •�' . E °` •- fe, ..' a "� F _ - '- - F.iM.�.. '� - .t-. � �_ Ik i A� y, '� -� ,. :. Yi �., y. • +ds^ . �.. �. .. � n �+ �,.:.'..� ...+' .� . '�. �,' �4x .�- - r ,�� '.I..' - s , ti I _ _ ° 5 , : E. n .r - ' w tr ' � i } ,! .Y,naY Ji F _ : '� a , :'` 1., v [ • Ei ��' � � ^ �°,. ' , -.•'r 4 .'„ '" i r h '� i n } 46 ' r� j"' r,.. � i. �' +� 7^ .� {, , : - ' '' 'k :'Rm q •TeW, Il •Y `�ir ' •'�r'' ,�, _ P; � '4 ► ," M, f \ !+,' ,�. il• s d �, E � ._ram .. . - : ! - i - , - - .� , � r �•. " .« b4 A .. * . ,�• _ .,_ _ At P - >s s"1 'a , JI►y 'P .'�+ �".. .: 1•' �S ' `3i a - �'.., a ti. >�'-. '" - s,# _ '�I "4 ,n; r, tk+ si i! ". t _ Sri r • " + . r �` 1t 7 ■ r irk' { i; , � _ � - �• * � '�� � . ; . • : ' ! • y. nx • , -,J^ ^' y � n., + '4 �1 • +4 .i aril •, y, �•I} .'� II �,5 _ - "+ : -6 p. i,� :, _ � 1 �. ,- - -- i. _ $:. ell _ -, � _ - , n � ! - , � ., -•r: • a , i IP Ilk MIT I" 1: �a" i ! _ , F 1 � • � � ,f. `�.. � ; : � - 4 .. �- �: � _Y a i, • 10 i I 1 ,� k , 4,8+ P r '�` •:'} r y + N Hw - _ .-, - - ''"• 4p -t)l. y, Ro nx j, ' • '"-i' ', rt=. "�.� ti{ � -` - r,' � fir_ s q�'�- '� ..�• '�' ti ' a4• _ �"�,y rr . � � 4 ... ¢ ,. ;; :. : P ,, . �, a a , y., ': _ + • w _,` 9l,��• '4 s:�- "'. ' - ,'.. - t- .� ,�. t� a �"+� �"' � y*� -"!.. , � i �' i ? d .,_'- t � . �Ff. � s. fir. �_ r ! .� '�.'}j.'1�,,. x '�' r r J4„ -, `:.: -. -, - iA. _ o- 1. ',,x .. ,-;. , -.`I + .. ',_- �'? '�` _ .v i '°r 1■. �f-'- - L 5 Y .S. _ • + I;, r ,.f _ �. �i -� _' +�•, - � - s li„ • • .�x, �, ,, a F � t *� : tA, ,. 'L � -�_. .:• _ '*5 ,.1 !'__'+!?. - '� .. N:, °s: 5 „' r,■ , rk,,, _t - :� F',1 qb Y�"'�!. 1 ',r � 'eti •- � .: • i : •a e r 4 'Y�. - _ r -• S_� "�-J 'a Ix � E M:. i�L,� ' �y.s - 1 �` 9'.'�I y V „ ' �,. • ,. _,{ �. �,� 2 . , _ _. I F � ,.';rl,� W„• � r . a �+ r . '� . yti :� - �, ,.+, i N �.• 1, ■s. ,- =a,�I � 11 - ' ,•' ay+ x a ^x - `• - .. ! 1,+ %t4>:�{ .r _ a< , � .x � , , :�= i -.•rE; 'ANN- . 1. ,�' _ � �`*•,� y sr All • ^ - '' + x. -,. r n. .- , ,r' .° `�,r a,t, -w.'' 'S1F,! � s _.n; �., ': i, ;• _ .x +h '�. �! -` r ry �_. �. : , -- r4 •,�:. , _ ' ," , - # ' _r k y ,, - " ,4 . - �. - ,!- . - r h 7.1' ,IxY- , r �'�. t a ,- �- . ' I, - - r.. kAll 04 Y ° ,:. � �`'S , - 1 ! � .., ,'S. �. 1 'ri- t. P ':, _•.. -� _ a •� MM _ _,k J .Jr n.N'• ,-." W' �_ . 'So '�:�! r. �.: al P: t •.. _, + r L. imp� _ i, :} -fit ,p . , : a " ai • yy d .,ter r�ka• ,.' ", .. e .41 ti t , r r 4 x R 4 aY! ,fit# r err 3 s e+ 010 SIML, �� r fi , , yy Yva Y= 1. he } ,� �„'i�-";� , ;r �° ' � ; •�"+� III b�"�• Y d 1 oqm i b x •r r f P re *� Cv ' Mill Y j � � 1 ! w d r t t r , i z L J. IL p _T • ''� M1.':r_ } k•V x w' y"I'dI JW ' ' _ I c y r 1'4 i-"E F w�rryy _ Af - y y 5?• j, t- , ' ° - i COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VI IE B0H[-DER COLOR 12 TO BLFND IN WITH ADJA FAIT F I TIT BOHI-DFR FORMAT11 MID w a 293 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 i t °• _ �_ 41P !' Pi Via, `'s �ya i pi b .} rp • � fia m" �1 �. aF � � . � - a .i"f : r � Y � 'w�7.r s � �.. ': Gr � -•�� f i -yam 1 � ` 'T' - � � ��{ T AO AIA 'i 1-,,jq7Pw r .' _ 1-4 +c y , all- - g " � II 61 A6 t _ � -' ..� � �,► d °' . °� �Y _ k r � u,,� , - ]� , - !- 4 �4r � + } �■ � r -'�e� � Liµ �� ti u r -n" s a .li 1 . • s. 91. a y i -+ I .. a _ - .. .i`4. !' • •l i-` a _ — � `"' Fes`.. -A ?�� '� � �, � � •Mr �. eF-. _ � i.• , - _ e r.- � - - I i �, ^,� _ � � - • ,�.. i t IIL. ^• T•P - n �_... �y � � + Air - �. _ e � �Pr - a SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP.CUP. HCA GU0IAITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 �� ay ti k' "•gyp ,. ,I f v ` P T c . p •f' - et fb 44 a S . dL , . _ MOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR LA IT . FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION YOUNG TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW El 294 295 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 i t °• _ �_ 41P !' Pi Via, `'s �ya i pi b .} rp • � fia m" �1 �. aF � � . � - a .i"f : r � Y � 'w�7.r s � �.. ': Gr � -•�� f i -yam 1 � ` 'T' - � � ��{ T AO AIA 'i 1-,,jq7Pw r .' _ 1-4 +c y , all- - g " � II 61 A6 t _ � -' ..� � �,► d °' . °� �Y _ k r � u,,� , - ]� , - !- 4 �4r � + } �■ � r -'�e� � Liµ �� ti u r -n" s a .li 1 . • s. 91. a y i -+ I .. a _ - .. .i`4. !' • •l i-` a _ — � `"' Fes`.. -A ?�� '� � �, � � •Mr �. eF-. _ � i.• , - _ e r.- � - - I i �, ^,� _ � � - • ,�.. i t IIL. ^• T•P - n �_... �y � � + Air - �. _ e � �Pr - a SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP.CUP. HCA GU0IAITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 �� ay ti k' "•gyp ,. ,I f v ` P T c . p •f' - et fb 44 a S . dL , . _ MOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR LA IT . FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION MATURE TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW E2 296 297 � � '`t � N � - NY �" F � �, � F �•�' aF - 6,. ,. � Per •,�- 'I � � �,r .� AJa��• `�, . 1. ,rai. � •. � � ^ �'� :.. � . JP" F',Irf 3, a I{ !. y4 � ,. a ■•� _ - ``r!r oe IP _ J F, r F t ^ f sr i-w,. P% ,' y °�J.. - .e+/`..,, P " y e. ` _ '� t � ar y� �YRi ,is _ - 'z' �4�. • ; _, '�• AILa N Lo+ YI j r aH x ■ ,F 1 . : i � i 1 ti � t bIa _ '= t, �I f �- r - � � Y' AM'■.,' ,A. - r m ; - -" '� ,, �_ -� a :r. .. - +- - - J � s I lipr M ^ +. T ►, n� - A Lw � , a 4a .:fir '� t<•1'' i :c F , ' A Y ., : l' � -- � - r i `' d I *, # ^ i .:;, --�s r *° ..� _ w' J a a a "' y �■ ., s. ■ 1'. .�.ky� a' r 'Nm �! lot ' ■ a of 6 • � � `em - . N, - 44 4 yr I ti 'T& 14*i} g 4 a Yt f yy • 7 * �Y , a : ic - e t m 6-14#1 Ii - . . 4 rd, ,r . - �' - .: .. _ _ - t s _ Y ' �- r = If*- J Y! a ' !� ,r aY Y t 5+ a a i r a R ■ 1 E �' �+ ■ r a � F, r � ,■ , a, fi � . � a � f" �. " .. ..� LRF. w.' a w' � - . .. ■ ■ c •„ _ � +, - . � a A - -. - �i �' '.r iF Ij. y � s F � _ � �,- �' .r z. � - ,. _ � a AP 41 _ _ .� ■. . i �'d" vw.a�if - • , ■ - - . a m 4 + as a _ :�1 7Y _ R, A I ■ , • : r „ }y 1 Ilk, fi- Y I a „ � . �, I �. �'■, - �- ■� ! '� Y � �' 'wF .! a {Y, "� L ' '` �' Y � i' �' Y + k - �' rt.,� , e - F a ■ ,r Of i ` „fir■ - � ,� � "'�," r y�" .#., _ � 0 IL f A'.r'• �w + RE � ti wry;, . pYr _ �% r , yam: + � � +4 ti � r, iF T •, , " r =.Fill ' � ~ «' a !� _ _� ■' a _ { •�l yea ILW r r ' _ — _ # - :. - „ .. __ _ a , - ,A .. � .. . F� - 4 •ice � �` - -_ - a . - , oo s aN r a ■ r - • '1 a � . � � -+ � �� ;■ ,■ ,art a , : : 7Y * � _ v .•� a "., _ '.�,+ � q ' 11 ' �#. a - ` � ■ 1 _ ■ 0 _ .� Y _ e , _: .. ,yF .. - : r� R , fIF Y{ r :u � rJf■ v :� ? - a a #y � .Y - �•�,,F ,L- . �, Nm _ - � '" ! - �' " - + ,+�.. _ -,� - '� _ k� • �Y � e w• a - ,•, a_7�.`�I. r_ _ . ,.s.. `.y : _ It°`: a - '° �i. y 'iR "' may: � _ _ P A -- , - � .•� .. -. } . : a� .+ .i _�[ � } .'N- � - {., g. 4' .. a ,�yv�', �F - .. .: „,.., ea 'o,- IF a „ r,� ti•'�` _ �r- * - : _f ■ M �y: ,� i' ,',:, m az A ■ .: d' '�'s„ - r gym.. . , OW Nr w���: � s a± �` �� ,._ � �' a +■: L ",� ■ - ■ , � � �' �. $ y YE i jr R �aqO e • ■ r -•Ti r w .. : a , '' + i�.. .^ _ . a AIT. al , ! , -^ ■4".. I■ _r ` ,., ` _ ■F , '�i ^ , - .■ -' _ i. - t ,_. . - a• , � . >r a ., � - - '� -, n a I ■ • .. - , _ _ i! a f di'�i ,�' _, d Ilrr r!' _ nala * - a'• ' . r a i a gyp, a _ ,L i + ■ . .. a _ aFa ' i a ■ +,. �ahi• - a■ a + ti,':•� s ■ ,E r� t +, ' ! °. - - - Y _'• - ri- rr _ _ - _ - 4.■ ,� , * _a +,. _ .. •R - " ,. ,i - •y., , �' ' '4■ - f �"':' t. „ r■ 4F - # .� 4t+ -� t u4liaa�'a �r �7 „ "a. TY `'iw e." M. aid' r + J Yk E 7 dP - , + - �. r° r 5 A - - - . u• , - r _. `r I . R aI. m _ d Ya :�.p * N - ■. ■* -'■ Y" ., " _ ®., „ F ' w y '.: _ - _ *. � a+ � ■ k � a� A~ � f _ � -' •+■ �°� _ �'. � Ja >y � - �. � , /#t � r �++' +� - � . � � � p�Y' i" � it ■ 1 '� 01 IIIN ■ i a40klo- IL *07 w i4111 ■y,� Nk a F r d ay'� i i*ti-T'„ai i i■'' a ° ■i �a al a _ 71 R 'a■ - � - - - - J + 1 � a v •dr' -A ) a - - a 111 .. Y * a �: '�,# w 4 . ■ � Nam ' * � ., � _ �s _ ■: �. } "IL IIII kL - '~. 40 t . _ , J s • i ie1'�, p m� a P. pmmpb - i i , - . � - :. . m - �'� '�•' alert - - s b a r 9 MID 9 f.j LTJ ff j a 299 � � '`t � N � - NY �" F � �, � F �•�' aF - 6,. ,. � Per •,�- 'I � � �,r .� AJa��• `�, 411 ,rai. ^' JP" F',Irf 3, a I{ !. y4 ,. a ■•� - ``4!r SIP y S- #A _ de ALF dr- r i-P.. J F, r F t ^ ,' y °�J.. - .e+/`..,, P " y e. ` _ '� t � ar y� �YRi ,is _ - 'z' �4�. • ; _, '�• AILa rw Ll+ YI j r aH x ■ ,F 1 bIa _ '= t, �I f �- r - � � Y' AM'■.,' ,A. - r m ; - -" '� ,, �_ -� a :r. .. - +- - - J � s I 4 lip40 bit AwT ►, n - A L , a 4a .:fir '� t<•1'' i :c F , A Y ., : l' -- ipip *, # ^ i .:;, --�s r *° ..� _ w' J a a a y �■ ., s. �■ 1'. .�.ky� a' Yy{ "' r �. s _. ` 'Nm �! ■, 4 .ti. R T ,` , 16 „ _+ ` .._ -N, A , I - .P r, ;.I - m yy - a = - '. •• , ,� ,. a of • � - 7 . P � r m a per'!' � r r = T � it A ,� N � w � I' _ t . r , J' •ti. s 1 +: Y � �`: • - „ � � �: ir 4 yr y 5L a I ti ' *i} g 4 a Yt f r yyif • 41� u }. aT, * �Y a : - e t m _ + c A. , �- IT 4 jr i;. - �- Iz !� ,IN nr a4 Y t 5+ a a i r a R ■ a r a � F, r � ,■ , a, fi � . � a w f" - x �, - r'.� As". - { � ,� ° r i " .. ..� 4RF. w.' a w' � - . .. ■ ■ c •„ _ '+, - y s .10 .■. . i �'d" v.a�if - • Ilk, ■ - - . a m 4 + as low AP 41 A Ilk, fu I ■ , • : r „ }y 1 Y I Nam^ a „ �.'■, -- ■ ! '� Y �' 'wF .! a {Y, "� L '`' Y i' Y + k - �' rt ., eap - F a ■ ,r of 0 IL iit` „fir■ - � ,� � "'�," r y�" .#., _ � f A'.r'• �w + RE � ti wry;, . # ,■ >x _ f■■ N if + �c� ,: I it 4 . - r ="� a r , yam: + � � +4 ti � r, iF T •, '�, a , " r =. ' � ~ «' a !� _ _� ■' a _ { •�l yea r r ' _ - _ # - :. - „ .. __ _ a , - ,A .. � .. . F� - 4 •ice � �` - -_ - a . - , oo s aN IL ILW r a ■ r - • '1 a VI I ,per -+ � �� ;■ ,■ ,art a , : : 7Y * � _ v .•� a "., _ '.�,+ � q ' I � ' ■ Yw1w1 -law , _: .. ,yF .. - : r� R , fIF Y{ r :u � rJf■ v :� ? - a a #y � .Y - �•�,,F - �;. �' " - + ,+�.. _ -,� - '� _ k� • �Y � e w• a - ,•, a_7�.`�I. r_ _ . ,.s.. `.y : _ It°`: a - '° �i. y 'iR "' may: � _ _ P A -- , - � .•� .. -. }firOW a „ r,� ti•'�` _ �r- * - : _f ■ M �y: ,� i' ,',:, m az A ■ .: d' '4's„ - r gym.. . , aqo • ■ . -'ia . � .. ''� + 6�, _ . m ■w�•#a,. � _r `,., -, ` _ ■F ''t I ^ .■ -' _ i. - t . - a• , . >r a ., - - n a I ■ * f di'�i ,�' _, d jr r!' _ nala * - a' • ' . r a i- ;, - ,L i + ■ . .. a _ aFa a ' i d, ■ +,. �ahi• - a■ a + ti ,': •� s ■ ,E °. - - - Y _ '• - ri- rr _ � �' _ - _ - 4.■ ,�v , � _ * _a � - •R - " . � ,i - •y., ,� �' ' '4■ - f �"':' t. � „ r■ {.a - # .� ,. 4t+ -� t u4liaa�'a _ �r �7 „ "a. TYM. dP - - - . u• Ir • ate. m _ d Ya :�. p * N - ■. ■* -'■ *. a+ ■ k a A~ f _ -' •+■°� _ �'. J4 >y - , /#t r �++' + - - . pY' i" it ■ 1 ' ,a ir�k ■ i p a m *07 w iIL if ■y,� ov f Nk a F r d ay'� i i*ti-T'„ai i i■'' a ° ■i �a al 71 R 'a■ _40 F� a ip IN .. Y * a �: '�,# w 4 . ■ � Nam ' * � ., � _ �s _ ■: �. } - '~. 40 t . _ , J s • i ie�'�, p m� a pmmpb - i r - . � - :. . m - �'� '�•' alert - kL . .: it - s b a r 9 M RM [ON: MID 9 fA LTJ W j w a 301 010 MEML, i 4w or r _ f s t xu •�• � ' �:. � Me e SO t � I 4 - � y dF r _ lot Aw i - - Y • r d 2 , r e I I r c aa A- ,• _ it ,-- ,, or 40 ice P jib � r , n ' 1 r S ' -.� +,, '� ., .•; _ �- ��.r c A 1 - 1 _ xM mar r`` r �� ' 3 M • fi ��Y _': ' - -� �. .. Y r^- ,' 'ter ' • t - - �'. R 'y = i x * .�' +>M r y AT IAN IP # , � - F � 'S a M, . � n -. • � M 'y+L ; ' �`` P aft!• � N�1 I' • � P k. I � * _ IF r u a. 1,' .. �;� � • ��., " � - p * @ •' ! �� At f' p a � _ if ILn r "� i► w -' � e � r •. :.:- _. .� •..B. �F � - � M sus _ M , r if Ir r i•••� --. a �,I'� �. h M lad "� 1 � '._- �,` a i' �a" ,� �' �, 1 a 4i a � t rdf — x� IT IF „ i .���, .A• � E-_ .�� M u'T �` a �"�� ' IFow � • FJ 4 ter,,_ r y.Mf m s r ..I IN I a1M� F !+ s ., r e} ^ Y �• ` . max 11 TTT a IF .® ><. L:It Alf Af IN If • 1 JR1„ �' � 'II � ''Tip »._ � � �- +6 dt TT x » _ M F # • r, Ik _ F � r %lot ilk, 'CIF. � s 46 u A " AL E U L K Or AUUL P30ULDER COLOR 0 E71 MID 92,11"Woull :10111191araZo]� ET�Es#�L a 303 '010 MEML, 6—, �? N N NL i Am R, - fr a W, ilk 14 41 _ y lbdw � 4 . r 00, 4w Ak OF Af 1 .+ 1a F y IF eL- r � •ram � • � Y /� +1 i ,) dr I , 4 41 qL -14 Or i s f ti �1 5 i y a JradIT I it — �� _ _ J • _ q. =i + +�. If Y " f _ q 1' Y i Y . J' p d_ y ^ • _4 7P-� lip _ OL s i r, ■ jr or _ f s dr ii sae. � •i;+Y� I I E a ir Nr W 11 4L LL r. Yr ol or �i {' _ �+ •� sue- ® ��- .� - OKI OF t. Y s _ 9 In I - � �. �i a �F 1. a '� � �• �v F �... }�_,�.� - M di i t� dWt- • ip 1 � 4 1p %job i T + qor IF f fi } 11 ■`IIIIIIWIL �- U L K Or AUUL P30ULDER COLOR 0 - 1.n r�A 1 F " � p F ti r F -A, IN n ` 'IF a " } i r k Ilk mom E71 oll D 9! 9211-Alimull :10111191 a ra Zo] zi Al s#�L AE, _+f All. ' .,44TMI m w a 305 r EEE1`-T. - + _ - a; • --� :�, . * .� , .. ;, '>t �„ .-� . , - �; y. � T- V . s �i _ z. ... , ' m = x ::��• r �..F�. ,. ^� -A _ - •VII �. *V-'v _ _ :, - _ ��• 7. y R a4x �r.:� I Y , s s t .. f ,a A • � ir x - , !h + ^ a * ■' � FIll • U T a • F +1 IJI NOW : y c.�' + F. J' rd 1. �,4 + _ • t +�' ` T _ a `qry • III I % - *I Ir' s , ido IF � i dF l ., � ■ '�' YY,� , _ Alk op IF lot IF r y 4 d ,. 4 q - ,;i1 � � � - � e e a. � �$s, yam, �F- 3. _ - a - .^ +I�" r " 'fir . "' : r{` Y IS �.Irk Op dPF F } -. . - 'I: + 6 ., do _ - , '� _ „ " .. # '� T T . �` j "■ e "� " + 3, OIL IF 4 . • " 9 a -.i - i a„" '' .i may. I, +1•y. r �. �� %L � P,fir IF w�� �, �� - _ '� ` _. _ .., r1� ''�' � � �I'. �' �" � Ili. �s -� ' Y•. _ � � _ t- 'r ,� '1� -. �� i - # ig'.-._ iYF � 1. }`f � " p t[ IN dry' �F f „ . IF t 01 + �:: m .m4•„ 4 ,. a'Y, - ; _ ., tY 4 +� �1' • •^ ii•,� '#. .w., ,� �, _ _ _ lf��s' ,P - r - , 'd i r - �I r I ... i :. I. '�, , �' Y fib.- 411, + . •. �' �� � � n _i' _ � I - - :y !, - i ;F a r +! i.yF . - .,�_. _ _ °T, i!:dW— wy PT 41 x .. �,�y, .� ; ^ A r _ IF syYi'. r , *- , r ^. F _ - _ - a • 'F _ a , It IF JP Are 4� -Ab r n IIf _ r IN 40 IL OL FI IF .F . e a� -v�r a i 4 k-' ii ' _ - e 4F IF z 00 mod'. i wt � q � m i � •.�{ e. a 66 � -r z ° i e y -.. , F a �a '' T v r' a, r - ■ jr - Polk Y II y q+ - '� 4 d "} f 1 f ■ , jw All— SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS 7J23J2013 GDP.CUPI HCA GU0IAITTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 41 14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 III a Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST * VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 700.779.539E VIEW KEY PLAN Scale: Sheet: VIEW H 306 307 e r i e ■ p R t„ i r_ + 'Al PL i4 5L , -44 a q.14 jib ■', �,ia �, s u_i► Y .* r +r y y 44 y �1 �16All i Ilk �„ i- i r '�1' � r "� r f ■ ,i ' * � '�i � ,,. i� ir ® r�' ' :In q 1F li� �'' u � 1x� _► • # y .L� n,- , � 4 r f } q JL sk rim, � _ r" r - � � � 1� '. ! - ... -� ., '�' fir. - `� - `�,' � • , � y � , u � 10 f. r �4 4 ,y i . } , '. i; 'ems �� - - 'Pi . - - s t _ �- i,. 2k 7 �� t • �+'' +Y d .� 'f" , s .. _. �-' - 1' •. - .' ,. '.. ... y t � .,ti .. !n , -- ._ - � _ t. d 7i ..: - ..1• . .4 � s ,ra,• > i� �'' M 4# i + �, # 9r A• . _ _ IOF 411.E ` - i ,E �4 r � i - 41 ON v a 'w � �� _,`_� �� - � .. - _ � � ' «. � , ' •}�-` � � - _ ram' �®�' 1 vl ■7 a _.".!-.q t+l i�. yi a , ,r. -5a till s h !_ Y a -ell, r - 40 r I� 40 _.''S, a '� Arm r . a •� # _ }t�� Nix _'p _ F t ?I* + , - �• Y _ a .'3 a i ' � rt - - - r ., _ _• �u�.; ��� '+A "• , �c �y ,,• ♦ _ „ _ #.. ..F S - _xxx�r+-' sie .. • ' s !• --• !'. .P .. tr -, Y'' Rr_ SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP. CUP, HCA GUOPUTTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30A 4 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 14 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST * VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION YOUNG TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW H1 308 309 e r i e ■ p R t„ i r_ + 'Al PL i4 5L , -44 a q.14 jib ■', �,ia �, s u_i► Y .* r +r y y 44 y �1 �16All i Ilk �„ i- i r '�1' � r "� r f ■ ,i ' * � '�i �� ,,. i� ir ® r�' ' :In q 1F li� �'' u � 1x� _► • # y .L� n,- , � 4 r f } q JL sk rim, � _ r" r - �� � � � 1� . ! - ... -� ., '�' fir. - `� - `�,' � • , �� y � , u � 10 f. r 4 ,y �x . } , '. i; 'e- �� - - 'Pi . - - s t _ �- i,. 2k 7 ��� t • �+'' +Y d .� 'f" , s .. _. �-' - 1' •. - .' ,. �'.. ... y t � .,ti .. !n , -- � ._ - � _ t. d 7i .." : - ..1• . .4 � s ,ra,• > i� �'' M 4# i + �, # 9r A• . _ _ IOF 411.E ` - i ,E �4 r i - v a 'w � �� _,`_� �� - � .. - _ � � ' �«. � , ' �•}�-` � � - _ � ram' �®�' 1 vl 41 ON■7 a _.".!-.q t+l i�. yi a , ,r. -5a till s h !_ Yella-' r - 40 r � 4f I� _.''S, a '� d' .. M1 __ R 'v � _r � � .. a - . z •• a - r� m .. ,y - * l •'�. . • ...� �. � -� .� t , - , r -.. i 11� x '' ��. _ :{ i !,P •�• _ -. y.,.F }' `.y..r � ...' � • �l�'_� �- la -' - - � -+ +., • _ � � �`_ �.. .. F -WI _.iYi,'+� � •- _� ..9Y.4.r�1�-'r� ...�11���. _ • r 's� !• _ -• r .F .. - ya t. r _. r' ' _ �.w_ i �i4. � j _ - .'ems �! # - � •,�,' i ii SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTAL /RE I SION 7J23J2013 GDP. CUP, HCA GUOPUTTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30A 4 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 14 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST * VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION MATURE TREES Scale: Sheet: VIEW H2 310 311 �4ip Xs -iP a - - _ , 1.p IVA -mik -�k •,� - pl. _ ��' ,� .. r im � r~„>4, i �r -. v 5 •, ,,;� � r s � y �� a �- 4 � � . r! � � � � w r � � ` � � r � M + u� rr � � � ... � Nk _ e f a. �`• . �' �y. n Y ,yam s ♦ b 1 = #N �I .' -IMF. Ow._ t'' m XL SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTAL /RE I SIONS 7J23J2013 GDP. CUP, HCA GUOPUTTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL Aftmw- - 0--* - H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 rRr,--Iq k L _AA 0 - Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION COMPARISON DESIGN Scale: 1 Sheet: VIEW H3 312 313 �4ip Xs -iP a - - _ , 1.p IVA -mik -�k •,� - pl. _ ��' ,� .. r im � r~„>4, i �r -. v 5 •, ,,;� � r s � y �� a �- 4 � � . r! � � � � w r � � ` � � r � M + u� rr � � � ... � Nk _ e f a. �`• . �' �y. n Y ,yam s ♦ b 1 = #N �I .' -IMF. Ow._ t'' m XL SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LAMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTAL /RE I SIONS 7J23J2013 GDP. CUP, HCA GUOPUTTAL W17�2014 HQA GU9 Ll ITTAL 11J05J2014 HCA SU 0"ITTAL [ISM 1J2015 H 0 A GU 0"ITTAL Aftmw- - 0--* - H ERMANN DE I N ROUP 70305 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LIC# 2754 EXP. 4l30l14 T: 760.777.91 31 F: 760.777.9132 rRr,--Iq k L _AA 0 - Engineering Planning Survey Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred wring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t. 760.346.4750 T heA ltumG ro up.c o m f. 760.340.0089 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLQ AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 PHOTO SIMULATION COMPARISON DESIGN Scale: Sheet: VIEW H4 314 315 CITY OF LA QUINTA ATTACNMENT7 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 Prciject Title: SWENSON RESIDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 RECCI'P�.�,`ED Project Location: FEB 1 12016 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates Project Description: COMMO The project proposes the construction of a 5,929± sq. ft. single-family residence on approximately 3.16 acres in The Enclave Mountain Estates within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Access to the lot is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. The lot is currently vacant and includes a previously graded access road and elevated building pad, and 15-foot wide drainage channel/easement along its southern boundary. Plans also include a pool, spa, and outdoor overlook area. As mitigated, no potentially significant effects on the environment are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and all documents referenced therein, are available for review at the City of La Quints Planning Department, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 on Monday through Thursdays 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, and Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The public is invited to comment on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public review period beginning on December 30, 2015 and ending on January 20, 2016. Please provide any comments to Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, either by mail to the above address, by email at ncriste@la-quinta.org, or by fax at 760-777-1233. The project area is NOT on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 Planning Commission Action: No Planning Commission hearing date has been set at this time. A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to consider the Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Associated Mitigation Monitoring Program. A public notice of the hearing will be published and mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the property when a date has been set. Please call 760-777-7125 for confirmation of the date, or with any other questions or concerns in regard to this notice. PUBLISH ONCE ON 12/30/15 1/8-PAGE DISPLAY AD F I L E D/ P O S T E D County of Riverside Peter Aldana Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder E-201501371 12/30/2015 10:54 AM Fee: $ 0.00 Page 1 0 2016 Removed: By. Deputy 317 Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, The Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner 760-777-7125 Project location: 77210 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 APN 658-200-004 Project sponsor's name and address: Case and Lisa Swenson 62 Ellenwood Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 General Plan: Open Space — Natural (OS) Zoning: Open Space (OS), La Quinta Resort Specific Plan: Low Density Residential Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project proposes the construction of a 5,929± sq. ft. single-family residence, consisting of 5,222 square feet of living space and a 707 square foot garage, on approximately 3.16 acres in The Enclave Mountain Estates within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Access to the lot is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. The lot is currently vacant and includes a previously graded access road and building pad, and 15-foot wide drainage channel/easement along its southern boundary. It is located on a rocky hillside adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Plans also include a pool, spa, and outdoor overlook area. The site is proposed to be excavated to lower the existing, previously graded pad from its existing 91± foot elevation to 87± feet above sea level. The home is proposed to extend into the existing hillside, and will require scraping of a portion of the slope to accommodate the garage. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: vacant open space South: single-family residential (The Enclave) East: single-family residential (The Enclave) West: vacant open space, single-family residential (The Enclave) Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None. 318 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature 12/23/15 Date 319 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors"; Project aerial & site X photographs; Land Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X (Project aerial & site photographs; application materials; Land Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Project aerial & site photographs; application materials; Land X Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan; Project Planting Plan) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (application materials; Project Lighting Plan; CVMSHCP) I. a) The subject property is not located within a City or state designated Image Corridor. However, it is located immediately adjacent to and within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which constitute an important scenic resource for the City and properties in the project vicinity. The site contains rocky slopes, ridges, and boulder outcrops, particularly to the north and west. It occurs at an elevation approximately 40 feet higher than surrounding residential properties. The pad on the current site is to be graded from its current 91± foot above sea level elevation to 87± feet, reducing the perceived height of the home from viewers below the site. The project will be visible from homes in the immediate vicinity, but is designed in a manner that reduces visual impacts to a great extent. The proposed area of disturbance is limited to 1.10± acres, of which 0.80 acres have been previously disturbed by grading of an access road and building pad. The proposed land use and general design of the project are consistent with the character of surrounding residential development. The residence will consist of a single -story structure with a largely flat roofline. The high point of the roofline will be 17' 11" from grade. Proposed colors and materials of the structure complement the desert environment. Landscape materials are proposed across the entire site, including the slopes below the home. These landscape materials 328 include Desert Willow, Creosote bush and succulents. Trees on the slope are proposed to be 6" diameter calipers, to assure that they provide screening. Overall, its limited size (3.16± acres) and scope (one single-family residence) will have a less than significant visual impact on a broader scenic vista. Project design has been approved by the Homeowners Association. The project will be conditioned to meet or exceed the City's drought tolerant landscaping requirements, and the project's landscaping plan is designed to screen the house by heavily landscaping the slopes. The proposed retaining wall on the west and south side of the house will be entirely covered in rock and/or faux -rock treatment, in order to blend into the hillside. The design features and conditions of approval will assure that impacts associated with scenic vistas will be less than significant. b) The subject property is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway, nor does it contain important trees or historic buildings. It does include rocky slopes, exposed bedrock, and boulder outcrops of the Santa Rosa Mountains. A previously graded access road and building pad will be utilized, with some expansion required to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle turnaround and the proposed residence. No blasting of rock is anticipated. Some rocks on or near the building pad and access road, including those that constitute a rock fall hazard, will be excavated and removed from the site or moved elsewhere onsite for decorative use on the retaining wall, or use as a barrier in potential rock fall areas. Alteration or damage to rock outcroppings outside the area of disturbance is not anticipated, and overall impacts to rock outcrops are considered less than significant. c) The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which constitute an important scenic resource for residences in the immediate vicinity and those at a distance. Undisturbed rocky slopes, exposed bedrock, and outcroppings are located throughout the property, in the form of the slope that surrounds the site on the west, south and east sides, and the slope that occurs to the north of the existing pad. The existing building pad occurs at an elevation of 91 feet, approximately 40 feet higher than surrounding residential properties. The pad elevation of the house is proposed to be reduced to 87 feet, which will lower the overall appearance of the house from surrounding residences. According to the Land Suitability Study prepared for the project, approximately 1.44 acres of the property has already been disturbed by previous grading of the building pad and access road. The remaining 1.72 acres is undisturbed, including the rocky slopes above the access road, an existing ridge, and areas east of the ridge to the flood control channel. The proposed residence will be built in the northeast corner of the existing pad, and the pad will be lowered to an elevation of 87 feet. The building pad will be expanded somewhat to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle turnaround and the proposed residence with garage. Viewshed analyses prepared for the project show that the structure will be largely shielded from view from the east by an existing and preserved ridgeline. The proposed limit of disturbance is 1.10 acres, with the remaining 2.06 329 acres undisturbed, including the highest elevation slopes on the northern and eastern portions of the property. The structure will be single -story with a roofline that is largely flat and limited in height to 17' 11". Building elevations show that colors and materials will complement the natural environment. The style, scale, materials, colors, and amenities (pool, spa) of the proposed residence are consistent with other residential development in the area. Project design has been approved by the Homeowner's Association. Photo simulations were prepared to illustrate design elements, such as retaining walls consisting of faux rock and the thoughtful placement of natural desert landscape materials that will help shield the structure from surrounding properties and mitigate aesthetic concerns. Existing and proposed views from the south and east of the site are shown in Exhibits 4A and 4B. The Exhibits demonstrate that the proposed design and landscaping elements will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. d) Lighting and glare will be limited to that generated by one single-family residence, automobiles accessing the property, landscape lighting, and lighting placed at outdoor amenities, including a pool and spa. Light and glare can be expected to be similar to that generated by existing single-family development in the vicinity. The property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The CVMSHCP establishes guidelines for development adjacent to a conservation area in an effort to minimize edge effects on the conservation area, including a policy that lighting be shielded and directed toward the developed area (Policy 4.5.3 Lighting). The project lighting plan will also be required to adhere to the regulations of the City's Municipal Code (Section 9.60.160) to assure proper shielding of light sources and prohibit spillage onto adjacent properties. Lighting plans will be conditioned to prohibit lighting at the overlook area, and landscaping lighting will be required to be shielded and oriented away from the mountain slopes. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with light and glare remain less than significant. 330 331 m 332 333 m 334 335 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Riverside Co. Important Farmland Map, 2010, CA Dept. of Conservation) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (La Quinta Zoning Map 2007; X Riverside Co. Williamson Act Lands map, 2006, CA Dept. of Conservation) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Project aerial & site photographs) II. a, b, c) The subject property is located within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and consists of sloping rocky terrain, including ridges and outcroppings. There is no agricultural activity currently, nor has there been in many years, in the project vicinity. The parcel is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation. The project does not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, nor does it involve other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 336 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; CalEEMod Model) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; 2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley; CalEEMod Model) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (aerial photographs; CalEEMod Model) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions X either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description, CalEEMod Model) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, X policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Project description; CalEEMod Model) III. a) The Coachella Valley is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMIo SIP). SCAQMD recently released the Draft Final 2012 AQMP, which will supersede the 2007 plan once adopted. 337 The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The property consists of one lot immediately adjacent to existing single-family residential development, consistent with the City's land use designations for the area. The project is limited in scope (one single-family residence), and the proposed area of disturbance is limited to 1.10 acres, 0.80 acres of which have already been graded. Given its location adjacent to an existing neighborhood and limited scope, the project will be consistent with the intent of the AQMP. No impacts associated with compliance with applicable management plans are expected. b, c) Criteria air pollutants will be released during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the project. Table 1 summarizes short-term construction -related emissions, and Table 2 summarizes ongoing emissions generated at operation. Construction Emissions The construction period includes all aspects of project development, including site preparation, grading, hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur over a 6-month period from June 2016 to December 2016. As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average daily emissions over the 6-month construction period, including summer and winter weather conditions. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that 700 cubic yards of material would be exported from the site. Due to the presence of bedrock on -site, it is anticipated that the grading process will generate abundant oversized (greater than 6" diameter) rocky materials, including boulders. Although some of this cut material can be screened to remove oversized rocks, then re -used on -site as fill, the model assumes all cut material will be unusable and exported off -site. Emissions account for standard reduction measures during construction, which include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control plans in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403, proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment, and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Impacts to air quality for criteria pollutants from construction of the proposed project, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. 338 Table 1 Swenson Property Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG S02 PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions' 16.98 25.82 5.99 0.02 3.60 2.44 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average of winter and summer emissions, 2016. Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. Operational Emissions Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electric and natural gas), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions. Table 2 provides a summary of projected emissions at operation of the proposed project. Table 2 Swenson Property Operation -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NO,, ROG S02 PM10 PM2.5 Operational Emissions 0.69 0.12 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.03 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average of winter and summer emissions, unmitigated, 2016. Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. As shown in Table 2, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. The data are conservative and reflect unmitigated operations; implementation of standard reduction measures will further reduce pollutant emissions. These include, but are not limited to, the use of low-VOC architectural paints and coatings and energy -efficient appliances. Non -Attainment Historically, the Coachella Valley, in which the project site is located, has been classified as a "non -attainment" area for PMIo and ozone. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional ozone and PMIo emissions. However, given its limited size and scope, cumulative impacts are not expected to be considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMIo or ozone precursors (NOx), and appropriate standard reduction measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences immediately west, south, and east of the project site. Their distance from the building pad ranges from approximately 120 to 200 feet. The nearest residence to the access road (driveway) is located approximately 20 feet southeast of the road. To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was used. The City of La Quinta and subject property are located 339 within Source Receptor Area 30 (Coachella Valley). Given the project's size and proximity to existing housing, the 1-acre site tables at a distance of 25 meters was used. Table 3 shows on -site emission concentrations for project construction and the associated LST. As shown in the table, LST will not be exceeded for any criteria pollutant. It should be noted that emissions account for reduction measures, which include best management practices and standard dust control measures (SCAQMD Rule 403). Therefore, air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant. Table 3 Swenson Property Localized Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) CO NOx PMI0 PM2.5 Construction 16.98 25.82 3.60 2.44 LST Threshold 878.00 132.00 4.00 3.00 Exceed? No No No No Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look -up Table, SCAQMD. e) The project will result in the development of one single-family home and is not expected to create objectionable odors. f, g) The project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. Construction -related emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is built. As such, impacts to air quality resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases associated with construction activities will be less than significant. Construction - related emissions will be minimized during construction by limiting idling times of construction equipment, adequate maintenance of heavy machinery, and efficient scheduling of construction activities to minimize combustion emissions. Operation of the project will create ongoing greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and transport and pumping of water. Table 4 describes annual (unmitigated) operational GHG generation. Table 4 Swenson Property GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Construction Activities 103.02 0.02 0.00 103.51 Operational Activities 17.74 0.01 0.00 18.15 CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. Values shown represent the total annual, unmitigated GHG emission projections for construction and operation of the proposed project, 2016. State legislation, including A1332, aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020; however, there are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. Statewide programs and standards, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars and 340 expanding the use of renewable energies, will help reduce GHG emissions over the long-term. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project will not be substantial and will not directly or indirectly result in a significant impact to the environment or conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, impacts to air quality and climate change from the generation of GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project will be less than significant. 341 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish X and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013; CVMSHCP) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game X or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct X removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of X native wildlife nursery sites? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; X Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) 342 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (CVMSHCP; X Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013; Project Planting Plan) IV. a) Intensive biological surveys were conducted on -site and on adjacent land to the west, north, and northeast in May 2013. No individuals of any special -status plant species were found in the project area. No officially listed invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, or birds were detected. Efforts to locate sensitive species not covered by the CVMSHCP (desert tortoise, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike) were made, and no observations or evidence of the species were found. The property contains suitable habitat for Palm Springs pocket mouse, which is considered a state Species of Special Concern and is a covered species under the MSHCP. Although no species were detected onsite, they could occur within the project area. The subject property is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsoni), which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Threatened by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Although no bighorn sheep were observed and no evidence of them was found on the subject property, evidence (scat and possibly a very old bedding site) was found approximately 200 yards north and east of the project site. It is possible that one or more sheep could wander onto the site. This is a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation. Because the subject property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP, additional required measures will apply, including the following: 1. A biological monitor familiar with Peninsular bighorn sheep shall be present onsite whenever ground disturbance, such as grading, rock scraping or removal, excavation and digging, occurs or is considered. Should bighorn sheep be observed in the project area, all ground disturbance activity will cease, and the monitor will determine when it can be resumed. 2. CVMSHCP Required Measure 8, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (included in the appendix of the project Biological Assessment) which pertain to lighting, drainage, noise, and other topics that are addressed elsewhere in this Initial Study. The landscape plan shall incorporate only those plant materials listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-112. No invasive, non-native plant species will be used for landscaping, including those listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-113. 3. CVMSHCP Required Measure 10, which pertains to eliminating disease transmission to the bighorn sheep population shall be implemented. The project proponent will not be permitted to engage in the husbandry of domestic sheep or goats, and therefore no physical barrier shall be required for this purpose, and 343 4. CVMSHCP Required Measure 11, which requires the construction of an 8-foot fence or functional equivalent separating the development from adjoining habitat if, I. bighorn sheep are documented to begin foraging or watering on the project site, or II. unauthorized trails, paths, routes, or ways are documented to proliferate from the project site into adjoining habitat. (In this case, neither bighorn sheep nor unauthorized trails or paths have been documented onsite as of this writing.) The fencing requirement shall be deferred until such time as bighorn are documented to be feeding or watering on the project site, or unauthorized trails or pathways are documented onsite. Should one or both of those conditions occur, the provisions of Required Measure 11 (pertaining to cost, appropriate location, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of a required fence) shall be implemented. b) The subject property does not contain any blue line streams, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities. The site -specific biological survey found no sensitive plant species or vegetation communities that would be adversely impacted by the project. No additional surveys are required, and impacts are not expected. c) The subject property is located within the rocky foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. No wetlands, marshes, vernal pools, or coastal resources are located onsite or in the project vicinity. The project will have no impact on these features. d) Biological field surveys conducted onsite and on adjacent land to the north and east revealed no evidence of regularly used wildlife corridors on or through the project area. The site is not known to contain any important migratory corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Given that Peninsular bighorn sheep are known to occur in the project vicinity, it is possible that one or more sheep may wander onto the site. However, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the movement of the species, and the imposition of the CVMSHCP Required Measured described above will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There is no significant vegetation on the project site, and the City has no ordinances pertaining to trees or other vegetation. f) Because the project is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, it is subject to payment of the City's Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). Also, because it is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP, the project is subject to additional adjacency guidelines that mitigate indirect or edge effects of development. The proposed project will comply with these guidelines, as described in response IV.a, above. The imposition of the mitigation measures and the payment of the required fees will reduce potential impacts associated with the CVMSHCP to less than significant levels. 344 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (Historical/Archaeological X Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? �{ (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Historical/Archaeological X Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological Resources X Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) V.a-b) A cultural resources study and site survey prepared for the subject property in April and May 2013 did not identify any historical or archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project area. Twenty-one (21) tribal representatives were contacted to inquire about potentially sacred or significant lands in the project area, but no specific archival information regarding them was identified. No impact to historic or archaeological resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. c) The project area is not known to harbor any unique paleontological resources or geologic features. Some ground disturbance has already occurred during previous grading of an access road and elevated building pad, and project development will require minor expansion of the pad, remedial grading, and removal and/or relocation of rock. The soils on the site consist of rocky soils not generally suitable for the location of paleontological resources. Impacts are not expected to be significant, and no alteration of unique geologic features is proposed. d) The subject property was closely inspected for any evidence of human remains during the site -specific cultural resource field survey in May 2013, and none was found. The proposed project is not expected to disturb any human remains. Further, California law requires that any remains unearthed by excavation or grading activity be reported to the County Coroner, who is required, if he/she identifies historic remains, to contact 345 Tribal representatives. This requirement of law will assure that impacts associated with human remains will be less than significant. O Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of X a known fault? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the X Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, X Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) iv) Landslides? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property X (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the X disposal of waste water? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and 347 Update Letter, May 7, 2015; Project Easements and Utility Plan) VI. a)i. The subject property does not lie within a currently delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the site. Development of the project will not expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture. a)ii. The closest active or potentially active faults to the subject property are the San Andreas fault located approximately 7 miles northeast of the site, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately 18 miles to the southwest. Moderate to severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on these and other local and regional faults could occur on the subject property. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction methods will be implemented into the proposed structure. At a minimum, seismic design will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) in effect at the time that building permits are sought, to provide collapse -resistant design. a)iii. The potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading to occur onsite is considered nil due to the presence of shallow or exposed bedrock and a lack of saturated soils. However, the potential for seismically induced ground subsidence and collapsible soils is considered moderate to high due to the dry, loose (and undocumented) nature of the shallow fill soils onsite, which can settle and densify when subjected to strong ground shaking. The geotechnical analysis prepared for the site will be supplemented with design -specific geotechnical analysis to be required by the City as part of the building permit submittal. The geotechnical analysis and 2015 update letter identified the need for: • removal and recompaction of existing fills with properly compacted engineered fill; • recompaction of a zone beneath building pads, or utilization of deep foundations, as appropriate and in conformance with the geotechnical engineering report; • site clearing and grading shall be observed by a geotechnical engineer in conformance with the CBC; • specific grading recommendations provided in the project -specific geotechnical evaluation shall be followed;. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with ground subsidence are reduced to less than significant levels. a)iv. The proposed project occurs on a lot which was rough -graded some years ago. The geotechnical analysis considered the hazards associated with the steep bedrock outcrops that occur throughout the subject property, and the potential topple hazards, which vary with location. Topographic and geologic conditions generally preclude instability issues for the proposed pad location, although several loose or perched rocks above the pad were identified during the geophysical survey and are recommended for removal and/or relocation. 348 The existing access road is bounded by a vertical to near vertical cut face exposing bedrock, and precariously perched boulders north of the road pose significant falling rock hazards that represent a safety hazard and could obstruct access to the site. The geotechnical analysis examined the original proposal, and subsequently analyzed the changes to the project plans prepared in 2015. The changes primarily involved moving the house to the northeast on the site, which will result in greater encroachment into the hillside, and the need for a retaining wall behind (to the north) of the garage area. The Update Letter provided by the project geotechnical engineer indicated that the amended site plan and proposed construction were feasible, with the implementation of design recommendations. Both the original analysis and the 2015 update were transmitted to the County Geologist for review. The County Geologist found both analyses adequate, and concurred with the recommendations of the reports. As recommended in the geotechnical engineering report and the 2015 update letter, the proposed project shall be required to include the following design components: • Construction of retention systems to absorb rockfall impacts, decelerate moving boulders, and contain rock debris. • For the lower portion of the access road, a 5 to 7-foot high retention system consisting of a combination of berms, walls, ditches, and boulders is required. • For the higher portion of the access road, a retention system 3 feet high that positions and embeds large boulders (>4 ft. in diameter), or equivalent feature, approximately 5 feet upslope from the top of the cut face is required. • The installation of rock anchors to strengthen the retaining wall to the north of the garage. Project site plans indicate that rock fall protection walls, consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the project. Actual designs should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Further, the geotechnical analysis was reviewed by the Riverside County Geologist, who determined that these design components are sufficient to reduce the risk of rockfall on the property. The County Geologist also will require that the wall designs be prepared by a structural engineer, to ensure that the parameters of the geotechnical report are followed. These requirements are expected to reduce potential hazards associated with rockfall to less than significant levels. b) The project is not expected to result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Remedial grading and limited expansion of the existing building pad is proposed. However, approximately 45% (1.44 acres) of the subject property has already been graded, and the proposed project minimizes site disturbance by utilizing the previously graded building pad and access road to the greatest extent feasible. Approximately 2 acres of the site will remain undisturbed. Nonetheless, the Coachella Valley region is characterized by seasonal flooding, and shallow soils are moderately to highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. A dust mitigation plan shall be required by the City as a standard requirement of development, and implemented by the project contractor to minimize fugitive dust generated during the development process. Water erosion prevention measures will be required through the implementation of Best Practices associated with the City- 349 required SWPPP and WQMP, both of which are designed to assure that water erosion is controlled and disposed of in a manner consistent with NPDES standards. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with soil erosion will be less than significant. c) Lab testing conducted by the project geotechnical consultant, and the granular nature of onsite soil deposits, indicate that the expansion potential of soils is considered very low. However, as recommended in the geotechnical report, Expansion Index testing shall be performed on the as -graded site soils prior to construction to confirm or modify these findings. Should expansive soils be identified on the site, the grading recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be modified to address them. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with expansive soils are less than significant. d) The proposed residence will connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. No alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed or required. No impacts are expected. 350 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the roject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan Exhibit 4.1, Public Facilities) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in X a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas X or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Figure S-11, Wildfire Susceptibility Map, Riverside County RCIP) 351 VII. a-c) The project proposes the construction of one single-family residence in an existing residential neighborhood. The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than that associated with typical household cleaning chemicals and those required for maintenance of an onsite pool and spa. There is no foreseeable risk of a release of hazardous chemicals into the environment. No schools are located within 1/4-mile radius of the subject property, and no handling of hazardous materials or waste is anticipated from the proposed project that could pose a risk to an existing or proposed school. The property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. In accordance with Policy 4.5.2 (Toxics) of the CVMSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for Projects Adjacent to Conservation Areas, the use, generation, or discharge of any chemicals or bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife and plant species, habitat, or water quality on the adjacent conservation area will be prohibited. d) The project site is not located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e-f) The project site is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Bermuda Dunes Airport and approximately 10 miles northwest of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. It is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or private airport, and therefore, will not result in an aviation safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. g) The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway networks or implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Emergency access to the property is available from the existing street grid. The proposed driveway is designed to provide adequate turn -around space for emergency vehicles. No adverse impacts are anticipated. h) The Santa Rosa Mountains adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property are categorized as a "Low" wildfire zone, due primarily to the sparse vegetation that occurs on these slopes. The proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildfire hazards. 352 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (CVWD UWMP, December 2010) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- X or off -site? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a X manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for 353 Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; FEMA FIRM map; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; FEMA FIRM map; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) VIII. a) The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista, and wastewater will be transported to and processed at Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. The project site will be subject to the City's requirements for surface water pollution prevention, as prescribed by NPDES standards. The City will require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address and prevent pollution during construction and long term operations at the site. The City's requirements include best management practices designed to prevent surface and groundwater pollution. The property is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. As such, it is required to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the conservation area is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. The southernmost edge of the conservation area, where it meets the subject property, occurs at a higher elevation (±140 feet above mean sea level) than the building pad (91 feet). Runoff from the building pad currently flows downslope to an existing concrete -lined drainage channel and proposed retention basin in the southerly portion of the site (site improvements are described in more detail in response VIII.c-e, below). No runoff is expected to be directed toward the conservation area. b) Long-term water consumption associated with the proposed project will be limited to that required by one single-family residence, pool, and spa. Drought tolerant plant materials are proposed to limit water consumption for landscaping. In the short-term, water may be required during site grading as part of the dust mitigation program. Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD through an existing 12-inch water line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which is a long-range planning document that helps CVWD plan for current and future water demands. The Plan demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the project. Impacts associated with water supplies are expected to be less than significant. c-e) The subject property does not contain any streams or rivers, and storm water issues associated with the project will be limited to local drainage, including that from higher 354 elevations west and north of the building pad. The geotechnical analysis prepared for the project notes that shallow or perched groundwater and surface runoff within and immediately adjacent to onsite drainage courses and fractures can be expected depending on seasonal precipitation. It also indicates that debris flow potential at the proposed building site are considered low. Existing flood control improvements serving the subject property and those in the immediate vicinity include a flood control channel that intercepts flow from the site as well as regional storm flow generated from the north and east of the project site. The channel conveys stormwater westerly to two, sixty -inch (60") diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts, then southerly under Loma Vista to the La Quinta Resort Mountain Golf Course. Easement access to the concrete channel will continue to be provided on the property's access road/driveway near Loma Vista. The City has required the preparation of a hydrology study for the project site. The City's standard requirements will be imposed on the proposed project, to retain the 100 year storm on site, and to design flood control facilities that do not increase currently occurring volumes or velocities as they discharge to downstream properties. Proposed drainage patterns are generally consistent with existing drainage patterns. Storm flow from areas above the existing access drive, which currently flow down the access drive, will be conveyed to a depressed landscape area near the driveway entrance, where they will be be infiltrated. Additional terrace drains, storm drain inlets and pipe will intercept storm flow and convey it to an underground retention system or to the existing flood control channel. The underground retention system will consist of a pre-treatment chamber to capture debris and an infiltration facility such as a perforated pipe. These facilities are shown in the hydrology study to be sufficient to convey storm flows across the site, and not impact surrounding facilities or properties in a 100 year storm, as required by the City. The hydrology study will continue to be reviewed by the City Engineer, to assure compliance of the proposed project with all the City's standards relating to flood control. The building pad and access road have been graded for many years. Proposed expansion and remedial grading of the pad and road are not expected to significantly alter existing onsite drainage patterns or result in significant erosion. With the imposition of the City's standard requirements and conditions of approval, impacts associated with flooding will be less than significant. f-g) The building pad does not lie within a designated flood zone. Project development will not place housing within a flood zone or place a structure in a flood zone such that it would impede or redirect flood flows. 355 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (aerial photographs; project site X plan) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, X or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1; La Quinta Zoning Map, 2007; Project's CUP application) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (CVMSHCP; Biological X Assessment & Impact Analysis for Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013) IX. a) The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The site is located at the edge of an existing residential community (The Enclave) and is immediately surrounded on the southwest, south, and east by single-family residences. To the north and northwest are the vacant slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. b) The property is currently designated as Open Space — Natural (OS) in the General Plan and Open Space with Hillside Conservation Overlay (HQ in the Zoning Ordinance. It is also within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, which allows a residence on the lot. A conditional use permit is being sought by the project applicant to facilitate the project, based on the City's requirements for development within hillside areas. The processing of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's standards, in both its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, relating to development in the hillsides. With approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. c) The City of La Quinta has adopted the CVMSHCP, and the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Plan. As such, the project proponent will be required to pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) as mitigation for any potential impacts to sensitive biological species covered by the plan. The property is also located immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP and is therefore subject to additional required measures set forth in the MSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. These 356 requirements are described in detail in section IV (Biological Resources) of this Initial Study. With imposition of the mitigation measures included in Section IV, the project's impacts on the Plan will be less than significant. 357 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of X the state? (Special Report 159, CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land X use plan? (Special Report 159, CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) X. a-b) The California Division of Mines and Geology has studied much of the Coachella Valley to determine the location of local mineral resources. The subject property and its immediate surroundings are designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, which indicates areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The property is not known to contain important mineral resources, and is not used for mineral recovery. The City's General Plan designates the property and surrounding lands for open space and residential uses. No existing or proposed mineral extraction occurs in the vicinity of the project site, which is located within the City's core. The project will have no impact on mineral resources. 358 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards X of other agencies? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Geotechnical X Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI. a, b, d) The project will result in the development of one single-family residential structure and onsite amenities, including a pool, spa, and overlook area. Temporary noise impacts will be generated during the grading and construction process by typical construction equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks. The building pad and access drive have already been rough -graded, which will limit the extent to which excavation and mass grading are needed. Construction noise will generally be typical of that experienced for any single family home, and will be temporary and short term. However, expansion of the pad and 359 remedial grading are proposed, and removal of oversized rocks and installation of rockfall mitigation features will be required. Loose fill soils and very weathered rock should be easily excavated without ripping or with minor light ripping. Although no blasting is proposed, ripping of very hard bedrock may be required depending upon rock hardness and spacing, and the presence of joints and fractures. This will require the use of special tools and equipment, such as rams, hammers, and tractor -dozers. The use of heavy equipment on the site for these purposes could generate noise levels of 95 to 110 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels will decrease by 8 to 12 dB with the doubling of distance. Homes closest to the project site are located 75 to 110 feet away from the building pad area, and 140 to 180 feet from the area of slope that will require removal. The driveway from Loma Vista to the building pad is immediately west of an existing home, approximately 25 feet separating the driveway from the home. Noise levels of heavy equipment will vary based on where the equipment is located on the site. Equipment working on the excavation and ripping of the base of the slope in the northeastern portion of the site will generate the highest noise levels. If this equipment generates noise levels of 75 to 110 dBA at 50 feet, the noise levels at the closest house, 140 feet away, can be expected to range between 60 and 90 dBA while the equipment is active. These noise levels will be temporary and periodic, based on the limited area to be excavated, and the activity of the heavy equipment on any given day. The Municipal Code exempts construction activities from noise standards, if these activities occur during prescribed time periods. The time periods occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, when ambient noise levels are higher due to activity in any neighborhood. However, grading, ripping, and construction activity will create temporary groundborne vibration and noise, that can be mitigated to the greatest extent possible, as follows: 1. Construction activity, including days and times of operation, will be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. 2. The contractor will provide notice, 24 hours prior to any rock ripping activity, to the residents within 200 feet of the subject property. The notice shall be in writing, delivered to each residence or residence mailbox, and posted at the guard -gate for the project. The notice shall include the dates and times during which ripping is to occur. 3. Blasting on the site is prohibited. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, noise and vibration impacts during construction are expected to be less than significant. c) Permanent increases in ambient noise levels will be less than significant. The project is limited to the construction of one single-family residence, and permanent noise sources can be expected to be limited to typical household appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles accessing the property. Noise levels will be consistent with those of adjacent single-family residential development. The subject property is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP sets forth land use guidelines to mitigate indirect or edge effects of development adjacent to conservation areas. The following guideline pertains to noise levels on adjacent properties: "activities that generate noise levels greater than 75 dBA Leq hourly should incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls, as appropriate, to minimize the effects on adjacent conservation c.M areas." Long-term operation of the proposed project is not expected to exceed this threshold. e, f) The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project will not expose people working or residing on the property to airport -related noise impacts. 361 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (application materials; 2010 Census) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (application materials) XII. a) The project proposes the construction of one single-family residence. Given the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), the project's contribution to population growth will be insignificant. The project will not require the extension of any roads, utilities, or other infrastructure. b-c) The subject property is currently vacant. The project will not result in the displacement of any existing housing or people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57; X application materials) Police protection (application materials)? X Schools? (General Plan; application materials) X Parks? (General Plan; application materials) X Other public facilities? (application X materials) XIII. a) The proposed project will result in the construction of one single-family dwelling unit within an existing residential neighborhood. Based on the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), the project's demand for additional public facilities and/or services will be less than significant. The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection for the City. The nearest fire station to the project. Station #32, is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project at 78111 Avenue 52. The Fire Department will impose conditions of approval on the project to assure access to the site in the case of an emergency, including driveway slope and turn -around space. Police protection is provided to the city through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The nearest police station is located at the Civic Center at 78495 Calle Tampico. Emergency access to the project will be provided by the existing roadway network, and the site plan provides adequate turnaround space at the top of the driveway for fire vehicles. Increased use of schools, parks, and other public facilities is expected to be insignificant. The project will not require the construction of any new public roads or enhanced public transportation services. The project proponent will be required to pay development impact fees that mitigate potential impacts to public facilities, including transportation, parks and recreation, Civic Center, fire, library, community center, and school facilities. 363 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (application materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (application materials) XIV. a, b) The project will result in the construction of one single-family residence. Based on the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities will be less than significant. The project includes several onsite private recreational facilities, including a swimming pool, spa, sports court and outdoor overlook that will further minimize the demand for public facilities. The project proponent will be required to pay development impact fees that mitigate potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. 364 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial X increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? (application materials) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (application materials) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (application materials; La Quinta Bike X Map; Sunline Transit Bus Route Map; Final CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update, September 2010) XV. a-b) Development of the proposed project will result in short-term traffic increases generated by construction vehicles and equipment typical of a single family home construction project. Construction traffic is not expected to significantly impact area roadways, traffic volumes, or levels of service. Over the long-term, the proposed project will generate minimal traffic from one single-family residential unit. It is not expected to result in significant increases in 365 vehicle trips, volume -to -capacity ratios, or congestion at intersections, and will not exceed established levels of service. c) The project does not propose any facilities or activities that will affect air traffic patterns or levels. d) No sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or vehicle incompatibilities are anticipated with the project. Access to the residence will be provided by a driveway at a cul-de- sac at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Construction vehicles and equipment will travel to and from the site during the construction phase, and long-term vehicle usage is expected to be consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Construction vehicles will park either on site or along the cul-de-sac, as would construction vehicles at any single family home development site. e) Access to the property will be provided by an 18-foot wide driveway which located at the cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Emergency vehicles will use Loma Vista and the existing roadway network to access the site. Fire truck turnaround space is provided at the top of the driveway. f) The proposed project consists of a private residence with a 3-car garage and large parking pad at the top of the driveway. The parking exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements for single family homes. No additional parking is required. g) Loma Vista, from which the project is accessed, is not designated as an existing or proposed City bike route or Sunline Transit bus route. The project will result in the construction of one single-family residence within an existing gated neighborhood. It will not conflict with plans or policies pertaining to alternative transportation. C Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? (application materials) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (application materials; CVWD 2010 UWMP) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (application materials) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD UWMP, 2010) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? XVI. a) Wastewater discharge requirements for the Coachella Valley, including the subject property, are administered by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be connected to an existing sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Household wastewater will be transported to and processed at CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) in Thermal. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge and water quality. Although the proposed project will 367 increase wastewater flows to the treatment plant marginally, it will not adversely impact water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b-e) The subject property falls under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic water and wastewater treatment services. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, a long-range planning document, demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve additional development in its boundaries. Additionally, WRP-4 has a capacity of just under 10 million gallons per day (mgd) and processes approximately 5 mgd. Therefore, the plant has more than sufficient capacity to serve additional development, including the proposed project. The project will connect to existing 12-inch water and 8-inch sewer lines at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Given its limited scope (one single-family residence) and size (6,093± square feet), the project is not expected to require the expansion or construction of water or wastewater facilities. CVWD is also responsible for regional stormwater management in the Coachella Valley. The subject property includes an existing flood control easement with a 15- foot wide concrete stormwater channel along its southerly boundary, and an existing storm drain is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. These facilities protect adjacent properties from runoff from the subject property and higher elevation slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the north and west. The project proposes a conveyance system and dry well, and a retention basin and emergency overflow basin south of the building pad to collect and manage onsite flows. The City will impose its standard requirements for the retention of the 100 year storm on site for the proposed project. Please also see Section VIII, Hydrology. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. f,-g) Given its limited size (6,093± square feet) and scope (one single-family residence), the project is expected to generate less than significant levels of solid waste. The subject property will be served by Burrtec, the City's solid waste contractor. Trash generated by the project will be hauled to one of two transfer stations in the Coachella Valley, then to regional landfills, all of which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is required to meet all local, regional, state, and federal standards for solid waste disposal. ccm Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Biological Resources The subject property is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the Plan. It is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelson), which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Threatened by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. An intensive biological field survey was conducted on the subject property. Although no sensitive plant or animal species were observed onsite, evidence of bighorn sheep was identified within 200 yards (north and east) of the property, and the potential exists for sheep to wander onto the site. The proposed project is not expected to eliminate or significantly reduce the quality of the habitat or range of the species; however, it will bring the edge effects of development closer to the species, c.• particularly through construction noise and the installation of new landscape planting materials. Potential impacts to sensitive biological species will be mitigated through the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). Because of its adjacency to a CVMSHCP Conservation Area, the project is also subject to the CVMSHCP's Required Measures 8, 10, and 11, which address landscaping, lighting, drainage, noise, fencing, and other issues as they pertain to development of the property. Implementation of mitigation measures, as identified in this Initial Study, will reduce project -related impacts to sensitive species to less than significant levels. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey and site investigation were prepared in April and May 2013. No historical or archaeological resources were identified within or adjacent to the project area. No impact to historic or archaeological resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. b) The proposed project is consistent with existing residential development in the vicinity and with the City's long-range plan for development within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Public utilities and roadway infrastructure are already in place and capable of serving the project. Given the limited size and scope of the project, potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at, or be mitigated to, less than significant levels. Long-term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. c) The project will result in incremental environmental impacts typical of new residential development, such as increased emission of criteria pollutants during grading and increased demand for public utilities. However, the project is limited to construction of one single-family residence, and impacts are expected to be less than significant when considered in connection with other projects. d) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project will not cause substantial adverse impacts, either directly or indirectly, on human beings. The mitigation measures included herein, such as the installation of rock fall protection walls and limitations on construction activity, will reduce potential hazards to less than significant levels. 370 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 371 CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: February 22, 2016 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 1 658-200-004 CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 PROJECT LOCATION: 77210 Loma Vista EA/EIR NO: 2013-630 APPROVAL DATE: In Process APPLICANT: Case and Lisa Swenson THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER 372 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A biological monitor familiar with Planning Division During ground disturbing Report by monitor. Peninsular bighorn sheep shall be activities present onsite whenever ground disturbance, such as grading, rock scraping or removal, excavation and digging, occurs or is considered. Should bighorn sheep be observed in the project area, all ground disturbance activity will cease, and the monitor will determine when it can be resumed. CVMSHCP Required Measure 8, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (included in Planning Division Approval of Final Approved Final the appendix of the project Biological Landscaping Plan Landscaping Plan Assessment) which pertain to lighting, drainage, noise, and other topics that are addressed elsewhere in this Initial Study. The landscape plan shall incorporate only those plant materials listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-112. No invasive, non-native plant species will be used for landscaping, including those listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-113. CVMSHCP Required Measure 10, which pertains to eliminating disease Code Compliance Evidence of animal Photographic transmission to the bighorn sheep husbandry on project site. evidence of animal population shall be implemented. The husbandry project proponent will not be permitted to engage in the husbandry of domestic sheep or goats, and therefore no physical barrier shall be required for this purpose. 373 CVMSHCP Required Measure 11, which Planning Division Approval of fence or Construction of requires the construction of an 8-foot functional equivalent with fence fence or functional equivalent CDFW approval. separating the development from adjoining habitat if, A .bighorn sheep are documented to begin foraging or watering on the project site, or B. unauthorized trails, paths, routes, or ways are documented to proliferate from the project site into adjoining habitat. (In this case, neither bighorn sheep nor unauthorized trails or paths have been documented onsite as of this writing.) The fencing requirement shall be deferred until such time as bighorn are documented to be feeding or watering on the project site, or unauthorized trails or pathways are documented onsite. Should one or both of those conditions occur, the provisions of Required Measure 11 (pertaining to cost, appropriate location, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of a required fence) shall be implemented. 374 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE XI. NOISE Construction activity, including days Building Department During construction Compliance with and times of operation, will be hours of construction required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. The contractor will provide notice, Receipt of proof of 24 hours prior to any rock ripping Building Department, Project During rock moving activity distribution. Notice activity, to the residents within 200 Contractor posted at guard feet of the subject property. The gate. notice shall be in writing, delivered to each residence or residence mailbox, and posted at the guard - gate for the project. The notice shall include the dates and times during which ripping is to occur. Blasting on the site is prohibited. Building Department During construction Inspection. 375 LQ DEIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 6.22.12 Verizon Engineering Dept. C/o Chris Brown Time Warner State of California 295 N. Sunrise Way 41-725 Cook Street Water Quality Control Board Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92211 73720 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Southern California Gas Co. Sunline Transit AgencyLovi, Planning Director Riverside County Eunice Attn: Deborah McGarrey Eunice Harry Oliverail Fire Protection Planning, 32-505 er 211 North Sunrise Way Thousand Palms92276 77-933 Las Montanas Road, Ste 201 , er Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Pete Sorenson Peggy Davis, Facilities Planner MountainsConservancy US Dept of Fish & Wildlife 47-950 Dune Palms Road 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 205 6010 Hidden Valley Road La Quinta, CA 92253 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Ms. Mary G. Urguhart Mr. Seam McVeigh Mariann Nolan 1210 Chelten Way 270F N. El Camino Real, # 324 1212 Wellinton Avenue South Pasadena, CA 91030 Encinitas, CA 92024 Pasadena, CA 91103 Ca, Dept of Fish & Game South Coast Air Quality Torres -Martinez Eastern Sierra Inland Desert Reg. Management District Desert Cahuilla Indians 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., C-220 21865 Copley Drive Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson Ontario, CA 91764 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Ms. Katie Barrows, Dir. Of Env. Serv. City of Indian Wells Coachella Valley Assoc. of Govts. Planning Division 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste 200 44-950 Eldorado Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Burrtec Waste Disposal Joe Cook Imperial Irrigation District Operations Manager Operat Electric Street Coachella Valley Water District Alfonso Rodriguez, Asst. Eng. 5-995 Avenue 52 Palm Desert, CA 92260 C81-600 Avenue 58 Coachella, CA 92236 La Quinta, CA 92253 The Altum Group Mr. Joe McVeigh Vice President Doug Franklin, P.E. Emily Perri Hemphill P. O. Box 1008 1325 Howard Avenue 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 219 PMB 602 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Burlingame, CA 94010 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP Attn: Amy Minteer Ms. Mary G. Urquhart Mr. Sean McVeigh 2200 Pacific Coast Highway 1210 Chelten Way 270 F N. El Camino Real, #324 Suite 318 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Encinitas, CA 92024 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Mariann Nolan 1212 Wellington Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 377 ATTACH M ENT 8 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 1 of 36 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Response to Comments This response to comments has been prepared to address correspondence received on the Initial Study distributed for Environmental Assessment 2013-630. Comments germane to the Initial Study have been extracted from the letters. The comments made by each respondent are provided first, followed by the City's response. The complete letters are appended to this report. Coachella Valley Water District January 12, 2016 Comment 1: The project site is subject to potential flooding for offsite Stormwater flows that may include debris flow from the nearby foothills. Flood protection measures for the project shall mitigate the potential for local drainage, which includes offsite flows and on -site drainage in accordance with California Drainage Law. The flood protection measures shall ensure that Stormwater flows are received onto the property and discharges in a manner that is reasonably compatible with predevelopment (pre-existing) conditions. Response 1: Comment noted. The project's hydrology study provides for on -site flow control and retention, and does not increase flows beyond those in the current condition. Comment 2: The project site is currently designated as Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps, which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: CVWD holds domestic water and sanitation easement rights within this parcel. Said easement was dedicated on Tract No. 26251 as filed in Book 244 of maps, at Pages 90 and 91, records of Riverside County. A copy of said easement is enclosed for your reference. The existing CVWD easement and facilities will be in conflict with the proposed residence. CVWD requests that the landowner coordinate the facilities relocation and quitclaim the easement before proceeding with this construction. Response 3: Comment noted. The City is aware of the easement, and has directed the applicant that compliance with the District's requirements and easement vacation will be required prior to construction of the proposed project. 378 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 2 of 36 Comment 4: The project site is located adjacent to a conservation area within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and therefore must comply with the applicable land use adjacency requirements. Response 4: Please see Initial Study Biological Resources section. The adjacency requirements are listed as mitigation measures. Comment 5: Please include CVWD on all future public notices regarding this project. Response 6: Comment noted. The commenter has been added to the public hearing notification list for the project. Patti and Michael Mergener January 21, 2016 Comment 1: We own a home that sits below the Swenson's building site and we are concerned that the proposed home will impact many of us along the Mountain Estates storm channel. As it is the storm channel that runs behind our properties was unable to withstand a substantial rainfall in both August of 2013 and September of 2014. Adding more hardscape and redirecting the rain water will have an adverse effect on the storm channel and its ability to keep rain water out of our properties in the future. We have had serious flooding and major damage to our home and our neighbor's homes after significant rains caused the storm channel to fail and it has taken many of us much time and money to get back some semblance of normal. Response 1: The applicant has been required to prepare a preliminary hydrology study to meet City standards. Those standards include demonstrating that the proposed project will discharge the same quantity of storm flow or less in the built condition as it did in the pre -construction condition. The project hydrology study proposes to meet this requirement through a system of storm drains and retention areas designed to contain the 100 year storm. The applicant will not be permitted to construct the home until the final hydrology study has been reviewed and approved by the City. The City's requirements are consistent with those of all municipalities, and assure that 100 year storm events do not result in impacts to surrounding downstream properties. Please see Hydrology discussion in the Initial Study. Comment 2: We also very concerned about the movement of the rocks above home and the effect it will have on the surrounding neighbors. The breaking and moving of hundreds of tons of rocks will be quite jarring to the structures and could possibly collapse the natural hillside. 379 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 3 of 36 Response 2: Extensive and thorough geotechnical analysis has been completed for the proposed project, including analysis of rockfall potential. As stated in the Initial Study, the geotechnical analysis to date has been reviewed and approved by the County Geologist, the City's expert reviewer in geotechnical matters, and the final designs will be reviewed and approved by a geologist. These multiple tiers of review are designed to assure that impacts associated with hazards associated with the construction of the project will have less than significant impacts. Comment 3: Also we have seen Bighorn sheep up in the hills near the building site; am concerned that they will be displaced as well as other wildlife we have enjoyed seeing over the years. Response 3: The site is outside the critical habitat for bighorn sheep. There are bighorn sheep in the surrounding mountains, and their habitat occurs at elevation above those of the project site. As described in the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study, and the project specific biological resource report, the project biologist did not find any evidence of sheep on the site, but concluded that sheep in the range above the site could wander onto the site. As a result, recommendations and mitigation measures are included in the Initial Study, in addition to and consistent with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). These include the presence of a biological monitor during construction, and the requirement for fencing of the area above the proposed project and adjacent lands, should sheep be identified in the area on a regular basis. Implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that impacts to bighorn sheep are reduced to less than significant levels. Comment 4: Building in the hills in La Quinta (Riverside County) is against building codes although it is said this lot is grandfathered but by building anything 50 feet above the valley floor will change a beautiful neighborhood vista that will be forever scarred by the proposed construction. The moratorium on building in the hills above the valley floor was instituted for many good reasons. Response 4: The project site is located 32 feet above the surrounding grade. The project site is within a Specific Plan boundary that was approved prior to the enactment of the City's Hillside Overlay regulations. The Hillside Overlay regulations specifically exempt Specific Plans approved prior to the enactment of the Overlay from its provisions. Comment 5: The Swenson have proposed artificial rock and landscaping as a solution to hide some of their hillside lengthy driveway and six thousand 380 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 4 of 36 square foot home but faux rock is not the same as natural and all planted landscaping is susceptible to insects, disease and drought. Response 5: The rock proposed for the retaining wall on the south and east sides of the pad is not faux rock, but real rock. Faux rock is not only proposed at the base of the rockfall protection wall on the west side of the access driveway. Landscaping for the project is conditioned to be irrigated and maintained. In addition, the Homeowners' Association's rules and regulations are sure to require that landscaping on any lot within the Enclave is maintained. Comment 6: Lighting and sound carries a long way when place on a 50-foot-high podium. I am sure the Swenson are a normally active, young family but moving into a community where 95% of the neighborhood are senior and / or retired may lead to noise issues concerning the whole community. Response 6: Comment noted. As described in the Initial Study, the proposed project will result in a single family home, and will generate noise levels consistent with single family homes throughout the City. These noise levels will not exceed the City's standards, nor are they expected to result in an impact on surrounding properties. Please note that the proposed home will be 32 feet above the surrounding lands. Comment 7: Privacy is another big issue. A home site 50 feet above all your neighbors in the Mountain Estates, The Enclave and Santa Rosa Cove allow easy viewing of formerly private pools, patios and bedroom windows. Landscaping is not the only solution since it can easily die or be blown over in our wind storms. Privacy walls surrounding the immediate housing site (not the property line) would provide personal privacy for the Swenson (or to whom they sell the house) and the surrounding neighbors. Response 7: The home site is located 32 feet above the street grade of Loma Vista. As described in the Initial Study, and shown in the visual simulations prepared for the project, the home has been relocated to the north, and reduced in size to address issues associated with views from the neighbors to the home. The applicant has also provided extensive landscaping on the slopes of the lot which are located to block views, both from the homes below to the project site, and from the project site into the neighboring yards. Please see Response 5 as it relates to the maintenance of landscaping. There is no wall proposed around the project site, nor is one required by the Zoning Ordinance or the Specific Plan. 381 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 5 of 36 Thomas J. Nolan January 21, 2016 Comment 1: The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Notice of Intent") does not comply with our due process rights as it was not properly served in conformance with governing provisions. Response 1: Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides explicit direction on the distribution of a Notice of Intent, as follows: "The lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also give notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at least one of the following procedures to allow the public the review period provided under Section 15105: (1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project... (2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. (3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. In this case, the City sent both the Notice of Intent and the Initial Study to the commenter, who had requested that the Notice and Initial Study be provided to him, and published the Notice in the Desert Sun. Therefore, the distribution and publication of the Notice of Intent complied with applicable law. Comment 2: The Notice of Intent contains falsehoods and does not take into consideration readily available information that would establish the inaccuracies contained in the Notice of Intent. Response 2: The Notice of Intent accurately reflects the proposed project, and complies with the requirements of law. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the Notice contains any falsehoods or inaccuracies. Comment 3: The proposed project is inaccurately described in the Notice of Intent and is inconsistent with the final plans submitted to the Architectural Review Committee and Board of Directors of The Enclave Mountain Estates. Response 3: The commenter provides no evidence as to how the project is inaccurately described, or how it does not comply with the final plans. 382 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 6 of 36 The Notice of Intent and the Initial Study accurately reflect the plans re- submitted to the City in May and November of 2015, and are consistent with the plans shown in the Settlement Agreement with the Enclave Homeowners' Association. Comment 4: The Notice of Intent misrepresents that the referenced project has been approved by the EME HOA, as it makes no reference to the conditions attached to the EME HOA's Board approval. Response 4: Comment noted. Comment 5: The proposed project will be built "into the ridge line adjacent to the San Jacinto Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy" the objective of which is to preserve the mountains. The proposed project is located in an area designated by the City as an "Open Space District." It is also located in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. The Swenson Project does not comply with sections 9.110.070 and 9.110.050 of the Municipal Code. Response 5: The proposed project will be built below the ridgeline, on a previously graded pad site. The proposed project is designated Low Density Residential in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Please see Mergener Response 4 as it related to the Hillside Overlay. As provided in Municipal Code Section 9.120.020, a single family home is permitted in the Open Space zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Comment 6: In direct contradiction of statements set forth in the Notice of Intent there is recent evidence of the presence of bighorn sheep on the site and immediately adjacent thereto. The proposed site is populated by and frequently visited by the peninsular bighorn sheep, which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nolans and other neighbors have personally observed, within the last several months, several bighorn sheep grazing on and around the project site. At a hearing before the Planning Commission, the Nolans and other neighbors will present photographic and testimonial declarations attesting to numerous and recent bighorn sheep sightings on the project site and the immediate hillsides bordering the proposed project. For that reason, we expressly wish to present evidence to impeach the so- called findings of only bighorn sheep "scat" droppings in the vicinity and the representation by Ms. Criste in the Notice of Intent that the "scat" findings were old. Response 6: Please see Mergener Response 3. The commenter does not present any evidence of bighorn sheep sightings. However, as provided in the Initial Study, if bighorn sheep are documented on or around the project site, the provisions of the MSHCP's Required Measure 11 will be 383 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 7 of 36 implemented, including fencing or functional equivalent along the length of not only the project site, but the Enclave Mountain Estates and lands beyond, as determined appropriate by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As relates to the findings of the biologist, not Ms. Criste, they are documented in the biological resource study prepared for the project site. Comment 7: The proposed project's drainage design is inadequate. The Applicant has failed to submit to the HOA, as was a precondition of the conditional HOA approval of the project, a sufficient hydrology and geotechnical data, to establish the proposed drainage system would not further burden the EME's storm water channel. At any hearing before the Planning Commission the Nolans will present substantial hydrology studies prepared by Waldorf and La Quinta Resort questioning the integrity, design and capacity of the EME's storm channel. Although requested of their engineers, the Swensons' application does not address the voluminous studies prepared in the litigation styled, Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC v. The Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. PSC 1402611, pending before the Honorable David M. Chapman ("Waldorf litigation"), which suit is presently scheduled for trial on March 8, 2016 in Department 2 of the Palm Springs Superior Court. As designed, the proposed drainage system could very well exasperate alleged drainage issues at the site of the EME storm water channel and materially contribute to flooding risks to at least the McVeigh and Nolan residence sites. Response 7: The City is not a party to the Settlement Agreement between the Homeowners' Association and the applicant. If the applicant is in violation of that Agreement, it is the responsibility of the Association to address the issue. As regards the City's review of the project, the applicant has submitted a preliminary hydrology study that has been reviewed by the City, and determined to meet the City's standards for the conveyance of storm flows, including catch basins, storm drains and retention areas. The City will review the final hydrology study when grading plans are submitted for review, and will require that the applicant demonstrate that its standards have been met. As relates to the lawsuit between the Homeowners' Association and Waldorf Astoria, the applicant's hydrology study has been prepared to meet the City's analytic and hydrologic requirements for the control and conveyance of the 100 year storm, as required by law. The lawsuit between third parties is not germane, and has, as we understand it, been settled by the parties. 384 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 8 of 36 Comment 8: In conclusion, and at a minimum, the Planning Commission should order the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report in regards to the Swensons' proposed project. In addition, no action should be taken until after a full evaluation of the proposed drainage system after conclusion of the referenced Waldorf litigation. Response 8: As described in the Initial Study, the proposed project will not result in any impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated. The City has correctly determined that the proposed project is subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please see Nolan Response 7 as it relates to the litigation. Paul Wondries January 11, 2016 Comment 1: On February 27,2014 1 sent a letter to the Planning Division of the City of La Quinta opposing the project. A copy of that letter is enclosed for you review. Since then, I became president of the Enclave Mountain Estates HOA which is the governing body of the Mountain Estates. During my presidency, I became very familiar with the Swenson project and in the spring of 2015 the HOA approved the project with some significant requirements involving the control of groundwater runoff, construction of an adequate storage area for the groundwater runoff, the construction of the driveway and walls to protect the adjacent residents from both light and noise issues. I don't see where there is any reference in your Declaration referring to any of these requirements. Response 1: The City is not a party to the agreement between the applicant and the Homeowners' Association. The Association has the responsibility and ability to enforce its agreement with the applicant, not the City. Comment 2: My initial concerns, as outlined in my February 27, 20141etter to the Planning Division Case# CUP 2013-152 still exist. I still feel that the project interferes with the Aesthetics of the area. Their proposed look- out area located above their proposed home site is on a "Ridge Line" which will have to be modified to accommodate the Look -Out area. Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: While the Swenson's have modified the size of their project, there will still be a significant amount of the existing hillside which will have to be removed in order to allow the construction of the home. This will result in significant Scaring of the hillside. 385 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 9 of 36 Response 3: Comment noted. The Initial Study acknowledges and addresses the need for rock to be removed from the property at the northwest corner of the home. This area will be covered by a retaining wall, designed to the specifications and recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer, and approved by the City. Comment 4: Even with their modifications, I believe they will still be in violation of 9.140.040 HC hillside conversion regulation subsection F with specific attention to fill slopes, rock outcropping and the above mentioned hillside scaring. Response 4: Please see Mergener Response 4. Comment 5: 1 don't believe that your Mitigated Negative declaration report adequately addressed these items and in general did not adequately address the impact this project will have on the adjacent home owners. Response 5: The Initial Study addresses all potential impacts associated with the project, and is supported by extensive technical analysis. The Initial Study has determined that the project will have a less then significant impact on the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures provided in the document. Comment 6: 1 am still of the opinion that the owner is entitled to develop his property but that development must take into consideration all of the requirements which were put in place by the HOA. One of the main reasons for the HOA requirements was due to the Sept. 2014 flood which severely damaged numerous Enclave Mountain Estates homes. While I don't know how much responsibility the Swenson property accounted for in the flood damage to our homes,that responsibility might be determined in the current litigation between a group of Enclave Mountain Estates homeowners who were damaged in both the 2013 and 2014 floods and the management of the La Quinta Resort and Golf Course. Response 6: Comment noted. The hydrology study prepared for the proposed project has been reviewed by the City, and complies with the requirements of law. The applicant will be required to retain the 100 year storm event on the site, and has provided facilities that will do so. The City Engineer will again review the final hydrology study prior to the issuance of grading permits, to assure that the storm drainage facilities are adequate and consistent with the construction plans. Please see Nolan Response 7 as it relates to the litigation. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 10 of 36 Paul Wondries February 27, 2014 (attached to letter above) Comment 1: 1 am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, (Enclave Mountain Estates) La Quinta, Calif. and I am totally against the issuance of a CUP for Case# CUP 2013-152. The project as proposed interferes with AESTHETICS of the area, damages ridgeline rock outcropping and directly interferes with the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. If the CUP is approved and the project is completed, the residence will be placed immediately above a minimum of 7 homes with direct line of sight looking down into and thru the windows of those homes. This is wrong to allow. Response 1: Comment noted. Please see Mergener Response 7. Comment 2: The project as proposed is in conflict with Title 9 Zoning, Chapter 9.140 Supplemental Special Purpose Regulations, Specifically 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations, subsection C which states that no development shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. As I have been told by the owner, it is their intention to enlarge the existing building pad through the use of intensive fill in areas that exceed slopes of twenty percent. Next, in 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations subsection F addresses Grading Plans with specific attention to the avoidance of excessive building, fill slopes, rock outcroping and the scaring effects on the hillsides from grading. Finally in 9.110.070 HC hillside conversation overlay district under A. Purpose and Intent specifically spells out the intent of the hillside conversation regulations for the protection and conservation of the hillside ecosystems of the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. Response 2: Please see Mergener Response 4. William Urquhart, January 15, 2016 Comment 1: Over two years have passed with meetings occurring between the Swenson's, neighbors, the HOA and others. During this time the Swenson's have submitted several designs for a proposed residence at 77-210 Lorna Vista Street, including the latest one currently under review. We were told the redesigns are an effort to address neighbors and adjacent homeowner's comments/concerns about the Swenson project. These redesigns including the current one, under review, have been "minimal efforts" to address these comments/concerns because 387 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 11 of 36 nothing short of "No Project" will Mitigate the impacts to adjacent homeowners and other surrounding homeowners. Response 1: Comment noted. The applicant has submitted plans for a single family home on a legal lot. Comment 2: At the request of other homeowners on February 24, 2014 "story poles" were erected on the proposed site of the Swenson Project. The story poles were intended to show the location and height of structures that would be built including the home, the three car garage, the swimming pool and the multiple retaining walls intended to be built both on the main area of the project and on both sides of the 18 foot wide, 400 feet long driveway from the valley end of Lorna Vista up to the proposed building site 62 feet above the street. The story poles were installed in order to give the neighbors and interested City officials a better understanding of the size and height of the various structures as well as the location of each structure. Neighbors from both the Mountain Estates and the Enclave participated in the walk through. We feel the story poles were important in showing the impacts of the Proposed Swenson Project as it stood in 2014. It has been represented that the plans currently under review will eliminate some of our concerns. Based on the review of the plans themselves we are somewhat skeptical. In order for us -and the City -to fully assess the changes we think it is critical that any City body responsible for reviewing and making a decision regarding this Proposed Project needs "story poles" in place. We would ask that this occur in sufficient time for the public, adjacent homeowners, staff and most importantly the Planning Commission to study them and react in time to make objections and preserve our rights to appeal. Response 2: The proposed home will be located 32 feet above the grade of Loma Vista, not 62 feet above. The story poles erected in 2014 were for the previous project submitted by the applicant. Since that time, the applicant worked extensively with the Homeowners' Association, including installing story poles for the current, Association approved home prior to its approval by the Association. The applicant has prepared extensive visual simulations to demonstrate the location and extent of the revised project. These simulations are being used by the City to demonstrate the extent of the revised project, as they show actual building envelope, rather than poles in the ground. As regards the commenter's right to appeal, that right is not affected by the presence or absence of story poles. Comment 3: The Swenson's have applied for a Conditional Use Permit to build a dwelling unit and three car garage, of approx. 6,000 square feet plus swimming pool and other amenities including an elevated retreat area at 388 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 12 of 36 77-210 Lorna Vista. The reason the Swensons need a conditional use permit is because the project will be built "into the ridge line adjacent to the San Jacinto Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy" the objective of which is to preserve the mountains. The proposed project is located in an area designated by the City as an "Open Space District". It is also located in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. Therefore, the Swenson Project must comply with sections 9.110.070 and 9.110.050 of the Municipal Code. As discussed below it is irrelevant that the statutory regime was enacted after the lot was approved. In any event he purpose and intent of these sections is -among other things to: "To maximize the City's natural topographical features including mountain sides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines.... "To assure that the development ...will not be obtrusive because of the design and location of the development." "To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and fill slopes...." "To maximize the retention of vistas and natural topographical features including mountain sides, ridge lines.... The building should not be "visible above the ridgeline profile from the valley floor." We also understand the statutes bars the construction of roads that are visible from the valley floor. As will be demonstrated below, the latest iteration of Swenson Project fails to address the concerns of neighbors. In fact it flaunts both the letter and spirit of the hillside conservation and open space ordinances. The planned home will be obtrusive looming over 80 feet above the valley floor -visible from miles away. It will also block the mountain views of numerous residents who live nearby. Response 3: The proposed home will be located 32 feet above the grade of Loma Vista, not 80 feet above. The Conditional Use Permit is required because the project site is designated Open Space on the City's Zoning Map. In that zone, a Condition Use Permit is required for a single family home. The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, and has always, since the Enclave subdivision was included in the Specific Plan, been designated so. The project is not subject to the provisions of the Hillside Overlay. See Mergener Response 4. Comment 4: In order to put what follows in context is important to understand that the Swenson Project is a huge undertaking. The term buildable lot is Kt" Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 13 of 36 used loosely when describing this project. Just to be clear what the Swensons own now is not a usable building lot in its present state. It consists of a narrow dirt road leading to a flat surface toward the northern part of the property. The flat surface area is not big enough to build a 1500 square foot house let alone a 6,000 square foot house, dwelling unit and 3 car garage, plus swimming pool and other amenities including an elevated retreat area. To make the existing site "buildable" the Swenson Project will require: ■ Cutting into the side of the mountain to remove at least of 12 feet of the existing mountain face to accommodate the proposed Project (home). ■ The construction of a "driveway" that is over 400 feet long and 18 feet wide (wide enough to accommodate a large fire engine and sturdy enough to bear the weight)/ The proposed road will be on both sides with retaining walls extending up to six feet high. ■ The excavation of 10 feet of existing mountain face to widen the road to 18 feet and the replacement of that mountain face with a six foot high retaining rock fall protection wall. The existing natural rock will be replaced by faux rock. ■ Expansion of the building pad southward over 300 feet toward the property of existing homes. In all the existing building pad will be expanded by 75 per cent or over 18 thousand square feet. ■ The expansion of the pad will require the use of hundreds of tons of land fill and carving into the existing mountain side. ■ The construction of huge retaining walls hundreds of feet long to accommodate the hundreds of tons of landfill. ■ The use of faux rock on the exterior of the retaining walls between gaps in the existing ridgeline to accommodate a retaining wall that is hundreds of feet long. This huge, faux rock retaining wall faces the homes of many neighbors in the Mountain Estates including us, destroying the views of what is now a pristine ridgeline. ■ The roofline of the proposed home will peak at 18 feet. It will be at the southern end of the property and will destroy the views of many residents of both Mountain Estates and the Enclave. When construction is completed: 390 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 14 of 36 It will be literally the only structure visible from the valley of Santa Rosa Cove. The home's roofline would be about 80 feet above the valley floor where all the other homes in the Enclave and Mountain Estates are located and 60 feet above any other home in either the Mountain Estates or the Enclave. It would be capable of being seen from miles away. It can be seen from downtown La Quinta. It would be the highest man made structure in the entire City of La Quinta. It would be the only home that would be built into the side of the mountains in the entire the Santa Rosa Cove It will have direct views into the back yards, swimming pools and homes (in our case into our master bedroom, kitchen and family room of at least eight homes on Via Sierra and Lorna Vista and other homes in the Enclave. (I have climbed the site and there are direct view lines into the backyards of over 10 homes). I should note that the proposed plans also call for a "lookout" which is at an even higher elevation, creating view lines into the private parts of even more homes. The Swensons will be able to see the vast majority of the homes in the Enclave and the Mountain Estates. The converse is also true. The vast majority of homeowners in the La Quinta Resort and members of the golf club will have views of the Swenson home. Every other home in the Mountain Estates and the Enclave is built on level ground. Because of its elevation, it is out of character compared to all other homes in the Enclave and the Mountain Estates. We have consulted real estate agents. They confirm our view that if the Swenson Project is approved in its present form, it will substantially significantly reduce the value of our home adjacent to the project. Response 4: The commenter generally states his opinion on the construction of the proposed project. Several of the statements are inaccurate. 391 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 15 of 36 The driveway extends from Loma Vista to the building pad a distance of approximately 300 feet, not 400 feet. The building pad will be extended approximately 60 feet from its southerly boundary, not 300 feet. The existing pad will be lowered by approximately 4 feet. Current plans will result in the export of approximately 700 cubic yards of fill. The project proposes the use of natural rock over retaining walls, with the exception of the area at the base of the driveway. The view of the edge of the existing pad is not a ridgeline. The roofline is at its lowest point at the southern edge of the home, and will be 14 feet high. The pad of the home will be 32 feet above the existing grade of Loma Vista. At its highest point, which occurs immediately south of the garage, in the northern half of the home, the peak of the roof will occur at 49 feet above Loma Vista, not 80 feet above the existing grade. Because of intervening rock outcroppings and other topography, the proposed project is not now, nor will it be when constructed, visible from downtown La Quinta. Given the elevation of the cover, the home will certainly not be the "highest" man-made structure in La Quinta. If the commenter refers to the height of the home, at 17 feet, the proposed home has a lower roofline than most of its neighbors. Comment 5: General Objections: • Invasion of Privacy -The Swenson residence will have direct sight lines into the back yards, swimming pools. bedrooms and family rooms of at least ten homes. • Destruction of views -The project will be an eye soar to many in the La Quinta community. • Excessive grading and cutting into the mountains. • Noise pollution -Because there is nothing to block it sound carries from the top of the Swenson Project sound carries. In fact conversations at the building sit could be clearly heard in the Enclave and those adjacent to the Property • Excessive use of land fill. • Excessive use of "faux rock" in the ridgeline. WA Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 16 of 36 • The 400+ foot long and 18 foot wide driveway visible from the valley floor. • The use of faux rock in place of natural rock where the existing mountain face would be excavated for the driveway. • Six foot retaining walls on driveway covered with faux rock are not "in -keeping" with the natural mountainside views. • Out of character with all other homes in the area. It will be the only home not on the valley floor. The CC&Rs for the Mountain Estates go to great length restricting the height of homes (20 feet), walls (six feet), landscaping, etc. -all designed to prevent obstruction with the views of other homeowners. If the valley floor is a base the driveway walls will be 65 feet above the valley floor and the roofline will be 80 feet above the valley floor. Response 5: The commenter's opinions are noted. Comment 6: Page 7, Section I. Aesthetics --all subsections marked "Less Than Significant Impact". We disagree with this Determination. Subsection a) As discussed above the Swenson Project will have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. First, the home will be visible from almost all parts of the Mountain Estates and the Enclave as well as the golf course and from homes on the other side of the golf course. Second, the existing ridgeline will be adversely affected through the use of faux rock to fill in gaps between peaks in the ridgeline, destroying the natural views. Third, large retaining walls will be constructed that will be visible from below. Natural rock will be replaced with faux rock on the 400+ foot six foot high retaining wall. Subsection (b) the project will Substantially damage scenic resources. See response to subsection (a) Response 6: The retaining wall proposed along the southern and eastern edge of the building pad will be covered with natural rock, not faux rock. The edge of the existing building pad is not a ridgeline. As demonstrated in the visual simulations provided in the Initial Study, the home will be screened by landscaping from the homes to the west, south and east. The ridgelines above the proposed project will still be visible from these homes. Please see Initial Study exhibits 4A and 4B. 393 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 17 of 36 Comment 7: (Subsection c) the project will Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The site will have direct view lines into the heretofore totally private backyards, swimming pools, family rooms, kitchens and in some cases even bedrooms of homes near the Project. Additionally, the extensive use of faux rock to fill in gaps in the ridge line will substantially degrade the appearance of the ridge line. The 400 foot long, 18 foot wide driveway with retaining walls on both sides up to six feet high will destroy the views of at least six homes. Moreover, the extensive use of faux rock will detract from the otherwise natural rock. Response 7: See Response 6. The driveway is approximately 300 feet in length. The driveway will include rockfall protection and retaining walls on its west side, and a retaining wall on its east side. The rockfall protection wall and western retaining wall will extend above the driveway. The eastern retaining wall, covered in natural stone, will screen the driveway from the homes below. Faux rock is only proposed at the base of the driveway. Natural stone will cover the vast majority of the retaining walls on the site. Comment 8: Subsection d) will create a new source of substantial light or glare. As it is now all residents of the La Quinta resort have views of the mountains unaffected by human intervention. No matter how hard they try, the Swensons will not be able to shield the artificial lighting at the project. Response 8: The commenter's opinion is noted. The City's lighting standards are specific, and prohibit light spillage off the property. The project will provide lighting consistent with a residential use, which does not generate significant levels of light. Finally, the project is conditioned to prohibit lighting on the path to, or the pad of the "retreat" above the house. Comment 9: Page 23, Section VI. Geology and Soils Subsection a) iv) Landslides? The exiting access road is unpaved and narrow. You need a truck or four wheel drive vehicle to use it. As the report indicates, significant work is required to widen the road from approximately 6 feet to the 18 feet the fire department requires so and make usable by Emergency vehicles can use it. And, it must be made safe for rock falls given the extensive excavation into the existing mountain face. The project will utilize the following design components 1) 3' to 6 'high retention systems 394 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 18 of 36 2) berms, walls and boulders. As can be imagined this level of work makes the construction of the access road one of the most visible and damaging of components of the proposed project. Response 9: Comment noted. Construction of the driveway will be undertaken on the basis of the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, and upon approval by the City. Once completed, the driveway will occur behind the retaining wall. Comment 10: Page 35, Section XL Noise Subsection a) & b) Exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established or ground borne vibrations or noise levels. The type of work required, long series of retaining walls, ripping of rock etc. and length of time required to complete the proposed project will establish conditions that negatively impact adjacent residents to levels that far exceed any standard that was established in the General Plan or noise Ordinance. Once completed there will be nothing to obstruct noise coming from the Project to follow the sight lines into the existing homes. Response 10: The Initial Study acknowledges that noise levels during construction have the potential to be elevated, and provides mitigation measures to lower those noise levels to less than significant levels. The proposed project consists of a single family home. There is no evidence that noise levels from the home after its completion will be any greater or different than any other home in La Quinta, nor that the noise levels will exceed City standards. Comment 11: Subsection c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project The distinction of living next to an area with a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) with a Hillside conservation overlay district (HC) without development and with level development is enormous. Without development of a single family residence no human noise would originate from the site. With development and particularly one that expands the building site, outdoor living space and pool, substantially closer to existing homes an increase in permanent ambient noise levels will occur. Response 11: See Response 10. 395 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 19 of 36 Comment 12: This proposed project violates many sections of the Municipal Code in regard to protecting the hillsides, and mountain vistas. Those sections are as follows: Section 9.110.050 OS open space district A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the protection and preservation of sensitive environmental areas, scenic resources and significant topographical constraints. Section 9.110.070 HC hillside conservation overlay district A. Purpose and Intent 2. For those hillside areas which are developable, to ensure the safety of the public, and to ensure that the placement, density and type of all hillside development within the city is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain, that proposed developments will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitat, and that the natural hillside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable. 5. To maximize the retention of the city's natural topographic features, including, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridge crests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent vegetation, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas through the careful limitation and selection of building sites and building pads on said topographic features, thereby enhancing the beauty of the city's landscape. 6. To assure that development use of said topographical features will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design and location of the development use. Response 12: See Mergener Response 4. Amy Minteer January 20, 2016 Comment 1: Several residents that own homes within 500 feet of the Project site did not receive notice of the City's intent to adopt a MND for the Swenson Project. We are not aware of any publication of the notice of intent in a newspaper. However, even if the City did publish the notice of intent, it would not have provided adequate notice to residents in a resort community, many of whom are part-time residents. Additionally, the Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 20 of 36 MND was released on December 23, 2015, at a time when many residents are traveling for Christmas and New Year's Day. Publication in a newspaper at this time would not provide adequate notice to the residents that would be impacted by the Swenson Project. We request that the City reissue its notice of intent to adopt a MND and extend the comment period to allow all impacted residents the opportunity to submit comments. Response 1: See Nolan Response 1. The Initial Study was sent to every individual who requested it, and their attorneys. The commenter incorrectly states that the Initial Study was released on December 23, 2015. It was released on December 29, with a comment period from December 30, 2015 to January 20, 2016. The comment period did not conflict with the Christmas holiday, and extended well beyond New Year's day. Comment 2: An EIR must be prepared instead of a MND when there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of `B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15064.)... ...Here, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Swenson Project may have numerous significant adverse impacts. Response 2: The Initial Study accurately and thoroughly describes the project, its impacts, and the mitigation measures necessary to assure that impacts are less than significant. The Initial Study correctly determines that there will be no significant impacts after the implementation of these mitigation measures, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. Comment 3: The purpose of the initial study, upon which the City's MND relies, is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and "documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4'" 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) "Where an agency... fails to 397 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 21 of 36 gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. Response 3: See Response 2. Comment 4: The MND fails to give the public a complete picture of the Project, downplaying the extent and impact of the development. The information contained within the MND is to be used as a basis for the decision on what would be the least impactful means for the project to proceed.... Here, the MND fails to disclose and analyze the significant landscaping that will be included as part of the Project. The MND also fails to inform decision makers that this Project would be the first of its kind, allowing development at a greater elevation than any other residential development in the City, which will make it visible from a significant distance. The MND inaccurately claims the Project would be adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills when it will actually be constructed on those foothills. The MND also lacks information regarding the full extent of the building pad. The document discusses only the square footage for the residence, it does not analyze the square footage for the large outdoor entertaining area that is proposed as part of the Project. This outdoor area includes a pool, spa, large overlook viewing area and additional outdoor recreation area. The impacts of all aspects of the Project must accurately disclosed and thoroughly analyzed. Response 4: The landscaping is not only discussed, but also pictured on pages 7 through 9, and Exhibits 4A and 4B. The proposed residence will occur at an elevation of 87 feet above sea level, on an existing pad that was graded years ago. Homes in the cove, and in such developments as the Tradition, occur at elevations of over 350 feet above sea level. The location of the Enclave, on the far west edge of the City in a cover, prohibit views from or to elsewhere in the community. The Initial Study includes, on page 6, a complete site plan of the entire lot, which clearly depicts the extent of the proposed project. The extent of the project is also described in the project description, and throughout the Initial Study. All aspects of the proposed project are disclosed, analyzed, and where necessary, mitigation measures are provided. 398 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 22 of 36 Comment 5: The "physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published... will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) The California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the longstanding requirement that an agency use the existing environmental conditions to determine the significance of impacts, and recognized a narrow exception to this requirement when using the existing conditions analysis would be misleading. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 CalAth 439, 457.) Here, the MND relies on an inaccurate description of the existing conditions at the Project site as the baseline for environmental analysis. The MND repeatedly references an existing building pad on the Project site. (MND p. 1.) There has never been any approved grading of the site. At some point in time, a previous owner (without any plans or permits) made a path traversing the lower slope to an elevation of 90 feet, but did not grade a building pad. The only relatively flat surface on the site is located at a 90 foot elevation. Such surface has never been graded pursuant to an approved plan or permit. The area around this surface has incurred substantial erosion in recent years. The physical condition of the lot requires substantial excavation, grading, ripping of rock and placement of over 800 feet of walls. All of this work will have severe impacts for the hillside, slope and the mountain that must be disclosed in the MND. Response 5: The Initial Study correctly states that the project site is not in its natural condition, and that it has been previously graded. Whether the grading was done with or without permits is irrelevant to the description of the current conditions on the site. The property, as can be seen from the site and its surrounding, or from aerial photography, is not in its native condition, and has been impacted by previous grading activity. All of the components of the project, including the ripping of rock, the construction of retaining walls, and the excavation of the site, are described and analyzed in the Initial Study (pages 13 through 17; 24 through 26; 30 and 31; and 35 through 37) in the appropriate discussions of air quality, geological, hydrologic, and noise impacts. The Initial Study, and its supporting special studies, thoroughly analyze the project's impacts, disclose the level of impact, and identify mitigation measures where necessary. The Initial Study correctly concludes that with the implementation of standard requirements, conditions of approval and mitigation measures, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the environment. 399 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 23 of 36 Comment 6: CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance of an impact where a project "has the potential to ... reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065 (a).) Peninsular bighorn sheep have been observed on the Swenson Project site recently and on several occasions. (Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site.) On one of those occasions, in April of 2014, five Peninsular bighorn sheep were observed on the Project site by Mr. McVeigh. The construction of this Project would adversely impact this endangered species by allowing development to intrude further into their habitat, thereby restricting their range. This impact requires a mandatory finding of significance and the preparation of an EIR instead of an MND. Response 6: First, attachment 1 clearly shows that the sheep are well above the project site, on public lands. Second, the photograph is neither dated nor geolocated. Third, the site is not located in critical habitat for the Bighorn. Fourth, the Peninsular Bighorn is a covered species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as fully disclosed in the Initial Study and the biological resources report. The proposed project is not located in a conservation area, but is next to a conservation area under the MSHCP, and as such is required to implement the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines of the Plan, which are fully described in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures also include the presence of a qualified biologist on the site during construction to assure that impacts to the sheep are less than significant. Finally, if Bighorn have been seen on the Enclave property, it is the responsibility of the homeowners and the Homeowners' Association to report these sightings, and to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to mitigate potential impacts to the sheep. Comment 7: The biological survey conducted for the Project site identified numerous species that are expected or were observed on the site. The MND claims that no sensitive species were observed, but this claim is inaccurate. There are several species, or evidence of such species that were found during the surveys, but were not identified as special status species in the surveys or in the MND, even though the Department of Fish and Wildlife identify them as such. The following special status species were identified in the biological survey: Rosy Boa, US Forest Service sensitive species Costa's Hummingbird, US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern Pallid Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern 400 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 24 of 36 Spotted Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern Hoary Bat, Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority Southern Grasshopper Mouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (See Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016.) Even though not currently listed as threatened or endangered, the impacts to these species of special concern must be studied and mitigated as part of the environmental review process. These species of special concern are not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, but nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, and/or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The MND fails to disclose the Project's impacts to these special status species. Response 7: The Initial Study and biological resources report clearly list the species identified or presumed to occur on the site, and those that could occur but were not identified. The analysis further shows that these species are not expected to occur, for multiple reasons, including the lack of vegetation, cover, foraging habitat or other physical limitations associated with a disturbed site. The Initial Study addresses the species and concludes that there will be no impact to them. Further, the biological resources report considered both species covered by the MSHCP, and those not, including loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl, and determined that other than Bighorn, sensitive species do not occur on the site. The analysis is thorough and comprehensive. Comment 8: The installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail. The MND fails to analyze the impacts to wildlife movement that would result from the bifurcation of the Project site by the driveway rockfall walls. Response 8: The project site is isolated and bounded on three sides by development. It is not, as described in the Initial Study and biological resources report, a wildlife corridor. The rockfall walls are linear, and adjacent to the existing drive, which currently provides a barrier for wildlife. Implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on wildlife corridors. Comment 9: The analysis of aesthetic impacts for the Swenson Project is inaccurate and incomplete. First, the photo simulations prepared for the Project are 401 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 25 of 36 misleading. They are taken from very nearby areas, which fail to disclose the visual impacts of the Project from a distance. Located two stories above existing adjacent homes and other residences in La Quinta, the Swenson Project will be highly visible from the adjacent existing homes and from a distance. Response 9: The location of the visual simulations were prescribed and requested by adjacent homeowners. Homeowners elsewhere in the project did not request simulations, or express a concern. Therefore, the visual simulations were prepared at the locations identified. If the commenter were to visit the site and its vicinity, she would find that the Enclave is located in an isolated cove that has limited views into or out of it. Views of the home have been accurately described, and will be limited to short-range locations, as shown in the Initial Study. Comment 10: The photo simulations also fail to include renderings of the 350 foot long and up to seven foot high driveway walls that would be included in the Project, as well as the extensive outdoor recreation areas. These walls, and the required 18 foot tall retaining walls, will be incompatible with the desert landscape and with the development below. The magnitude of the planned walls disrupts the continuity of views of the Santa Rosa Mountain range and would deprive the community of the scenic benefits they have enjoyed for many years. This would be the only scar on the scenic mountains which are a prime aesthetic "element" in the City. The use of cast stone and faux rock walls does not mitigate this impact. There are no walls within the developed area (completed areas) of the Mountain Estates that are faced with cast stone. Response 10: The driveway is shown in View A and B of Exhibit 4A. As can be seen from this view, the driveway, and the rock walls on its west side, will not be perceptible once constructed. The 17 foot retaining wall on the north boundary of the site, behind the garage, will be hidden from view by the structure of the house. All the walls on the property are proposed to be covered with rock, when visible. As stated above, natural stone is proposed in all locations except at the base of the driveway, where an area of faux stone will be provided. The use of natural stone will fully hide man-made elements of these walls, and result in a natural blending into the slope. Comment 11: The massive amount of development that would occur as part of the Project would require extensive cuts into the steeply sloped hillside. The grading required for the driveway, wall structures and residence will severely and permanently scar the hillside. The MND must evaluate whether this massive reshaping of the landscape will be visible from 402 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 26 of 36 nearby hiking trails. Additionally, the MND fails to analyze the off -site impacts of constructing the driveway rockfall walls along the western property line for the site. The footings required for the rockfall walls will require jack -hammering and rock removal on the preserved property adjacent to the Project site. Response 11: See Response 9 regarding views of the site being limited to the cove in which it is located. The construction of the proposed project will occur entirely within the lot on which it is proposed. There will be no construction on "preserved property adjacent to the project site." Comment 12: To truly evaluate the visual impacts of the Swenson Project, the City should require the installation of story poles denoting the location and height of the house and walls associated with this Project. This will allow the City to assess the visibility of the Swenson Residence and will enable residents to more accurately comment upon the visual impacts of the project. Response 12: See Urquhart Response 2. Comment 13: Further, not only will the Project result in an adverse aesthetic impact from the construction of a large residence, but it will also bring incompatible landscaped vegetation to the desert backdrop. The City of La Quinta has written frequently in various publications about the scenic aspects and related benefits of the Santa Rosa Mountains surrounding and within the City. The plans for the Swenson Project provide for a large quantity of new trees, shrubs and ground cover. Extensive landscaping may be appropriate in non -mountain locations but for this Project it would have a negative impact related to the benefits of the scenic views of the mountain range. A change to a landscaped hillside for the purpose of screening off structures on the hillside would have a significant negative impact. Response 13: The landscaping palette has been selected to employ native and desert compatible species. The plant palette is consistent with the MSHCP recommendations for plantings. The use of screen trees on the hillside has been provided specifically at the request of adjacent property owners, who wished to have the home screened from their view. The mountain range above the site will continue to be visible, and will not be landscaped. Comment 14: The MND claims that there only would be 700 cubic yards of fill that would be removed from the site as part of the Project, but does not provide any analysis or evidence to substantiate this figure. This appears to be an underestimation of the amount of fill that would be required to be removed to a depth of at least four feet for the construction of a 403 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 27 of 36 nearly 6,000 square foot home. It appears this calculation may not include the fill removal that would be required for the 350 foot long driveway and extensive outdoor recreation area. Based on the size of the residence and driveway, and depth of excavation required, a more reasonable estimate of the amount of fill that would be removed from the site is over 1,100 cubic yards. Response 14: The commenter is incorrect. The Initial Study describes, correctly, that 700 cubic yards of material would be exported. This does not represent the grading for the site, which is calculated separately in the modeling for an area of 1.1 acres. The CaIEEMod model analysis includes data from the project grading plan, which provides calculations of all the areas to be graded, excavated and filled on the site. The analysis of air quality impacts was completed using the current, recognized model for air quality impact analysis. The Initial Study correctly quantifies the potential emissions associated with both construction and operation of the site. Comment 15: The massive amount of grading required for the project could also result in the release of particulate matter from the fine dirt and sand on the site. The Santa Rosa Cove area of La Quinta is subject to severe windstorms during the year. Significant quantities of dirt and sand will blow on the homes located adjacent to the Project site, including a house within 25 yards of the Project. According to the MND's calculations, the Project is just below the localized significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Once the analysis of construction air quality impacts is revised to include all of the grading that would be required for the Project, it is likely the Swenson Project would exceed these thresholds of significance, which were designed to protect the health of residents living adjacent to construction sites. Response 15: The analysis of project grading was correctly completed. Please see pages 15 and 16 of the Initial Study, which include Localized Significance Analysis of both construction and operational emissions associated with the project. The analysis, which is the recognized method approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the analysis of impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors, shows that the project will not exceed thresholds established by the District. Comment 16: The excavation of the Project site could also result in health impacts from release of the fungus that causes valley fever. Valley fever is particularly dangerous for persons over age 55, which many of the residents in this area are. The MND fails to analyze this potentially significant impact. 404 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 28 of 36 Response 16: The commenter provides no evidence that the grading of soil on the site would release fungus. The statement appears to be made for its shock value, rather than based on scientific evidence or published data. Comment 17: As set forth above, the MND underestimates the amount of fill that would need to be removed as part of this Project. Even if 700 cubic yards of fill is accurate, the MND fails to analyze the haul trips that would be required. Assuming a dump truck holds an average of 10 cubic yards of fill, the Project would require at least 70 haul trips. The MND does not include any analysis of the traffic impacts and traffic hazards that would result from this large number of haul trips on narrow residential streets. Additionally, movement of heavy construction equipment and trucks used for export and import of fill will put a burden on the community's streets, which already show numerous cracks in the asphalt and excessive wear and tear. Response 17: The commenter is incorrect. Please see Response 15. The grading quantities are accurately represented, and the haul trips are included in the CaIEEMod modeling analysis. Based on 700 cubic yards of export, 88 trips have been included in the analysis. The data is available in the CaIEEMod model runs, identified in the Initial Study and available at City Hall. The movement of construction equipment on City streets is a daily occurrence, and the inclusion of the proposed project will not result in a substantial increase in such movement. The City also disputes the characterization of the City's streets as showing "excessive wear and tear." The City implements an aggressive pavement management program. Comment 18: The Swenson Project requires substantial excavation and grading, including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. To flatten the site for the driveway and building pad and to install footings for the hundreds of feet of walls included in the project, large rocks lodged about the site will need to be removed using jackhammers. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which have never before been disturbed. It will also have major noise and ground vibration impacts and could result in rock slide hazards for nearby residents. The MND fails to set a threshold of significance for the construction noise that will be produced by the Project in violation of CEQA. Noise levels at nearby homes could exceed 100 decibels during construction. That is louder than the sound of an airplane taking off. Exposure to such noise levels for more than 15 minutes could result in serious health impacts. (See http://dangerousdecibels.org/education/information- center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/, incorporated by reference.) 405 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 29 of 36 These significant impacts require the preparation of an EIR. Additionally, these significant noise levels would adversely impact the Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species of special concern found on and adjacent to the Project site. The MND is also inadequate because it does not include any analysis of the ground vibrations that would result from the jack -hammering and rock ripping activities that would be required to construct the Project. The nearest home is only 25 yards from the Project. Vibrations from the construction activities could have severe consequences to the foundations, walls and floors of residences contiguous to the Swenson's property. Response 18: The Initial Study correctly discloses that the noise impacts associated with construction will result in short term and temporary noise levels as high as 110 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. It also discloses that the construction will result in vibration. Finally, it correctly states that the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise during prescribed construction hours, and that these impacts will be temporary. The Initial Study further requires mitigation measures that include notice to neighbors of any rock ripping activity, at least 24 hours prior to its occurrence, and prohibits blasting on the site. Finally, the neighboring residences are not located on the same plane as the proposed project. Vibration from construction activity, which is lineal, will occur above the existing homes, and will not result in foundation damage. As regards impacts to Bighorn sheep, as previously stated, biological monitoring is required during construction activities, to assure that impacts to Bighorn are less than significant. Comment 19: Further, the geotechnical study prepared for the Project proposed that rocks greater than 6 inches that will be removed from the site could be crushed and used as fill. (Geotechnical report p. 21.) The MND fails to disclose or analyze the impacts that would be associated with rock crushing activities if they are employed as part of the Project. Response 19: No rock crushing is proposed on the project site. Comment 20: The Swenson Project includes a large outdoor entertainment area, including a pool, spa, and recreation area. Project plans submitted to the Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association show that there will be an outdoor television and speakers. The noise from the site would carry because it is located 40 feet above the existing homes. The MND does not include any analysis of whether activities at these outdoor areas would adversely impact adjacent residents. w. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 30 of 36 Response 20: See Mergener Response 6 and Urkhart Response 10. Comment 21: As set forth in the attached review of the water quality management plan, prepared by hydrologic experts at SWAPE, the Project would have significant adverse flooding and water quality impacts that are not mitigated. The underground retention system proposed for the Project is inadequate to address flows from the Project site. (Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan.) While the Project applicant has submitted a report to support the proposed retention system, the disagreement between the applicant's expert and experts at SWAPE necessitate the preparation of an EIR to analyze the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (g).) Thus, even if the City's consultants disagree with these assessments, an EIR should be prepared to resolve the disputes. (City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 247-249 [expert disagreement about extent of a wetlands required preparation of EIR to resolve dispute]; Friend of Old Trees v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1383, 1398-1403 [expert dispute regarding project's impacts on water supplies required further environmental review].) Additionally, the MND and the hydrology and water quality reports fail to address the significant impacts that resulted under existing conditions during the storms of 2013 and 2014. Substantial flooding occurred at and adjacent to the Project site, causing significant property damage to the homes located near the site. The reports and MND fail to disclose that the Project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions. Response 21: The WQMP and hydrology study for the proposed project have been prepared and approved based on the plans presented for review of the CUP for the project. The City will continue to review these documents, and most importantly, will require that final documentation reflect the grading and building plans submitted for actual construction of the project. The hydrology study correctly studied the potential impacts of the 100 year storm on storm flows onto, through and off the property, and designed a system that will convey these flows and retain flows according to the City's, CVWD's and federal NPDES standards for flood control. The fact that an opposing expert finds fault with the studies does not necessitate the preparation of an EIR. The commenter states that the proposed project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions, but fails to present any evidence of this 407 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 31 of 36 assertion. On the contrary, storm flows on the project site currently flow uncontrolled through the site. Development of a storm water retention system will help to control flows, not worsen them. As regards the impacts associated with the floods of 2013 and 2014, both these events exceeded the 100 year storm, and were caused, in part, by deficiencies in the regional conveyance system. The proposed project is legally responsible for controlling its flows onto, through and off the property during a 100 year storm event, and will be required to do so through the City's review and approval process. Further, it is the City's understanding that the applicant is required to receive approval from the Homeowners' Association for final hydrology designs, which will add a level of review to the project. All these conditions will assure that impacts associated with hydrology remain less than significant. Comment 22: The Swenson Project could destabilize the hillside, resulting in hazardous conditions for the residents below. The geotechnical report acknowledges the potential for rock fall and other destabilization hazards. The report makes initial recommendations for addressing these impacts after completion of the Project by installing rockfall walls, but does not address mitigation of these hazards during construction when ground shaking from construction material will be greatest. This Project would unnecessarily increase hazards to the residents below the site after construction is completed as well. As proposed, the Project would crush a portion of the excavated bedrock and use that along with imported fill as engineered fill on top of which the project would be built. Development constructed on top of man-made fill such as this is more prone to distress from earthquakes than those built on cut areas since fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Earthquakes are common in this area; there was just one felt by residents on January 6, 2016. Response 22: The proposed project has undergone extensive geotechnical review by both a geotechnical engineer, and the County Geologist, with whom the City contracts for expert review of geological issues. The geotechnical analyses are thorough, and include recommendations to assure that construction and operation of the proposed project have less than significant impacts on rockfall hazards. Specifically, the geotechnical analysis resulted in recommendations for walls along the western edge of the driveway, and design of retaining walls throughout the project. The analysis is based not only on the structure of the hillsides above the site, but on the area's seismic conditions. Geotechnical hazards will be less than significant. 408 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 32 of 36 Comment 23: "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) A general plan is the "constitution for future development" and controls over other local land use regulations, including zoning. (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773.) "[T]he requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (Debottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.) Here, the Swenson Project would be inconsistent with the land use designation for the site established in the City's General Plan. The Project site is designated for Natural Open Space. "This land use designation is applied to areas of natural open space, whether owned by private parties or public entities. With the exception of trail or trailhead development, little development is permitted in this designation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-5.) The preservation of these areas is particularly important in areas such as the Project site, which is located in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains: The Natural Open Space category applies particularly to lands in the foothills of the mountains that the City has always strived to preserve. These lands provide a backdrop to the development on the Valley floor, and are areas important to biological resource preservation. They provide an important social and economic asset to the City that cannot be undervalued. (General Plan Land Use Element II-21 to 22.) The City's Land Use Element preserves these Natural Open Space designated areas "for the long term, and reasserts the City's commitment to their preservation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-22.) The Open Space Element includes Policy 3.1 which requires the City "to the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat." The Project site meets all of these qualifications for maximum preservation. Development of the Project site with a residence would be inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement to preserve this site as open space. (See also General Plan Open Space Goal 3, Policy OS-1.1, Policy OS- 3.3.) Response 23: See Nolan Response 5 and Urquhart Response 3. 409 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 33 of 36 Comment 24: We disagree with the City's conclusion that the Project site is located within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Based on the map included in this Specific Plan, a designation of Planning Area V is more likely the appropriate designation for the site. The Specific Plan designates Planning Area V as open space and defines it by the areas with slope in excess of 20 percent. The "Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form" submitted by the applicant for this Project describes the site as having a slope of at least 25 percent. Thus, based on both the maps and the slope for the site, a designation of Planning Area V should apply to the Swenson Project site. The development of a house on this site designated for open space would be inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Project is also inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan's policies and goals encouraging preservation of hillside areas because they "contribute to the City's visual, wildlife and archaeological resources." (Specific Plan p. 2.30.) The Specific Plan also requires that building masses not overwhelm the street scene. The Swenson Project, which would be built 40 feet above the existing street, would overwhelm the street scene in violation of this requirement. (Specific Plan p. 2.44.) The Specific Plan states that development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the City's scenic resources and those hillside areas should be maintained as open space. (Specific Plan pp. 4.2, 4.4, 4.5.) The hillsides should also be preserved to protect to prevent impacts to residents and their property from seismic events, flooding and noise. (Specific Plan p. 4.7.) The Specific Plan also requires the City to be protected from the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. (Specific Plan p. 4.5.) Response 24: The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the Specific Plan, and has been designated as such since the approval of the original Tract Map that subdivided the Enclave. The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation, standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan. Comment 25: The Project would include massive amounts of grading that will forever change the contours of this highly visible hillside and will develop a large house, with long stretches of retaining and rock walls. All of this is in direct contrast of the intent of the City Hillside Ordinance which provides, among other purposes, the following: • To maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features, including but not limited to mountainsides, skyline profiles, ridgelines, 410 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 34 of 36 ridgecrest, hilltops... rock outcroppings, view corridors and scenic vistas... • To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and cut and fill slopes. • To ensure the building "will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design or location of the developmental use." Response 25: See Mergener Response 4. Comment 26: Under section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental review document must discuss "the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." A growth inducing impact may come from a project that removes obstacles to population growth. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d).) An EIR, instead of a MND, is required when a project that viewed by itself seems limited, but that could function as a catalyst for foreseeable future development. (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325.) Additionally, when the possible effects of a project are "individually limited but cumulatively considerable" a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment must be made. (Public Resources Code § 21083.) When an unmitigated cumulatively considerable impact is found, an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) Here, the Swenson Project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. It would open the door to more development in this scenic environment, encouraging other development in the mountain/hillside areas of the City. Response 26: The proposed project represents one of the last existing legal lots not constructed upon on a cul-de-sac, in a gated subdivision. The project will not have any growth inducing impacts. Comment 27: Courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The court in Sundstrom found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id, at 306-308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884.) 411 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 35 of 36 The mitigation measures for numerous potentially significant effects of this Project are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to Project approval. Preparation of a project specific geotechnical report, grading plans and drainage plans is improperly deferred until after Project approval. Additionally, no information on the design and engineering for the rockfall walls has been provided and will not be prepared until post - approval. Plans and mitigation measures need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document, so that the public and decision makers can evaluate their efficacy before the Project is approved. (Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(2).) Response 27: The proposed project has prepared geotechnical, hydrology, grading, and other plans for the proposed project to levels of detail far beyond typical entitlement analysis. The studies have guided the design of the site, and have assisted the City in its review of the project. These studies disclose all that is known about the proposed project, and how its impacts are to be mitigated. Given the inherent changes associated with the preparation of precise grading plans and building plans, it would be irresponsible of the City to rely on the plans and reports prepared for entitlement purposes in its review of the construction plans. It is therefore completely appropriate for the City to require further study, as was found by the Court in California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) (172 Cal.AppAth 603, 621 [""When a public agency has evaluated the potentially significant impacts of a project and has identified measures that will mitigate those impacts, the agency does not have to commit to any particular mitigation measure in the EIR, as long as it commits to mitigate the significant impacts of the project. Moreover, the details of exactly how mitigation will be achieved under the identified measures can be deferred pending completion of further study"]). Comment 28: CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code ' 21151.) An MND is appropriate only when, due to the mitigation measures, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Response 28: As described in detail in the responses above, the City has analyzed the potential impacts of the project thoroughly and comprehensively, and 412 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 36 of 36 has identified feasible mitigation measures for all potential significant impacts. The City has correctly determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination for this project. 413 ATe Es", Aished in 1918 as a public agency Coachella Valley Water District sT ,c RECEIVED Directors: John P. Powell, Jr., President - Div. 3 JAN 14 2016 Peter Nelson, Vice President - Div. 4 G. Patrick O'Dowd - Div. 1 Ed Pack - Div. 2 CITY OF LA QUINTA Castulo R. Estrada - Div. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT January 12, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: Officers: Jim Barrett, General Manager Julia Fernandez, Board Secretary Best Best & Krieger LLP Attorneys Files: 1150.14 0163.1 050636 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Swenson Residence, Environmental Assessment 2013-630, Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Thank you for affording the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) the opportunity to review and comment on the subject project. CVWD provides domestic water, wastewater, recycled water, irrigation/drainage, regional stormwater protection and groundwater management services to a population of nearly 300,000 throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD submits the following comments regarding the proposed project: The project site is subject to potential flooding for offsite Stormwater flows that may include debris flow from the nearby foothills. Flood protection measures for the project shall mitigate the potential for local drainage, which includes offsite flows and on -site drainage in accordance with California Drainage Law. The flood protection measures shall ensure that Stormwater flows are received onto the property and discharges in a manner that is reasonably compatible with predevelopment (pre-existing) conditions. • The project site is currently designated as Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps, which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). CVWD holds domestic water and sanitation easement rights within this parcel. Said easement was dedicated on Tract No. 26251 as filed in Book 244 of maps, at Pages 90 and 91, records of Riverside County. A copy of said easement is enclosed for your reference. The existing CVWD easement and facilities will be in conflict with the proposed residence. CVWD requests that the landowner coordinate the facilities relocation and quitclaim the easement before proceeding with this construction. Nicole Sauviat Criste 2 January 12, 2016 City of La Quinta Planning Department • The project site is located adjacent to a conservation area within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and therefore must comply with the applicable land use adjacency requirements. • Please include CVWD on all future public notices regarding this project. If you have any questions, please call Luke Stowe, Environmental Supervisor, at (760) 398-2651 extension 2545. Sincerely, Se Big Director of Environmental Services Enclosures/ 1 /as EM: ms\Env Srvs\2016\Jan\NOIA MND Swenson.docx OWNER'S STATEMENT WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LAND; THAT WE CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, THE EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES, THAT AREA DESIGNATED AS LOT A', THIS AREA IS RETAINED AS A PRIVATE STREET FOR OURSELVES, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNEES, AND LOT OWNERS WITHIN THIS TRACT. WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, AN EASEMENT OVER LOT A', DESIGNATED AS PRIVATE STREET' ON SAID MAP, FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES. THE EASEMENT 50 DEDICATED INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON SAID LANDS TO SURVEY, CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, LAY, RELAY, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, CONTROL. USE, AND REMOVE PIPELINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, AND TO REMOVE OBJECTS INTERFERING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE THEREOF. WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AN EASEMENT OVER THE PRIVATE STREET SHOWN ON THIS MAP AND AN ADDITIONAL TEN (101 FEET IN WIDTH ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ADJACENT TO SAID STREET FOR THE EXCAVATION. LAYING, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, INSPECTION, REPAIR. REPLACEMENT: AND REMOVAL OF ELECTRICAL LINES, WIRES, CABLES, DUCTS,. SUPPORTS, FIXTURES„ FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND WITHIN SAME FOR MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION DREG ANADIE, VICE PRESIDENT NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ^ _) SS COUNTY OF %•Sfl�iO ON THIS �+DAY OF ac ,,'+{Z � 14!*� BEFORE ME, ! A NOTARY PUBLIC AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARS EARS Cn�Q4_'(ik7 PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME (OR PROVED TO ME N THE SAS) O SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE) TD BE THE PERSON(SI WHOSE NAME(S) ISIARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNUWLEOGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZ€D CAPACIIYIIES), AND THAT HTS/HFR/THEIR SIGNATUAEIS) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S1. OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT, WITNESS A11N�A SIGNATUR L SAY PR PAL PLACE4F BUSINESS NOTARY P C A TATE rS TN ' yy�j i�1A.m-& COUNT . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES IN THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDER'S STATEMENT SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS TRACT NO . 26251 FAG S THIS -IT" NOBOOKF_ � T EOREOUES OF THE CI7 CLERK OF THE CITY OF LA DUINTA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORITON OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN NO. • 10 FEE THE KEITH COMPANIES INLAND EMPIRE, INC. JUNE 1993 MILL��I AyM E. ONE Y, COUNTY RECORDER BY: V *`4J DEPUTY SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE: STEWART TITLE i TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCOROING TO THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE, AS OF THIS DATE. THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE WITHIN MAP FOR UNPAID STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXE$ NOW A LIEN BUT NDT YET PAYABLE, WHICH ARE ESTIMATED TD BE S _&O . DATES: 5ktd&r /AI 19_U BY:AA�*UIJ _ TACDLLECTCR DEPUTY TAX BOND CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A BOND IN THE SUM OF 5`4•0 HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL, AND ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, WHICH AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THIS MAP WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER ARE A LIEN AGAINST SAID PROPERTY BUT NOT YET PAYABLE AND SAID BOND HAS BEEN DULY APPROVED BY SAID SOARO OF SUPERVISORS. DATED: 19_ CASH TAX BOND GERALD A. MALONEY A. WAYNE WATTS CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR / BY: . BY: 01L�.. w CLr�.GITI DEPUTY DEPUTY CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ME BY RESOLUTION 70-248, OA7EO SEPTEMBER 1976. I ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT THE DEDICATION OF THE EASEMENT FOR DOMESTIC WATER LINE AND SANITATION PURPOSES AS OFFFBT„p HEREON, B �r NAROIHE BUTTON, SECRETARY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SIGNATURE OMISSIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 56436 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF EASEMENTS AND/OR OTHER INTEREST HAVE BEEN OMITTED. 1. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE, 2. A RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC FOR ALL PUBLIC ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY HERETOFORE DEDICATED, ACQUIRED, RESERVED OR ACCEPTED FDA PUBLIC USE. AND ALSO ANY AND ALL PRIVATE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FDA ROADS, PIPELINES, OI7CHES AND CONDUITS ON, OVER, UNDER OR ACROSS THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY„ EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH ROADS AND FDA THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING IRRIGATING AND DOMESTIC WATER TO SUCH OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH PIPELINES, DITCHES AND CONDUITS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. 4. RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN AND TO ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND, LYING WITHIN ANY LAWFUL ESTABLISHED STREETS. ROADS OR HIGHWAYS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE, 3. A RESERVATION IN THE PEOPLE OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FISH AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION PURPOSES, AS PROVIDED IN THE PATENT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 20. 1928 IN BOOK 9 PAGE 319, OF PATENTS IS BLANKET IN NATURE. I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF T14E STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT THIS MAP CONSISTING OF TWO (9) SHEETS CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING MAY OF 1993; AND THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN, OR WILL BE IN Mhyl ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE MONUMENT AGREEMENT FUR THE MAW, t"p41h THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACEO THE SURVEY IB TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN iri$ DATED: JV-/` _/_ f9 9i No. 8570 dr DAVIO L. WEDDLE, L.S. 5a70 * pp, yarl7 EXPIRATION DATE: 9-30.93 �j ♦t CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN ANNEXEO MAP OF TRACT NO. 26251 CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS, THAT THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP OR APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF. THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP 19 WsFir' TECHNICALLY CORRECT, (wgio FRANK R. REYNOLDS R.C.E. NO. 32740. EXP, 9-30- ,j CITY ENGINEERNu 327A0 CITY OF LA GUINTA DATED: r/ s� /'�: _ j,� E+rl� �'•'� ,c D u'ITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE SAUNDRA JUHOLA, CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, STATE OF CALIFDRNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY TIA SAID CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON THE � DAY OF ��� 19-U DULY APPROV@0 THE ANNEXED MAP OF TRACT N0. 25251 AND HEREBY ACCEPTS THE EASEMENT OVER LOT 'A` FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES AS DEDICATED. THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR SAID TRACT NO. 28251 WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAA MEETING HELD ON THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992. ,"SAUNnSA JUHOLA CITY CLERK AND EX"OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF LA GUINTA CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE GOV. CODE SEC 27201 I, HEREBY, CERTIFY THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ME BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, PER RESOLUTION NO. 15•-90, DATED MARCH 22. 1990. THAT I ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, THE DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES AS OFFERED, HEREIN. DATED: _( 1[ �A 1 Q ct 3 BY: , S1 RINTENDENT, GENERAL COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION M R �44 /9() '" 417 <18' ANITE % ROCX IM ROGKgMO�U6NA� SEC. CDR. M � -N I./is CDR.. TRACT 26251 uu xca o0 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SCALE: 1"=80 FEET 0 BO ISO 240 320 IN THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO 26251 a BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORITON OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN THE KEITH COMPANIES INLAND EMPIRE, INC. JUNE 1993 <2628.25> <16' X S' X 6" GRANITE SOCK> r II 30 - c1929.49> v CN 1/1B CDR. • �a r LOT 2 t �{!�}•1.. . e I� AREA 1.61 AC. �? xl �/� WI w I c ® ory o' / (PRIVATE STREET) I AREA 0 x/ 0.23 AC. rLA e3Y 4 pBz'S.°SE B i'02.61 .G P5 � ;'° ' "ram• `�. '3 �' � M ID'EASEMENT Sa ,r r d;ah r is GA as, 39.06'N 19�1 [N E9�80'00� 'Y f Qv I \ �, SEARNDT", S y/ol b DEDICATED -II Ij 5EARCNTE Fq L ` \ ,V HEREON F & NOTHING. 1'13gs, a . \ TO I I.D- \ an $Ei NOTH f 3� 64' x ah r� 1c �, o �3 ICY z .10 47-1 law1 f f N f o �) 1 LOT 1 ` "_ ��� .% ' g.'884 viN dal 1� r .f} 1' f/ ` \ AREA +jlrr ` / �' x7'@G'„ 145.25 ti yt� ]4/'� y31 / / (Ar59°AB3d` J le h k r °�_ 1 'SO°34'27"} / r �?8 n �tlPvg • �i SEEDETAIL Ar�J 2oJ J 1 ! D. + 4 �p J/ 2914'za) ./ n (�=23' 10'3� ' Qg,,'P� LOT"A" FD, 3/4' S.P. (W/PLASTIC PLUG ,r (A 04'09'32" q FLUSH O L.S. 3018, MB2BB/96p99 I /J' r it } y *• ?258 v P'` ,-%p EXISTING GOLF COURSE I g`4Rf�g3i / ; �> ,s,'` ,� /%cl DETAIL "A" 60 j NO SCALE T.P., NO TAG AFL.. FLASHER ANO " C. ,IIN LIEW OR W/L.9. 3936 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SURVEYOR'S NOTES BASIS OF BEARINGS TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 25237. MB 220/95-99 BEING: N.59.56'00'W. --*-INDICATES FOUND 3" I.P. WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 301B, FLUSH, PER MB 228/95-99 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INDICATES FOUND CONC. NAIL AND TAG STAMPED L.S. 3019, FLUSH, ON CONCRETE GRAVITY WALL, IN LIEU OF 1' I.P. WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 3018 AS SHOWN ON MB 228/95-99 --0- INDICATES SET 1' I.P. WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 5570, FLUSH, OR CONC, NAIL AND L.S. 5570 TAG, FLUSH ( ) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER MB 226/95-99 < > INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RS 66/24-27 I.I D. INDICATES IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT TOTAL AREA a 3.16 AC, THIS TRACT CONSISTS OF: 2 LOTS PRIVATE STREET LOT "A" THAT PORTION SHOWN AS "REMAINDER' I5 CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THIS MAP. DATA DELTA/BEARING RADIUS LEN./GIST. TANGENT 1 N 03°08'52"W 77.97 2 N 41' 10' 1B"E 25.53 3) N 53°05.18"E 37.94 (37.92) 4) 19047'53" 102.00 35.25 17.80 5 70o48'i3" 102.00 _ 126.05 72.49 6 51'00'20" 102.00 90.80 4B.66 7 29°08'34" 13B.00 70.19 35.87 8 N 07005'55"W 26.00 9 29'08'34" 164.00 83.42 42.63 1 70'48'13" 76.00 93.92 54.01 1 N 41010'18"E 13.25 N 89'30'06"W 15,01 (15.00) i ( 87-2439' 65.00 99.17 3 (N 09040'00'W 41.60) s (N 19°58'00'W 89.50 150.50 46 80) 3 70-48-13" 110.60 53.51 i 29"08'34" 76.55 39.12 40OB'33' 5904B'54" 950.00 68.69 34.38 150.00 156.60 86.28 23'09'03' 150.00 60.61 30.72 30'34'30' 150.00 80.05 76.55 41.00 39.13 29014'24° 150.00 47'30'29" 45.50 37.73 20.02 62'03'44' 45.50 49.29 27.37 23°27'51' 45.50 18.64 9.45 19°02'32" 45.50 15.12 7.63 5'00'06" 45.50 3.97 1.99 42'30'23' 45.50 33.76 17.70 f-{mN'R CK TAG ON SB X 3B X 32 ROCK) 'L� {I(- j-I,N• ROCK OUTCROP. 1/4 C09_ 35)31 - c1326.91> CN 1/18 COR. _ -- i `<1326.90> 0.5 ACCEPTED A6 MON. BHOKN ON M8 2xe/$6-99 BET AS LS W'i0 TAG SECf436 -- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE: EASEMENTS FD. 3/4' I.P. W/PLASTIC PLUG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET AFFECTING /� _ - - INDICATES - -- STAMPEO L.S. 3016, FLU". PER NB 228/95-99 THIS MAP IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE L'\ AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL QINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAOE AND CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF LA OUINTA. PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF CHI❑ INCIDENTAL PURPOSES• IN FAVOR OF OHIO AVENI A FERNANDO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AN OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AN OHIO CORPORATION, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEB. S. CORPORATION• IN INSTRUMENT RECOADEU FEB. 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 41631, O.R. 1991 AS INStA64ENT N0. 41632. O.R. N R P4419) 418 419 SUBDIVISION DATA: ACREAGE: 3.16 ACRES (GROSS) NO. OF NUMBERED LOTS-1 LOT NO. OF LETTERED LOTS —NONE PROJECT r� AVENUE 50 VICINTY MAP NTS IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAPHIC SCALE T R AC `tif J" 7A fB 1I {hh REVERSION TO ACREAGE `�T' 1 iaoh - 50 1L OF ALL OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TOGETHER WITH LOT "A", ALL BEING OF TRACT SURVEYOR'S NOTE: NO. 26251 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK 244, PAGES 90 AND 91 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE NW 1/4 OF 1. FOUND 1" I.P. (FLUSH) WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "L.S. 3018" SEC. 32. T. 5 S., R. 6 E., S.B.M. AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS ® PER TRACT NO. 25237, { M.B. 228/95-99, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. WM. HURRAY &ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY, 1996 2. FOUND 1" I.P. (FLUSH) WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS. 5570" 4ol„L' AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS-0— PER TRACT NO. 26251, I 1 M.B. 244/90-91, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. 0 3. FOUND CONCRETE NAIL (FLUSH) WITH TAG STAMPED "L.S. 5570" — w AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS A— PER TRACT NO. 26251, c M.B. 244/90-91, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. o r3 C� �'`: 4. FOUND CONCRETE NAIL (FLUSH) WITH TAG STAMPED•L.S. 3018" m � `< _ AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS —A IN LIEU OF 1" I.P. Cp�` W/ PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS. 3018" AS SHOWN ON TRACT } 1 • � LOT 2 250 �8f 5. SET 15213P, WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "L.S. 4309" '�Q #ry l5 (FLUSH) AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS —o— UNLESS qO 15'g1� j OTHERWISE SHOWN HEREON. G0�0 �� 6. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE RECORD RO 3.i6 ACRES Gj� ° AND MEASURED DATA PER TRACT NO. 26251, M.B. 244/90-91 4� 262 9� / UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN HEREON. z''`� - Q�5 riSIS OF BEARINGS LOT 'A �, i 5 14 THE BEARING N 6e i , 43" W OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOMA VISTA AS SHOWN BY MAP OF TRACT NO, 26251 ON FILE IN BOOK 244, PAGES 90 AND 91 OF MAPS `n IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF .'`h BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. / �53,0 19 E \ V 21 SET CONC. NAIL WITH spA LOT % t ! TAG STAMPED "L.S. 4309" s ✓ ! I AT BACK OF CONC. CURB. FD. NOTHING 1 SET NOTHING, \\\ N27'15'17"E °� (Q 20 X' .. 22 % N86'13'10"E 24 EASEMENT NOTES I a if r i 3 4L AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, {I PER DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 41631, O.R. I / © AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES 11 II IN FAVOR OF OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PER DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT ,�•S �cb ��` J NO, 41632, O.R. 12 1n l g 1111" ® AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR INGRESS / AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES, THAT 0.34` Cf AREA DESIGNATED AS LOT "A" HEREON WAS DEDICATED BY MAP OF TRACT NO. 26251, M.B. ACCEPTED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF CCEPT90-91 OA ANCEASSHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT, ® AN EASEMENT TO COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES IN AND OVER THA / AREA DESIGNATED AS LOT "A" HEREON WAS DEDICATED BY 19 MAP OF TRACT NO. 26251, M.B. 244/90-91 2 ACCEPTED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE DA ASSHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT. V" AN EASEMENT 70 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR THE EXCAVATION LAYING, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION �^ CURVE DATA-0 INSPECTION, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, ETC. OF ELECTRICAL LINES %� !^ J AND APPURTENANCES, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS IN \ j �j rj AND OVER THAT AREA DESIGNATED HEREON AS LOT "A" AND AN 2S } '1 � \ ADDITIONAL 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON THE SOUTH' SIDE AND ADJACIENT TO CURVE DELTA RADIUS _ LENGTH TANGENT r 9 SAID LOT "A", SAID EASEMENT WAS DEDICATED BY MAP OF TRACT N0, 1 47"30`29 _ 45.5D` 37,73` —f 20Q2 26 \ % 26251. M.B. 244/90-91 AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CERTIFIOATE OF `7 •A 102-00` 35,2535,25' f 17.6U '`•{� ACCEPTANCE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT. M 8 269143 420 421 OWNER'S STATEMENT NE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE MAP SHOWN HEREON; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LAND; THAT WE CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THIS REVERSION TO ACREAGE MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE HEREBY RESERVE TO OURSELVES, SUCCESSORS. ASSIGNEES, HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE OWNERS OF LOTS i THROUGH 54, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 25237 FILED IN BOOK 228, PAGES 95 THROUGH 99, INCLUSIVE, THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS & AND SHOWN WITHIN THIS TRACT.. THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SO RESERVED INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON SAID LANDS TO SURVEY, CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, LAY, RELAY, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, CONTROL, USE, AND REMOVE PIPELINES, FIXTURES, AND APPURTENANCES, AND REMOVE OBJECTS INTERFERING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, OPPERATION AND MAINTENANCE THERECF. ROBERT R, TAYLOR MARY K. TAYLOR OWNER 4 "ROBERR. ( MA Y K. A OR NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT fh PN#J�SG'Tj4 STATE OF M� COUNTY OF=* I`IPoJ) �y ON gyp.. BEFORE ME,-Shl'I?M L+�+ hnll>I,h n► Gh APPEARED o .fhOL► C T0. t, PERSCWAfLY KNOWN TO M£ ( OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE ) TO BE THE PERSONS) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WIMN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE. PERSON(S) ACTED,. EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SIGNATURES)"AL) My commi'su.n "p"raf 3-rr-�7. I}(yp�rnsPl(frlrte r P I�SiAaLJ �S SIGNATURE OMISSIONS NE�ngw<+� C.�R y-, �utrnn•se��. PURSUANT TO SECTION 654315 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF EASEMENTS AND/OR OTHER INTEREST HAVE BEEN OMITTED: 1. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS, SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. 2. A RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC FOR ALL ALL PUBLIC ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY HERETOFORE DEDICATED, ACQUIRED. RESERVED, OR ACCEPTED FOR PUBLIC USE, AND ALSO ANY AND ALL PRIVATE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ROADS, PIPELINES, DITCHES AND CONDUITS ON, OVER, UNDER OR ACROSS THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY, EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH ROADS AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING, IRRIGATING, AND DOMESTIC WATER TO SUCH OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH PIPELINES, DITCHES, AND CONDUITS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE 3, RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN AND TO ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND, LYING WITHIN ANY LAWFUL ESTABLISHED STREETS, ROADS, OR HIGHWAYS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO. 28335-R REVERSION TO ACREAGE 4, A RESERVATION IN THE PEOPLE OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FISH AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION PURPOSES, AS PROVIDED IN THE PATENT FROM THE STATE OF CALIF OR -MA, RECORDED JUNE 20. 1928 IN BOOK 9, PAGE 319, OF PATENTS IS BLANKET IN NATURE, 5, AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AN OHIO CORPORATION, PER DEEDS RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENTNOS. 41631, O.R. AND 41632. O.R.. OF ALL OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TOGETHER WITH LOT "A", ALL BEING OF TRACT NO. 26251 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK 244, PAGES 90 AND 91 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC, 36, T.5 S.. R. 6 E., S.B.M. WM. MURRAY & ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY, 1996 BONA CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTI T A BOND IN THE SUM OF $ —BIAS BEEN EXECUTED AND FIL W7 THE BOARD PERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALLFOR DITI0N UPON THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, STATE, COUNTY, NIClP LOCAL, AND ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, WHICH A.I dE OF FILING OF THIS MAP WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER ARE A LIEN AGA tAlll PROPERTY BUT NOT YET PAYABLE AND SAID BOND HAS BEEN 0 ROVED GV SAID BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 9 CASH TM,.B GERALD A. MAL R. NAYNE WATTS CLERK OF THE BOARD O zSORS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR DEPUTY DEPUTY CITY CLERKS CERTIFICATE I, SAUNDRA JUHOLA, CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. HEREBY STATE THAT THIS MAP WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY OF LA QUI TA AT h REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE —6 DAY OF 1996, AND THAT THEREUPON SAID CITY COUNCIL DID BY ORDER ULY PISSED AND ENTERED, APPROVED SAID MAP. DATED: .("q��, 199(4 eE CJJA ki 00 SA DRA JU OLA. Y C RF A D EX-OFFICO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA ( SAA Lr. ar► TAX COILYGTORS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY TIi CCORDING TO THE RECO OF THIS OFFICE, AS OF THIS DATE, THERE AR DENS AGAINST PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE WITHIN MAP FOR UNPAID . TE, CO r MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COEEC S TAXES, CXCEPT TAXE"RSPE6W ASS✓eSSIAFd1Js GOt,L pl _ . OUT 0107-Y&T PAYABLE, WHC�H AR F�M L•..T DATED:_ _._�.^rlftE WA �QUNTY TAX COLLECTOR BY: &I 1It•4 VAA` W C!ih SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS RECORDER'S STATEMENT FILED THIS - _--. DAY OF 195�. AT 1.M. IN BOOK OF MAPS, AT PAGES AT THE RE EST OF TI+E CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. NO, 3017�e� FEE ±&. FRANK K. JOHN'SON, OUNTY RECORDER BY:��...._., ,DEPUTY SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY DATE: - NO.,. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT THIS MAP CONSISTING OF (2) TWO _SHEETS CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING APR€L OF 19 96 ; THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN, OR WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE MONUMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE MAP. THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN. ?. DATED: _ MAY 1, 1996 w314-o + � WILLIAM E. MURRAY 'ffiF yya LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 4309 #{ ti ay► EXPIRES 6-30-2000 F sa .nrar _ . CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT THIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND FOUND Tr' oc 1:10CTOITIALL THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE "A' ^ „��I AS 1 •D, AM gED AND APPPr _. HE LITY COUNCIL N �2, IW^► iHL EXPIRATION DATE BEIXG I � AND THAT I ,M SATISFIED THIS MAP IS TECH" ICA QRRECT. DATED:11i�s�r%��p DAVID M. COSPER, ENGINEER RCE NO, 35022, EXP. 3/31/97 CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN ANNEXED MAP OF THE TRACT NO. 28335-R, CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT RELATIVE TO THE TRACT MAP BOUNDARIES. DATED; _7 �(O-9G rr L w Wd 1L xJu�T Gi�++yyW'[ 11L 5563 _sr-rx_ � of Chill ERIC A. NELSON ACTING CITY SURVEYOR P.L.S. N0.5583 , EXP._ 9/30/97 M 8 2591A10MIT112 422 423 Thursday, January 21, 2016 To whom it may concern: We are concern La Quinta homeowners writing regarding the Swenson's proposed plans for 77210 Loma Vista La Quinta CA. We own a home that sits below the Swenson's building site and we are concerned that the proposed home will impact many of us along the Mountain Estates storm channel. As it is the storm channel that runs behind our properties was unable to withstand a substantial rainfall in both August of 2013 and September of 2014. Adding more hardscape and redirecting the rain water will have an adverse effect on the storm channel and its ability to keep rain water out of our properties in the future. We have had serious flooding and major damage to our home and our neighbor's homes after significant rains caused the storm channel to fail and it has taken many of us much time and money to get back some semblance of normal. We also very concerned about the movement of the rocks above home and the effect it will have on the surrounding neighbors. The breaking and moving of hundreds of tons of rocks will be quite jarring to the structures and could possibly collapse the natural hillside Also we have seen Bighorn sheep up in the hills near the building site; I am concerned that they will be displaced as well as other wildlife we have enjoyed seeing over the years. Building in the hills in La Quinta (Riverside County) is against building codes although it is said this lot is grandfathered but by building anything 50 feet above the valley floor will change a beautiful neighborhood vista that will be forever scarred by the proposed construction. The moratorium on building in the hills above the valley floor was instituted for many good reasons. The Swenson have proposed artificial rock and landscaping as a solution to hide some of their hillside lengthy driveway and six thousand square foot home but faux rock is not the same as natural and all planted landscaping is susceptible to insects, disease and drought. Lighting and sound carries a long way when place on a 50-foot-high podium. I am sure the Swenson are a normally active, young family but moving into a community where 95% of the neighborhood are senior and / or retired may lead to noise issues concerning the whole community. Privacy is another big issue. A home site 50 feet above all your neighbors in the Mountain Estates, The Enclave and Santa Rosa Cove allow easy viewing of formerly private pools, patios and bedroom windows. Landscaping is not the only solution since it can easily die or be blown over in our wind storms. Privacy walls surrounding the immediate housing site (not the property line) would provide personal privacy for the Swenson (or to whom they sell the house) and the surrounding neighbors. Thank you for your time in this matter. Patti and Michael Mergener Apple Desert Properties 48685 Via Sierra La Quinta, CA 92253 424 THOMAS J. NOLAN 1212 WELLINGTON AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 January 21, 2015 VIA E-MAIL & FACSIMILE Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Objections to Conditional Use Permit Application 2013-152 for Proposed Home at 77-210 Loma Vista and Related Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and Objections to Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Prepared by Nicole Sauviat Criste To: City of La Quinta Planning Commission This letter is submitted on behalf of Thomas J. Nolan and Mariann Nolan, husband and wife, who own in joint tenancy the residence located at 77240 Loma Vista Avenue, La Quinta, California. The Nolan residence is situated within the private gated community commonly known as The Enclave Mountain Estates. The Nolan residence is situated immediately below the proposed Swenson Project. We hereby submit this formal objection to the proposed project. In addition to the issues raised herein, we expressly incorporate by reference the various other objections submitted against this project, including, but not limited to, those objections filed by our neighbors, Joseph McVeigh, A. William and Mary Urquhart, and Paul and Patty Wondries. The following general, but not exhaustive list of Objections are noted: 1. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Notice of Intent") does not comply with our due process rights as it was not properly served in conformance with governing provisions; 2. The Notice of Intent contains falsehoods and does not take into consideration readily available information that would establish the inaccuracies contained in the Notice of Intent; 425 THOMAS J. NOLAN 1212 WELLINGTON AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 3. The proposed project is inaccurately described in the Notice of Intent and is inconsistent with the final plans submitted to the Architectural Review Committee and Board of Directors of The Enclave Mountain Estates; 4. The Notice of Intent misrepresents that the referenced project has been approved by the EME HOA, as it makes no reference to the conditions attached to the EME HOA's Board approval; 5. The proposed project will be built "into the ridge line adjacent to the San Jacinto Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy" the objective of which is to preserve the mountains. The proposed project is located in an area designated by the City as an "Open Space District." It is also located in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. The Swenson Project does not comply with sections 9.110.070 and 9.110.050 of the Municipal Code; 6. In direct contradiction of statements set forth in the Notice of Intent there is recent evidence of the presence of bighorn sheep on the site and immediately adjacent thereto. The proposed site is populated by and frequently visited by the peninsular bighorn sheep, which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nolans and other neighbors have personally observed, within the last several months, several bighorn sheep grazing on and around the project site. At a hearing before the Planning Commission, the Nolans and other neighbors will present photographic and testimonial declarations attesting to numerous and recent bighorn sheep sightings on the project site and the immediate hillsides bordering the proposed project. For that reason, we expressly wish to present evidence to impeach the so- called findings of only bighorn sheep "scat" droppings in the vicinity and the representation by Ms. Criste in the Notice of Intent that the "scat" findings were old. 7. The proposed project's drainage design is inadequate. The Applicant has failed to submit to the HOA, as was a precondition of the conditional HOA approval of the project, a sufficient hydrology and geotechnical data, to establish the proposed drainage system would not further burden the EME's storm water channel. At any hearing before the Planning Commission the Nolans will present substantial hydrology studies prepared by Waldorf and La Quinta Resort questioning the integrity, design and capacity of the EME's storm channel. Although requested of their engineers, the Swensons' 2 426 THOMAS J. NOLAN 1212 WELLINGTON AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 application does not address the voluminous studies prepared in the litigation styled, Waldorf =Astoria Management LLC v. The Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. PSC 1402611, pending before the Honorable David M. Chapman ("Waldorf litigation"), which suit is presently scheduled for trial on March 8, 2016 in Department 2 of the Palm Springs Superior Court. As designed, the proposed drainage system could very well exasperate alleged drainage issues at the site of the EME storm water channel and materially contribute to flooding risks to at least the McVeigh and Nolan residence sites. In conclusion, and at a minimum, the Planning Commission should order the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report in regards to the Swensons' proposed project. In addition, no action should be taken until after a full evaluation of the proposed drainage system after conclusion of the referenced Waldorf litigation. Respectfully submitted, Thomas J. N Ian on behalf of himself and Mariann Nolan 3 427 RECEIVED BAN 14 2016 c."Y C)F LA Qu111r4 COMhF NfTy DEVELOPMENT January 11, 2016 City of La Quinta Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Dear Ms Criste I am in receipt of your Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding a proposed project at 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, Calif. 92253 and as presented, I am very much opposed to the project. I am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, la Quinta Calif. which is located immediately below the proposed project. On February 27, 20141 sent a letter to the Planning Division of the City of La Quinta opposing the project. A copy of that letter is enclosed for you review. Since then, I became president of the Enclave Mountain Estates HOA which is the governing body of the Mountain Estates. During my presidency, I became very familiar with the Swenson project and in the spring of 2015 the HOA approved the project with some significant requirements involving the control of groundwater runoff, construction of an adequate storage area for the groundwater runoff, the construction of the driveway and walls to protect the adjacent residents from both light and noise issues. I don't see where there is any reference in your Declaration referring to any of these requirements. My initial concerns, as outlined in my February 27, 2014 letter to the Planning Division Case# CUP 2013- 152 still exist. I still feel that the project interferes with the Aesthetics of the area. Their proposed look- out area located above their proposed home site is on a "Ridge Line" which will have to be modified to accommodate the Look -Out area. While the Swenson's have modified the size of their project, there will still be a significant amount of the existing hillside which will have to be removed in order to allow the construction of the home. This will result in significant Scaring of the hillside. Even with their modifications, I believe they will still be in violation of 9.140.040 HC hillside conversion regulation subsection F with specific attention to fill slopes, rock outcroping and the above mentioned hillside scaring. 428 I don't believe that your Mitigated Negative declaration report adequately addressed these items and in general did not adequately address the impact this project will have on the adjacent home owners. I am still of the opinion that the owner is entitled to develop his property but that development must take into consideration all of the requirements which were put in place by the HOA. One of the main reasons for the HOA requirements was due to the Sept. 2014 flood which severely damaged numerous Enclave Mountain Estates homes. While I don't know how much responsibility the Swenson property accounted for in the flood damage to our homes, that responsibility might be determined in the current litigation between a group of Enclave Mountain Estates homeowners who were damaged in both the 2013 and 2014 floods and the management of the La Quinta Resort and Golf Course. Please take into these issues into consideration in recommending this project to the Planning Department when that hearing is held. sincerely Paul Wondries 48-725 Via Sierra La Quinta, Cailf. cc: Planning Division City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 429 February 27, 2014 tOPA Planning Division City of La Quinta 78j-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Case# CUP 2013-152 (77-210 Loma Vista) I am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, (Enclave Mountain Estates) La Quinta, Calif. and I am totally against the issuance of a CUP for Case# CUP 2013-152. The project as proposed interferes with AESTHETICS of the area, damages ridgeline rock outcropping and directly interferes with the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. If the CUP is approved and the project is completed, the residence will be placed immediately above a minimum of 7 homes with direct line of sight looking down into and thru the windows of those homes. This is wrong to allow. The project as proposed is in conflict with Title 9 Zoning, Chapter 9.140 Supplemental Special Purpose Regulations, Specifically 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations, subsection C which states that no development shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. As I have been told by the owner, it is their intention to enlarge the existing building pad through the use of intensive fill in areas that exceed slopes of twenty percent. Next, in 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations subsection F addresses Grading Plans with specific attention to the avoidance of excessive building, fill slopes, rock outcroping and the scaring effects on the hillsides from grading. Finally in 9.110.070 HC hillside conversation overlay district under A. Purpose and Intent specifically spells out the intent of the hillside conversation regulations for the protection and conservation of the hillside ecosystems of the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. 430 January 11, 2016 Planning Division City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 RE: Case# CUP 2013-152 (77-210 Loma Vista) JAN 14 2016 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Enclosed please find a copy of my 1-11-2016 letter to Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner for the City of La Quinta along with a copy of my February 27, 2014 letter to the City of La Quinta Planning Division. Both of these letters refer to Case#CUP 2013-152. As I have stated in both letters I am very concerned that the above project either be denied or be required to comply with the Enclave Mountain Estates HOA requirements agreed upon by both the HOA and the Swensons in the spring of 2015. This project must also comply with the City of La Quinta requirements as referenced in my February 27, 2014 letter which the HOA had no power to impose on the Swenson's Please ensure that all homeowners are notified any upcoming Planning Commission meeting that will be addressing this project. There is significant concern by the homeowners located immediately below the proposed project and I am sure they will all want to have their input heard by the Planning Commission. Sincerely Paul Wondries 48-725 Via Sierra La Quinta, Calif. 431 February 27, 2014 Planning Division City of La Quinta 78j-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Case# CUP 2013-152 (77-210 Loma Vista) I am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, (Enclave Mountain Estates) La Quinta, Calif. and I am totally against the issuance of a CUP for Case# CUP 2013-152. The project as proposed interferes with AESTHETICS of the area, damages ridgeline rock outcropping and directly interferes with the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. If the CUP is approved and the project is completed, the residence will be placed immediately above a minimum of 7 homes with direct line of sight looking down into and thru the windows of those homes. This is wrong to allow. The project as proposed is in conflict with Title 9 Zoning, Chapter 9.140 Supplemental Special Purpose Regulations, Specifically 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations, subsection C which states that no development shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. As I have been told by the owner, it is their intention to enlarge the existing building pad through the use of intensive fill in areas that exceed slopes of twenty percent. Next, in 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations subsection F addresses Grading Plans with specific attention to the avoidance of excessive building, fill slopes, rock outcroping and the scaring effects on the hillsides from grading. Finally in 9.110.070 HC hillside conversation overlay district under A. Purpose and Intent specifically spells out the intent of the hillside conversation regulations for the protection and conservation of the hillside ecosystems of the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. 432 ql inn emanum trial lawyers I les angeles 865 South Figueroa Street, loth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 I TEL (2,13) 443-3000 FAX (Z13) 443-3100 Via Federal Ex a ess January 19, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Conditional Permit Use Application No. 2013-152 Dear Members of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission: WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL No. (202)538-8168 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS bil lurquhart@quinnem anueLcom RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2016 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I represent my wife Mary Urquhart and myself. We own a home at 48705 Via Sierra in the Mountain Estates development in the La Quinta resort, in connection with Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2013-152 for Proposed Project at 77-720 Loma Vista (City of La Quinta Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Home at 77-210 Loma Vista). I also represent: Sean McVeigh Joe McVeigh, 77-220 Loma Vista Beverly Hovorka, 77-490 Loma Vista Michael & Patti Mergener, 48-685 Via Sierra Mariane & Tom Nolan, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga John and Shannon Quinn, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga Eugene & Shirley Albertini, 77-270 Loma Vista Stuart McKinney and Nick Karapetian, 48-670 Via Sierra John and Diane Mullins, 49-230 Vista Ventura, 77-298 Vista Flora, 77-420 Vista Rosa I have previously written in opposition to the Swensons' Conditional Use Permit Application 2013-152 and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment 2013- 630 permits in a letter to Ms. Criste, Consulting Planner for the City of La Quinta, on March 4, 2014. We have been informed that The Planning Department intends to conduct a de novo review of a new set of building plans that have been submitted in support of these permit aulnn emanuel urpuhart a sullluan, lip LOS ANGELES I NEW YORK I SAN FRANCISCO I SILICON VALLEY I CHICAGO I WASHINGTON, DC 1 HOUSTON I SEATTLE LONDON I TOKYO I MANNHEIM I MOSCOW I HAMBURG I PARIS I MUNICH I SYDNEY I HONG KONG I BRUSSELS 433 applications. I write in further the opposition to the approval of these permits and to explain more fully how these applications are inconsistent with controlling La Quinta zoning ordinances. Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart have previously explained in detail how the Swensons' proposed six thousand square foot house, three car garage, swimming pool, and sports court at 77-210 Loma Vista on the hillside overlooking their property, the properties of their neighbors, and (indeed) the entire City of La Quinta would conflict with the purpose of existing zoning requirements and the peaceful beauty of the community. The proposed development would also violate the express terms of La Quinta's contemporary zoning rules; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Both the City and my clients agree, the proposed development is located in a hillside "open space" area that is governed by Sections 9.110.050 ("OS Open Space District") and 9.110.070 ("HC Hillside Conservation Regulations"). See also "Notice of intent adopt a Mitigated Negative Delartio, Section 1X (b) at p. 32." Those provisions expressly impose certain delineated requirements upon proposed developments in this region. Further, beyond those regulations articulated in Section 9.110.070 itself, Section 9.110.070(B) ("Development Standards") states that applicants must "[r]efer to Section 9.140.040 for additional details regarding development standards ... and other requirements of the HC [Hillside Conservation] District." Section 9.140.040 in turn establishes a plethora of restrictions on proposed hillside developments, and there can be no serious argument that the current permit application for 77-210 Loma Vista satisfies these articulated — and deliberately stringent — limitations on hillside developments. To put it simply, what the Swensons' plans are not a series of minor departures from the regulatory scheme governing hillside developments. Approval of the current permit applications would be radically and demonstrably inconsistent with not only the purpose and intent of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, but also its express terms. The Purpose and Intent of The Restrictions Purpose of the open space restrictions is as follows: • "To maximize the City's natural topographical features including mountain sides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines.... • "To assure that the development ...will not be obtrusive because of the design and location of the development." • "To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and fill slopes...." "To maximize the retention of vistas and natural topographical features including mountain sides, ridge lines.... • The building should not be "visible above the ridgeline profile from the valley floor." We also understand the statutes bars the construction of roads that are visible from the valley floor. As will be demonstrated below, the Swenson Project flaunts both the letter and spirit of the 2 434 hillside conservation and open space ordinances. The planned home will be obtrusive looming over 80 feet above the valley floor —visible from miles away. It will also block the mountain views of numerous residents who live nearby. As will be demonstrated below, it will include major excavation of the mountainside, the creation of huge retaining walls, the use of thousands of tons of land fill, the building of a road wide enough for a truck, and much more. The Huge Scale of the Swenson Project In order to put what follows in context is important to understand that the Swenson Project is a huge undertaking. The term buildable lot is used loosely when describing this project. It is important to note the Swenson property is not buildable in its current state. The City would have to make major departures from its zoning requirements to allow the Swensons to cut into the side of the mountain, build huge retaining walls that replace the natural ridge lines with concrete walls covered by faux rock and deposit hundreds of tons of fill to make it buildable. The current lot consists of a narrow dirt road leading to a flat surface toward the northern part of the property. It is not big enough to build a 1500 square foot house let alone a 6,000 spare foot house, a swimming pool, three car garage and a sports court. The lot is at a substantially higher elevation than all of the homes in Santa Rosa Cove. In fact, is nearly 60 feet higher than any of the hundreds of other home in the La Quinta resort. Because of the high elevations of the Swenson property, there are direct sight lines into the most private parts of neighbor's homes: their living rooms, their bedrooms, their pools and their backyards. To make the existing site "buildable" the Swenson project will require: • The removal of at least 12 feet of the existing mountain face to accommodate the proposed Project (home). • The construction of a "driveway" that is over 400 feet long and 18 feet wide (wide enough to accommodate a large fire engine and sturdy enough to bear the weight) bordered on both sides with retaining walls extending up to six feet high. • The excavation of 10 feet of existing mountain face to widen the road to 18 feet and the replacement of that mountain face with a six foot high retaining rock fall protection wall. The existing natural rock will be replaced by faux rock. i Expansion of the building pad southward over 300 feet toward the property of existing homes. In all the existing building pad will be expanded by 75 per cent or over 18 thousand square feet. ■ The expansion of the pad will require the use of hundreds of tons of land fill and carving into the existing mountain side. * The roofline of the proposed home will peak at 18 feet. It will be at the southern end of the property and will destroy the views of many residents of both Mountain Estates and the Enclave. 435 The Swenson's Property Is not "grandfathered in" The use of faux rock in gaps of the existing ridgeline to accommodate a retaining wall that is hundreds of feet long and faces the homes of many neighbors in the Mountain Estates and destroys their views of the untouched ancient ridgelines. It could perhaps be argued that the current development application might not have been categorically impermissible prior to the enactment of the existing Hillside Conservation zoning requirements in La Quinta. (Of course, the City could nonetheless still have permissibly refused to approve the CUP even in the "old days" before the City decided to expressly regulate hillside development, and, indeed, would rightly have done so.) But the fact that the lots existed even before the enactment of existing zoning regulations is of absolutely no moment. Zoning regulations are, by their nature, constantly in a state of change, and permissibly so, and rightly adapt both to ongoing developments as well as changing mores. The HC regulations currently articulated in the La Quinta Municipal Code undeniably govern the existing permit applications; indeed, Section 9.140.040(C)(2) expressly exempts from its reach only those "tracts and specific plans already approved," and there is no dispute that the existing application was not previously approved by the City prior to the passage of this statute. Further, even beyond this express textual mandate, zoning regulations inherently look to the future and regulate future use. Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County (1954) 34 Cal. 2d 121, 127. Even if an existing application had already been approved, the enactment of the La Quinta HC ordinances could still permissibly regulate the future use of this property. Id. And in the present case, there has not even been approval, much less has the proposed home already been built. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the existing provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, including the contemporary Hillside Conservation zoning requirements, apply. See also Petit v, City of Fresno (1973) 343 Cal.App.3d 813, 815-24 (currently existing zoning requirements apply even when owner previously expended $21,000 on alterations authorized by prior building permit); Consaul v. City of San Diego (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1781, 1785-1801 (development previously permitted by then -existing zoning requirements was properly denied based upon subsequent passage of municipal ordinance). Specific Damage to the Urquharts Invasion of orivacv: The proposed Swenson residence will have direct sight lines into the Urquhart's (a) back yard, (b) pool area, (c) master bedroom, (d) the kitchen and (e) the family room from both the deck of the Swenson's pool and the "lookout" they propose to build. There will also be direct views into the back yards of at least eight other homes. I should note that the Swenson Property also provides direct sight lines into the Urquharts' neighbors to the right and left thus invading their privacy as well. Both have objected to the project. 0 436 Reduction of the value of their home The Urquhart home is about 100 feet from the border of the Swenson property. One of the primary reasons the Urquharts purchased their home was the completely unobstructed views of the ridge line, the rock formations and the mountain above them. If the Swenson home is built the views from the Urquhart's home will be substantially compromised. Perhaps the most glaring example are the retaining walls that are necessary to support hundreds of tons of rock the Swenson's must construct the Swenson's substantially expanded building pad. Attached as Exhibit B are photos showing the views from the Urquhart property now and an artist rendition of how it will look after the construction. Note the faux rock walls that will be between the natural rock outcropping. The Swensons should be required to erect story poles before the project is approved. Finally, we request that the City order the Swensons install "story poles" so that the city officials can fully appreciate the extent to which the proposed Swenson residence will destroy the views of many of their neighbors. Conclusion The current applications should be denied. The proposed development is simply inconsistent with the purpose of land use in La Quinta and the reasonable expectations of those who have built and own homes in the sightlines of this proposed hillside development. The applications at issue are also governed by, and inconsistent with, the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040. These ordinances properly and validly constrain the proposed project, and represent the will and wisdom of the representatives of the voters of La Quinta. The applications at issue should thus be denied. Very truly ; otjrs, ,�,� A. William Urquhart AWU:wpc 99998-0005 7/759 8002.2 cc: Frank J. Spevacek, La Quinta City Manager 5 437 CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS LLP 2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, STE. 318 TELEPHONE: (310) 798-2400 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 E-MAIL. FACSIMILE: (310) 798-2402 ACM@CBCEARTHLAW.COM www.cbcearthlaw.com January 20, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Swenson Project, 77210 Loma Vista Dear Ms. Criste: On behalf of La Quinta resident Joseph McVeigh, we object to the use of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for the proposed residential project at 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates, referred to as the "Swenson Project." This Project includes the construction of an over 6,000 square foot house with a large outdoor pool, spa and patio area on 3.16 acres of steep and rocky hillside land, designated by the City's General Plan for natural open space uses. The Swenson Project would require massive of amounts of excavation and grading of this steep hillside area for the 355 foot long driveway and 13,000 square foot building pad. Additionally, due to the steep location and rocky terrain, the Project would require construction of rockfall and retaining walls along the length of the driveway and several hundred feet of retaining walls adjacent to the building pad. The Swenson Project would result in significant adverse impacts, including: impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep and species of special concern, massive grading of scenic hillside, resulting in highly visible aesthetic impacts; excessive particulate matter and noise levels during constructing; traffic hazards from haul trips; water quality and flooding impacts; destabilizing a hillside; inconsistency with the City's General Plan, the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan and the City's Hillside Ordinance; an ability to cause growth inducing and cumulative impacts; and the inclusion of improperly deferred mitigation measures. Due to these impacts, the City is required to prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project instead of a MND. 438 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 2 of 15 I. The City Failed to Provide Public Notice of the MND to Surrounding Residents. Several residents that own homes within 500 feet of the Project site did not receive notice of the City's intent to adopt a MND for the Swenson Project. We are not aware of any publication of the notice of intent in a newspaper. However, even if the City did publish the notice of intent, it would not have provided adequate notice to residents in a resort community, many of whom are part-time residents. Additionally, the MND was released on December 23, 2015, at a time when many residents are traveling for Christmas and New Year's Day. Publication in a newspaper at this time would not provide adequate notice to the residents that would be impacted by the Swenson Project. We request that the City reissue its notice of intent to adopt a MND and extend the comment period to allow all impacted residents the opportunity to submit comments. II. An EIR is Required. Because issuing an MND truncates the CEQA process with often minimal environmental review, CEQA's "legal standards reflect a preference for requiring an EIR to be prepared." (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 322, 332.) An agency proposing to rely upon an MND must make the analysis accompanying the proposed MND as complete and comprehensive as possible. (Long Beach Savings and Loan Assn. v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 263.) When considering whether to require preparation of a full EIR or allow review culminating in an MND instead, a court will examine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the stated mitigation measures may not achieve the goal of reducing impacts below a level of significance. (Citizen's Com. To Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1157.) If any substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact after the agency's proposed mitigation measures are implemented exists, then preparation of an MND is not appropriate, even if substantial evidence exists to the contrary. (Public Resources Code § 21080(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Friends of `B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, 1002.) An EIR must be prepared instead of a MND when there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "If there is substantial evidence of a 439 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 3 of 15 significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of `B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15064.) "[T]he significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (b).) The development of a single family home that may have minimal impacts in an urban setting could have significant impacts in an aesthetically and biologically sensitive area such as this. Courts show a clear preference for resolving doubts in favor of preparing an EIR. (Architectural Heritage Association. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 1095, 1110; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.AppAth 608, 617-618; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602-03.) Here, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Swenson Project may have numerous significant adverse impacts. III. The MND's Analysis is Inadequate and Inaccurate. The purpose of the initial study, upon which the City's MND relies, is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and "documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) "Where an agency... fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. A. The MND Provides and Incomplete Project Description. The MND fails to give the public a complete picture of the Project, downplaying the extent and impact of the development. The information contained within the MND is to be used as a basis for the decision on what would be the least impactful means for the project to proceed. "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." (McQueen v. 440 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 4 of 15 Board of Directors of the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs ...." (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193.) Here, the MND fails to disclose and analyze the significant landscaping that will be included as part of the Project. The MND also fails to inform decision makers that this Project would be the first of its kind, allowing development at a greater elevation than any other residential development in the City, which will make it visible from a significant distance. The MND inaccurately claims the Project would be adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills when it will actually be constructed on those foothills. The MND also lacks information regarding the full extent of the building pad. The document discusses only the square footage for the residence, it does not analyze the square footage for the large outdoor entertaining area that is proposed as part of the Project. This outdoor area includes a pool, spa, large overlook viewing area and additional outdoor recreation area. The impacts of all aspects of the Project must accurately disclosed and thoroughly analyzed. B. The MND Provides an Inaccurate Description of the Existing Conditions. The "physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published... will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) The California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the longstanding requirement that an agency use the existing environmental conditions to determine the significance of impacts, and recognized a narrow exception to this requirement when using the existing conditions analysis would be misleading. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 CalAth 439, 457.) Here, the MND relies on an inaccurate description of the existing conditions at the Project site as the baseline for environmental analysis. The MND repeatedly references an existing building pad on the Project site. (MND p. 1.) There has never been any approved grading of the site. At some point in time, a previous owner (without any plans or permits) made a path traversing the lower slope to an elevation of 90 feet, but did not grade a building pad. The only relatively flat surface on the site is located at a 90 foot elevation. Such surface has never been graded pursuant to an approved plan or permit. The area around this surface has incurred substantial erosion in recent years. The physical condition of the lot requires substantial excavation, grading, ripping of rock and 441 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 5 of 15 placement of over 800 feet of walls. All of this work will have severe impacts for the hillside, slope and the mountain that must be disclosed in the MND. C. The MND's Analysis of the Project's Impacts is Inadequate 1. The Project Would Have Significant Biological Impacts. a. Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Require a Mandatory Finding of Significance. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance of an impact where a project "has the potential to ... reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065 (a).) Peninsular bighorn sheep have been observed on the Swenson Project site recently and on several occasions. (Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site.) On one of those occasions, in April of 2014, five Peninsular bighorn sheep were observed on the Project site by Mr. McVeigh. The construction of this Project would adversely impact this endangered species by allowing development to intrude further into their habitat, thereby restricting their range. This impact requires a mandatory finding of significance and the preparation of an EIR instead of an MND. b. The MND Fails to Disclose Impacts to Species of Special Concern. The biological survey conducted for the Project site identified numerous species that are expected or were observed on the site. The MND claims that no sensitive species were observed, but this claim is inaccurate. There are several species, or evidence of such species, that were found during the surveys, but were not identified as special status species in the surveys or in the MND, even though the Department of Fish and Wildlife identify them as such. The following special status species were identified in the biological survey: • Rosy Boa, US Forest Service sensitive species • Costa's Hummingbird, US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern • Pallid Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern • Spotted Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern • Hoary Bat, Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority 442 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 6 of 15 • Southern Grasshopper Mouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (See Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016.) Even though not currently listed as threatened or endangered, the impacts to these species of special concern must be studied and mitigated as part of the environmental review process. These species of special concern are not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, but nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, and/or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The MND fails to disclose the Project's impacts to these special status species. C. Wildlife Movement Would Be Restricted by the Project. The installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail. The MND fails to analyze the impacts to wildlife movement that would result from the bifurcation of the Project site by the driveway rockfall walls. 2. The Project Would Have Significant Aesthetic Impacts. "[A]ny substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a "significant" environmental impact under CEQA." (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1604.) According to the California Court of Appeal, lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004 ) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 402.) Expert testimony on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for which personal observations are sufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882.) The analysis of aesthetic impacts for the Swenson Project is inaccurate and incomplete. First, the photo simulations prepared for the Project are misleading. They are taken from very nearby areas, which fail to disclose the visual impacts of the Project from a distance. Located two stories above existing adjacent homes and other residences in La Quinta, the Swenson Project will be highly visible from the adjacent existing homes and from a distance. 443 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 7 of 15 The photo simulations also fail to include renderings of the 350 foot long and up to seven foot high driveway walls that would be included in the Project, as well as the extensive outdoor recreation areas. These walls, and the required 18 foot tall retaining walls, will be incompatible with the desert landscape and with the development below. The magnitude of the planned walls disrupts the continuity of views of the Santa Rosa Mountain range and would deprive the community of the scenic benefits they have enjoyed for many years. This would be the only scar on the scenic mountains which are a prime aesthetic "element" in the City. The use of cast stone and faux rock walls does not mitigate this impact. There are no walls within the developed area (completed areas) of the Mountain Estates that are faced with cast stone. The massive amount of development that would occur as part of the Project would require extensive cuts into the steeply sloped hillside. The grading required for the driveway, wall structures and residence will severely and permanently scar the hillside. The MND must evaluate whether this massive reshaping of the landscape will be visible from nearby hiking trails. Additionally, the MND fails to analyze the off -site impacts of constructing the driveway rockfall walls along the western property line for the site. The footings required for the rockfall walls will require jack -hammering and rock removal on the preserved property adjacent to the Project site. To truly evaluate the visual impacts of the Swenson Project, the City should require the installation of story poles denoting the location and height of the house and walls associated with this Project. This will allow the City to assess the visibility of the Swenson Residence and will enable residents to more accurately comment upon the visual impacts of the project. Further, not only will the Project result in an adverse aesthetic impact from the construction of a large residence, but it will also bring incompatible landscaped vegetation to the desert backdrop. The City of La Quinta has written frequently in various publications about the scenic aspects and related benefits of the Santa Rosa Mountains surrounding and within the City. The plans for the Swenson Project provide for a large quantity of new trees, shrubs and ground cover. Extensive landscaping may be appropriate in non -mountain locations but for this Project it would have a negative impact related to the benefits of the scenic views of the mountain range. A change to a landscaped hillside for the purpose of screening off structures on the hillside would have a significant negative impact. 444 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 8 of 15 3. The MND Underestimates Construction Air Quality Impacts. The MND claims that there only would be 700 cubic yards of fill that would be removed from the site as part of the Project, but does not provide any analysis or evidence to substantiate this figure. This appears to be an underestimation of the amount of fill that would be required to be removed to a depth of at least four feet for the construction of a nearly 6,000 square foot home. It appears this calculation may not include the fill removal that would be required for the 350 foot long driveway and extensive outdoor recreation area. Based on the size of the residence and driveway, and depth of excavation required, a more reasonable estimate of the amount of fill that would be removed from the site is over 1,100 cubic yards. The massive amount of grading required for the project could also result in the release of particulate matter from the fine dirt and sand on the site. The Santa Rosa Cove area of La Quinta is subject to severe windstorms during the year. Significant quantities of dirt and sand will blow on the homes located adjacent to the Project site, including a house within 25 yards of the Project. According to the MND's calculations, the Project is just below the localized significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Once the analysis of construction air quality impacts is revised to include all of the grading that would be required for the Project, it is likely the Swenson Project would exceed these thresholds of significance, which were designed to protect the health of residents living adjacent to construction sites. The excavation of the Project site could also result in health impacts from release of the fungus that causes valley fever. Valley fever is particularly dangerous for persons over age 55, which many of the residents in this area are. The MND fails to analyze this potentially significant impact. 4. The MND Fails to Analyze Haul Trips. As set forth above, the MND underestimates the amount of fill that would need to be removed as part of this Project. Even if 700 cubic yards of fill is accurate, the MND fails to analyze the haul trips that would be required. Assuming a dump truck holds an average of 10 cubic yards of fill, the Project would require at least 70 haul trips. The MND does not include any analysis of the traffic impacts and traffic hazards that would result from this large number of haul trips on narrow residential streets. Additionally, movement of heavy construction equipment and trucks used for export and import of fill will put a burden on the community's streets, which already show numerous cracks in the 445 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 9 of 15 asphalt and excessive wear and tear. 5. The MND's Analysis of Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Is Inadequate. The Swenson Project requires substantial excavation and grading, including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. To flatten the site for the driveway and building pad and to install footings for the hundreds of feet of walls included in the project, large rocks lodged about the site will need to be removed using jackhammers. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which have never before been disturbed. It will also have major noise and ground vibration impacts and could result in rock slide hazards for nearby residents. The MND fails to set a threshold of significance for the construction noise that will be produced by the Project in violation of CEQA. Noise levels at nearby homes could exceed 100 decibels during construction. That is louder than the sound of an airplane taking off. Exposure to such noise levels for more than 15 minutes could result in serious health impacts. (See http://dan,gerousdecibels.org/education/information- center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/, incorporated by reference.) These significant impacts require the preparation of an EIR. Additionally, these significant noise levels would adversely impact the Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species of special concern found on and adjacent to the Project site. The MND is also inadequate because it does not include any analysis of the ground vibrations that would result from the jack -hammering and rock ripping activities that would be required to construct the Project. The nearest home is only 25 yards from the Project. Vibrations from the construction activities could have severe consequences to the foundations, walls and floors of residences contiguous to the Swenson's property. Further, the geotechnical study prepared for the Project proposed that rocks greater than 6 inches that will be removed from the site could be crushed and used as fill. (Geotechnical report p. 21.) The MND fails to disclose or analyze the impacts that would be associated with rock crushing activities if they are employed as part of the Project. 6. The MND Fails to Analyze Operational Noise Impacts. The Swenson Project includes a large outdoor entertainment area, including a pool, spa, and recreation area. Project plans submitted to the Enclave Mountain Estates 446 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 10 of 15 Homeowners Association show that there will be an outdoor television and speakers. The noise from the site would carry because it is located 40 feet above the existing homes. The MND does not include any analysis of whether activities at these outdoor areas would adversely impact adjacent residents. 7. Hydrological Impacts Will Be Significant. As set forth in the attached review of the water quality management plan, prepared by hydrologic experts at SWAPE, the Project would have significant adverse flooding and water quality impacts that are not mitigated. The underground retention system proposed for the Project is inadequate to address flows from the Project site. (Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan.) While the Project applicant has submitted a report to support the proposed retention system, the disagreement between the applicant's expert and experts at SWAPE necessitate the preparation of an EIR to analyze the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (g).) Thus, even if the City's consultants disagree with these assessments, an EIR should be prepared to resolve the disputes. (City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 247-249 [expert disagreement about extent of a wetlands required preparation of EIR to resolve dispute]; Friend of Old Trees v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1398-1403 [expert dispute regarding project's impacts on water supplies required further environmental review].) Additionally, the MND and the hydrology and water quality reports fail to address the significant impacts that resulted under existing conditions during the storms of 2013 and 2014. Substantial flooding occurred at and adjacent to the Project site, causing significant property damage to the homes located near the site. The reports and MND fail to disclose that the Project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions. 8. GeotecbnicalImpacts The Swenson Project could destabilize the hillside, resulting in hazardous conditions for the residents below. The geotechnical report acknowledges the potential for rock fall and other destabilization hazards. The report makes initial recommendations for addressing these impacts after completion of the Project by installing rockfall walls, but does not address mitigation of these hazards during construction when ground shaking from construction material will be greatest. 447 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 11 of 15 This Project would unnecessarily increase hazards to the residents below the site after construction is completed as well. As proposed, the Project would crush a portion of the excavated bedrock and use that along with imported fill as engineered fill on top of which the project would be built. Development constructed on top of man-made fill such as this is more prone to distress from earthquakes than those built on cut areas since fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Earthquakes are common in this area; there was just one felt by residents on January 6, 2016. 9. The Project Would Have Significant Land Use Impacts. a. The Project Is Inconsistent With the General Plan Land Use Designation and Policies. "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) A general plan is the "constitution for future development" and controls over other local land use regulations, including zoning. (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 763, 773.) "[T]he requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (Debottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Ca1.App.3d 1204, 1213.) Here, the Swenson Project would be inconsistent with the land use designation for the site established in the City's General Plan. The Project site is designated for Natural Open Space. "This land use designation is applied to areas of natural open space, whether owned by private parties or public entities. With the exception of trail or trailhead development, little development is permitted in this designation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-5.) The preservation of these areas is particularly important in areas such as the Project site, which is located in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains: The Natural Open Space category applies particularly to lands in the foothills of the mountains that the City has always strived to preserve. These lands provide a backdrop to the development on the Valley floor, and are areas important to biological resource preservation. They provide an important social and economic asset to the City that cannot be undervalued. (General Plan Land Use Element II-21 to 22.) The City's Land Use Element preserves these Natural Open Space designated areas "for the long term, and reasserts the City's commitment to their preservation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-22.) The Open 448 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 12 of 15 Space Element includes Policy 3.1 which requires the City "to the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat." The Project site meets all of these qualifications for maximum preservation. Development of the Project site with a residence would be inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement to preserve this site as open space. (See also General Plan Open Space Goal 3, Policy OS- 1.1, Policy OS-3.3.) b. The Project Is Inconsistent With the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. We disagree with the City's conclusion that the Project site is located within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Based on the map included in this Specific Plan, a designation of Planning Area V is more likely the appropriate designation for the site. The Specific Plan designates Planning Area V as open space and defines it by the areas with slope in excess of 20 percent. The "Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form" submitted by the applicant for this Project describes the site as having a slope of at least 25 percent. Thus, based on both the maps and the slope for the site, a designation of Planning Area V should apply to the Swenson Project site. The development of a house on this site designated for open space would be inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Project is also inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan's policies and goals encouraging preservation of hillside areas because they "contribute to the City's visual, wildlife and archaeological resources." (Specific Plan p. 2.30.) The Specific Plan also requires that building masses not overwhelm the street scene. The Swenson Project, which would be built 40 feet above the existing street, would overwhelm the street scene in violation of this requirement. (Specific Plan p. 2.44.) The Specific Plan states that development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the City's scenic resources and those hillside areas should be maintained as open space. (Specific Plan pp. 4.2, 4.4, 4.5.) The hillsides should also be preserved to protect to prevent impacts to residents and their property from seismic events, flooding and noise. (Specific Plan p. 4.7.) The Specific Plan also requires the City to be protected from the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. (Specific Plan p. 4.5.) 449 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 13 of 15 C. The Project Does Not Comply With the City's Hillside Ordinance. The Project would include massive amounts of grading that will forever change the contours of this highly visible hillside and will develop a large house, with long stretches of retaining and rock walls. All of this is in direct contrast of the intent of the City Hillside Ordinance which provides, among other purposes, the following: • To maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features, including but not limited to mountainsides, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridgecrest, hilltops... rock outcroppings, view corridors and scenic vistas... • To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and cut and fill slopes. • To ensure the building "will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design or location of the developmental use." 10. The Project Would Have Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts. Under section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental review document must discuss "the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." A growth inducing impact may come from a project that removes obstacles to population growth. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d).) An EIR, instead of a MND, is required when a project that viewed by itself seems limited, but that could function as a catalyst for foreseeable future development. (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Ca1.App.3d 1325.) Additionally, when the possible effects of a project are "individually limited but cumulatively considerable" a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment must be made. (Public Resources Code § 21083.) When an unmitigated cumulatively considerable impact is found, an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) Here, the Swenson Project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. It would open the door to more development in this scenic environment, encouraging other development in the mountain/hillside areas of the City. 450 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 14 of 15 IV. The MND Includes Improperly Deferred Mitigation Courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The court in Sundstrom found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id. at 306-308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884.) The mitigation measures for numerous potentially significant effects of this Project are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to Project approval. Preparation of a project specific geotechnical report, grading plans and drainage plans is improperly deferred until after Project approval. Additionally, no information on the design and engineering for the rockfall walls has been provided and will not be prepared until post -approval. Plans and mitigation measures need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document, so that the public and decision makers can evaluate their efficacy before the Project is approved. (Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(2).) Conclusion CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) An MND is appropriate only when, due to the mitigation measures, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, AtMinteer Y 451 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 15 of 15 Cc: Les Johnson, Community Development Director Enclosure: Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016 Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan 452 ATTACHMENT I 453 ATTACHMENT Z 455 f/ pP Fw , California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7�California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) SPECIAL ANIMALS LIST January 2016 456 Recommended Citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. January 2016. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 51 pp. 457 Table of Contents SpecialAnimals.......................................................................................................................................... iv NatureServe Element Ranking.....................................................................................................................v Animal Element Occurrences and Mapping..............................................................................................vii Taxonomic References ..............................................................................................................................viii Listing and Special Status Information....................................................................................................... ix Table of Special Status Code Abbreviations............................................................................................xiii SpecialAnimals List................................................................................................................................. xiv 458 Special Animals (906 taxa) Last updated December 2015 "Special Animals" is a broad term used to refer to all the animal taxa tracked by the Department of Fish and Wildlife's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species". The Special Animals list includes species, subspecies, or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) where at least one of the following conditions applies: - Officially listed or proposed for listing under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; - Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern (SSC); - Taxa which meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. (More information on CEQA is available at: http://resources.ca.gov/cega/guidelines - Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range but not currently threatened with extirpation; - Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range but are threatened with extirpation in California; - Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at a significant rate (e.g. wetlands, riparian, vernal pools, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands, valley shrubland habitats, etc.); - Taxa designated as a special status, sensitive, or declining species by other state or federal agencies, or a non -governmental organization (NGO) and determined by the CNDDB to be rare, restricted, declining, or threatened across their range in California. Taxa marked with a "+" to the left of the scientific name are those for which there is location information in the CNDDB Geographic Information System (GIS), as of the date of this list. Taxa with a "Yes" in the "Notes" column have more information in an end note at the back of the list. Additional information on the CNDDB is available on the Department of Fish and Wildlife web site at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb Additional information on other Department resource management programs is available at- httDS://www.wildlife.ca.aov/Conservation The Species Conservation & Recovery Program has additional information on wildlife habitat, threats, and survey guidelines at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame IV 459 NatureServe Element Ranking All Heritage Programs, such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) use the same ranking methodology, originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and now maintained and recently revised by NatureServe. It includes a Global rank (G-rank), describing the rank for a given taxon over its entire distribution and a State rank (S-rank), describing the rank for the taxon over its state distribution. For subspecies and varieties, there is also a "T" rank describing the global rank for the infraspecific taxon. The next page of this document details the criteria used to assign element ranks, from G1 to G5 for the Global rank and from S1 to S5 for the State rank. Procedurally, state programs such as the CNDDB develop the State ranks. The Global ranks are determined collaboratively among the Heritage Programs for the states/provinces containing the species. NatureServe then checks for consistency and logical errors at the national level. Because the units of conservation may include non -taxonomic biological entities such as populations or ecological communities, NatureServe refers to the targets of biological conservation as elements rather than taxa. An element rank is assigned using standard criteria and rank definitions. This standardization makes the ranks comparable between organisms and across political boundaries. NatureServe has developed a "rank calculator" to help increase repeatability and transparency of the ranking process. The three main categories that are taken into consideration when assigning an element rank are rarity, threats, and trends. Within these three categories, various factors are considered including: Range extent, area of occupancy, population size, total number of occurrences, environmental specificity and number of good occurrences (ranked A or B). Overall threat impact as well as intrinsic vulnerability (if threats are unknown). Long-term and short-term trends. Detailed information on the newest element ranking methodology can be found here: https://connect.natureserve.org/publications/StatusAssess Methodology With the above considerations in mind, refer below for the numerical definitions for G1-5 and S1-5. An element's ranking status may be adjusted up or down depending upon the considerations above. v 460 Element Ranking GLOBAL RANKING The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range. Both Global and State ranks represent a letter and number score that reflects a combination of Rarity, Threat, and Trend factors, with weighting being heavier on Rarity than the other two. SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITY LEVEL G1 = Critically Imperiled —At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = Imperiled —At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = Vulnerable —At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure —Common; widespread and abundant. SUBSPECIES LEVEL Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea. STATE RANKING The state rank (S-rank) is assigned much the same way as the global rank, but state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California's state boundaries. S1 = Critically Imperiled —Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled —Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable —Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S4 = Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare in the state; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure —Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Notes: 1. Other considerations used when ranking a 3. Other symbols: species or natural community include the pattern of distribution of the element on the landscape, GH All sites are historical; the element has fragmentation of the population/stands, and not been seen for at least 20 years, but historical extent as compared to its modern suitable habitat still exists (SH = All range. It is important to take a bird's eye or California sites are historical). aerial view when ranking sensitive elements rather than simply counting element GX All sites are extirpated; this element is occurrences. extinct in the wild (SX = All California sites are extirpated). 2. Uncertainty about the rank of an element is expressed in two major ways: GXC Extinct in the wild; exists in cultivation. By expressing the ranks as a range of values: G1 Q The element is very rare, but there are e.g., S2S3 means the rank is somewhere taxonomic questions associated with it. between S2 and S3. T Rank applies to a subspecies or variety. By adding a "T' to the rank: e.g., S2? This represents more certainty than S2S3, but less certainty than S2. VI 461 Animal Element Occurrences and Mapping What is an Element Occurrence? An Element Occurrence (EO) is a location where the element has been documented to occur. It is a concept developed and applied within the NatureServe natural heritage network. An EO is not a population, but it may indicate that a population is present in that area; and a single population may be represented by more than one EO. An EO is based upon the source documents available to us at the time it was mapped. Both the mapped feature and the text portion of EO's are updated as new information becomes available. Element Occurrence (EO) Definitions vary by taxa: The EO definition refers to the types of information we map. For most animal taxa, the CNDDB is interested in information that indicates the presence of a resident population. However, for many migratory birds the CNDDB tracks detections of nest sites or behaviors indicating reproduction is occurring at the site. Details about avian detections are available in our Submitting Avian Detections document at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting data to cnddb.asp. For other taxa where we track only a certain part of their range or life history, the area or life stage is indicated on the list under the "Comment" column. Mapping Conventions: Our information is mapped to balance precision and uncertainty, based upon the source materials used to determine the location of the element occurrence (EO). Data with precise location information are mapped with 80m radius circles or specific polygons. Data with vague location information are mapped with non-specific circular features or non-specific polygons. Non-specific features indicate that the species was found somewhere within the mapped area, but the exact location was unknown. Generally, observations/collections within 1/4 mile and/or within continuous habitat, are combined into a single element occurrence (EO). vn 462 Taxonomic References Last updated October 2015 Taxonomic References and Sources of Additional Information: The CNDDB follows current published taxonomy for animals as recognized by the scientific organizations listed below. The CNDDB reviews publications that propose new taxonomy and nomenclature for CNDDB-tracked species, and evaluates whether these proposals are recognized and accepted by the larger scientific community. The CNDDB makes every effort to use the best available science in the taxonomy we use, but different experts may recognize different names for some time after a taxonomic change is proposed. In these cases, the CNDDB will generally use the preexisting nomenclature until a change is formally recognized beyond the initial publication. In addition, the CNDDB recognizes some taxa identified by experts on the California fauna where these taxa may not be recognized by national biological societies. We generally follow the taxonomy used by NatureServe, with additional evaluation of taxonomy from the following sources: For reptiles and amphibians: The Center for North American Herpetology (http://www.cnah.org) The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (http://www.ssarherps.org) For fish: Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa -Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp. Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz -Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. For birds: The checklist of the American Ornithologists' Union: http://checklist.aou.org/ For mammals: The American Society of Mammalogists: http://www.mammalsociety.org/publications/mammalian-species Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffman, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, & C. Jones. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/op229.pdf vni 463 Listing and Special Status Information Last updated March, 2015 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES: The listing status of each species is current as of the date of this list. The most current changes in listing status will be found in the "Endangered and Threatened Animals List," which the CNDDB updates and issues quarterly. SE State listed as Endangered ST State listed as Threatened SCE State candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State candidate for listing as Threatened SCD State candidate for delisting FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES: The listing status is current as of the date of this list. The most current changes in listing status will be found in the "Endangered and Threatened Animals List," which the CNDDB updates and issues quarterly. Federal listing actions contained in the Federal Register are also available at: http://www.regulations.gov FE Federally listed as Endangered FT Federally listed as Threatened FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened FPD Federally proposed for delisting FC Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. Five year reviews from the Pacific Southwest Region are available at: http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/recoverV.html OTHER STATUS CODES The status of species on the Special Animals List according to other conservation organizations is provided. Taxa on these lists are reviewed for inclusion in the CNDDB Special Animals List, but are not automatically included. For example, taxa that are regionally rare within a portion of California may not be included, because they may be of lesser conservation concern across their full range in California. American Fisheries Society (AFS): Designations for freshwater and diadromous species were taken from the paper: Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz -Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008Jelks_h001.pdf ix 464 Designations for marine and estuarine species were taken from the paper: Musick, J.A. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. Available at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sawfish/Reprintl390.pdf BLM Sensitive: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual §6840 states that "BLM sensitive species are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as Bureau sensitive by the State Director(s). All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting will be conserved as Bureau sensitive species." The California-BLM Sensitive Animals list is available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wildlife.html CDF Sensitive: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection classifies "sensitive species" as those species that warrant special protection during timber operations. The list of "sensitive species" is given in §895.1 (Definitions) of the California Forest Practice Rules. The 2014 Forest Practice Rules are available at: http://www.calfire.ca.gov/resource mqt/resource mqt forestpractice.php. CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSQ: It is the goal and responsibility of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain viable populations of all native species. To this end, the Department has designated certain vertebrate species as Species of Special Concern because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. The goal of designating species as "Species of Special Concern" is to halt or reverse their decline by calling attention to their plight and addressing the issues of concern early enough to secure their long term viability. Not all "Species of Special Concern" have declined equally; some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a "Threatened" or "Endangered" species under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. More information is available at: https://www.dfq.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/ CDFW Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under the California and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; the exceptions are white-tailed kite, golden eagle, trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal, and ring-tailed cat. The white-tailed kite and the golden eagle are tracked in the CNDDB; the trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal and ring-tailed cat are not. The Fish and Game Code sections dealing with Fully Protected species state that these species "...may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected" species, although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language arguably makes the "Fully Protected" designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the "take" of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with Fully Protected species were amended to allow the Department to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state -listed species. More information on Fully Protected species and the take provisions can be found in the Fish and Game Code, (birds at §3511, mammals at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515). Additional information on Fully x 465 Protected fish can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter 2, Article 4, §5.93. The category of Protected Amphibians and Reptiles in Title 14 has been repealed. The Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations are available online. IUCN - The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): The IUCN assesses, on a global scale, the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties and even selected subpopulations in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and therefore promote their conservation. Detailed information on the IUCN and the Red List is available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org Marine Mammal Commission Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern: Section 202 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to make recommendations to the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies on research and management actions needed to conserve species of marine mammals. To meet this charge, the Commission devotes special attention to particular species and populations that are vulnerable to various types of human -related activities, impacts, and contaminants. Such species may include marine mammals listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, the Commission often directs special attention to other species or populations of marine mammals not so listed whenever special conservation challenges arise that may affect them. More information on the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern list is available at: http://www.mmc.gov/species/welcome.shtml. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI): The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies and private organizations that works to ensure the long-term health North America's native bird populations. They publish an annual State of the Birds report which includes a watch list of bird species in need of conservation help. Species on the list are assigned to either the Red Watch List for species with extremely high vulnerability, or Yellow Watch List for species that may be range restricted or may be more widespread but with declines and high threats. More information is available at: http://stateofthebirds.org. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Species of Concern: The Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is a headquarters program office of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service, or NMFS), under the U.S. Department of Commerce, with responsibility for protecting marine mammals and endangered marine life. NOAA's Office of Protected Resources works to conserve, protect, and recover species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The category "Species of Concern" was established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) effective 15 April 2004. Species of Concern are those species about which NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). "Species of Concern" status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA, but is meant to draw proactive attention and conservation action to these species. More information is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern: The goal of the Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 report is to accurately identify the migratory and non -migratory xi 466 bird species (beyond those already designated as Federally Threatened or Endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. This report is available at: httD://www.fws.aov/miaratorvbirds/currentbirdissues/manaaement/BCC.html U.S. Forest Service Sensitive: USDA Forest Service defines sensitive species as plant and animal species identified by a regional forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Regional Foresters shall identify sensitive species occurring within the region. California is the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). More information is available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals and at: httD://www.fs.usda.aov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelardb5435266.xlsx Western Bat Working Group (WBWG): The WBWG is comprised of agencies, organizations and individuals interested in bat research, management and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. The goals are (1) to facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) to provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) to develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance and encourage education programs. Species are ranked as High, Medium, or Low Priority in each of 10 regions in western North America. Because California includes multiple regions where a species may have different WBWG Priority ranks, the CNNDB includes categories for Medium -High, and Low -Medium Priority. The CNDDB tracks bat species that are at least Low - Medium Priority in California. More information is available at: http://www.wbwg.org. Xerces Society Red List: The Xerces Society is an international non-profit organization dedicated to protecting biological diversity through invertebrate conservation. The Society advocates for invertebrates and their habitats by working with scientists, land managers, educators, and citizens on conservation and education projects. Their core programs focus on endangered species, native pollinators, and watershed health. More information on the Red List is available at: httD://www.xerces.ora. xii 467 Table of Special Status Code Abbreviations Organization Abbreviation American Fisheries Society - Endangered AFS_EN American Fisheries Society - Threatened AFS_TH American Fisheries Society - Vulnerable AFS_VU Bureau of Land Management - Sensitive BLM_S Calif Dept of Forestry & Fire Protection - Sensitive CDF_S Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Fully Protected CDFW_FP Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Species of Special Concern CDFW_SSC Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Watch List CDFW_WL IUCN - Critically Endangered IUCN_CR IUCN - Endangered IUCN EN IUCN - Near Threatened IUCN_NT IUCN - Vulnerable IUCN_VU IUCN - Least Concern IUCN LC IUCN - Data Deficient IUCN_DD IUCN - Conservation Dependent IUCN CD Marine Mammal Commission - Species of Special Concern MMC_SSC National Marine Fisheries Service - Species of Concern NMFS_SC North American Bird Conservation Initiative- Red Watch List NABCI_RWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative- Yellow Watch List NABCI_YWL U. S. Forest Service - Sensitive USFS_S U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern USFWS_BCC Western Bat Working Group - High Priority WBWG H Western Bat Working Group - Medium -High Priority WBWG MH Western Bat Working Group - Medium Priority WBWG M Western Bat Working Group - Low -Medium Priority WBWG LM Xerces Society - Critically Imperiled XERCES_CI Xerces Society - Imperiled XERCES_IM Xerces Society - Vulnerable XERCES_VU Xerces Society - Data Deficient XERCES DD xiii 468 Special Animals List The remainder of this document contains the CNDDB's Special Animals List current as of the date on the title page of this document. For additional information on how CNDDB determines what species to track please see the CNDDB webpage. xiv 469 Species Commen PELECYPODA (clams and mussels) +Anodonta californiensis California floater Anodonta oregonensis Oregon floater +Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel +Margaritifera falcata western pearlshell +Pisidium ultramontanum montane peaclam GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) Algamorda newcombiana Newcomb's littorine snail +Ammonitella yatesii tight coin (=Yates' snail) +Ancotrema voyanum hooded lancetooth +Assiminea infima Badwater snail +Binneya notabilis Santa Barbara shelled slug +Colligyrus convexus canary duskysnail +Eremarionta immaculata white desertsnail Eremarionta millepalmarum Thousand Palms desertsnail +Eremarionta morongoana Morongo (=Colorado) desertsnail +Eremarionta rowelli bakerensis Baker's desertsnail +Eremarionta rowelli mccoiana California Mccoy snail +Fluminicola seminalis nugget pebblesnail +Fontelicella sp. Deep Springs fontelicella Glyptostoma gabrielense San Gabriel chestnut Haliotis corrugata pink abalone +Haliotis cracherodii black abalone Haliotis fulgens green abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana pinto abalone Haliotis sorenseni white abalone +Haplotrema catalinense Santa Catalina lancetooth +Haplotrema duranti ribbed lancetooth +Helisoma newberryi Great Basin rams -horn +Helminthoglypta allynsmithi Merced Canyon shoulderband +Helminthoglypta arrosa monticola mountain shoulderband Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G3Q S2? None None G5Q S2? None None G3 S1S2 None None G4G5S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G1G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G1 S1 G1G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G1 S1 G1G3 S1 G3G4T1 S1 G3G4T1 S1 G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G2 S2 GY S2? G3 S1S2 G3G4 S2 G3G4 S2 G1 S1 G1 S1 G1G2 S1S2 G1Q S1 G1 S1 G2G3T1 S1 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Endangered None None None None None Endangered None None None None None None None None None None None USFS:S IUCN:VU USFS:S IUCN:VU BLM:S IUCN:VU IUCN:DD IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:NT IUCN:DD IUCN:DD USFS:S NMFS:SC IUCN:CR NMFS:SC IUCN:EN NMFS:SC USFS:S IUCN:VU 470 Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Helminthoglypta arrosa pomoensis Pomo bronze shoulderband +Helminthoglypta ayresiana sanctaecrucis Ayer's snail +Helminthoglypta callistoderma Kern shoulderband +Helminthoglypta coelata mesa shoulderband +Helminthoglypta concolor whitefir shoulderband Helminthoglypta fontiphila Soledad shoulderband +Helminthoglypta hertleini Oregon shoulderband +Helminthoglypta milleri peak shoulderband +Helminthoglypta mohaveana Victorville shoulderband +Helminthoglypta nickliniana awania Peninsula coast range shoulderband +Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Bridges' coast range shoulderband +Helminthoglypta sequoicola consors redwood shoulderband +Helminthoglypta stiversiana williamsi Williams' bronze shoulderband +Helminthoglypta talmadgei Trinity shoulderband +Helminthoglypta taylori westfork shoulderband Helminthoglypta traskii pacoimensis Pacoima shoulderband +Helminthoglypta traskii traskii Trask shoulderband Helminthoglypta uvasana Grapevine shoulderband Helminthoglypta vasquezi Vasquez shoulderband +Helminthoglypta walkeriana Morro shoulderband (=banded dune) snail Herpeteros angelus Soledad desertsnail +Hesperarion plumbeus leaden slug +lpnobius robustus robust tryonia +Juga acutifilosa topazjuga +Juga chacei Chacejuga +Juga occata scalloped juga +Juga orickensis redwood juga Lanx alta highcap lanx Lanx klamathensis scale lanx Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G2G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:EN G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None BLM:S G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:NT G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G2T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G2G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G2 S2 None None BLM:S G1 S1 None None G1G2T1 S1 None None G1G2T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None IUCN:CR G1 S1 None None G1G3 S1S3 None None G1G2 S1 None None G2 S2 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None USFS:S G2 S1S2 None None G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None 471 Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Lanx patelloides kneecaplanx +Megomphix californicus Natural Bridge megomphix +Micrarionta facta Santa Barbara islandsnail +Micrarionta feralis San Nicolas islandsnail +Micrarionta gabbi San Clemente islandsnail +Micrarionta opuntia pricklypear islandsnail +Monadenia callipeplus downy sideband +Monadenia chaceana Siskiyou shoulderband +Monadenia churchi Klamath sideband +Monadenia circumcarinate keeled sideband +Monadenia cristulata crested sideband +Monadenia fidelis leonina A terrestrial snail +Monadenia fidelis pronotis rocky coast Pacific sideband +Monadenia infumata ochromphalus yellow -based sideband +Monadenia infumata setosa Trinity bristle snail Monadenia marmarotis marble sideband +Monadenia mormonum buttoni Button's Sierra sideband +Monadenia mormonum hirsuta hirsute Sierra sideband +Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes Shasta sideband Monadenia troglodytes wintu Wintu sideband +Monadenia tuolumneana Tuolumne sideband +Monadenia yosemitensis Yosemite Mariposa sideband +Noyo intersessa Ten Mile shoulderband +Pomatiopsis binneyi robust walker Pomatiopsis californica Pacific walker Pomatiopsis chacei marsh walker +Pristiloma shepardae Shepard's snail +Pristinicola hemphilli pristine pyrg Prophysaon coeruleum Blue -gray taildropper slug Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA G2 S2 None G1G2 S1S2 None G1G2 S1S2 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1G2 S1S2 None G2G3S2 None G2G3S2 None G1 S1 None G1G2 S1S2 None G4G5T1T2 S1S2 None G4G5T1 S1 None G2T1 S1 None G2T2 S2 None G1 S1 None G2T1 S1 None G2T1 S1 None G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G2 S2 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G3 S1 None G3G4 S1S2 None CESA Other Status Notes None USFS:S None None IUCN:VU None IUCN:CR None IUCN:VU None IUCN:VU None None BLM:S None None BLM:S IUCN:VU None None None None Threatened IUCN:VU None None None BLM:S None IUCN:DD USFS:S None IUCN:DD USFS:S None BLM:S None None None None None None None USFS:S None Yes 472 Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Punctum hannai Trinity Spot +Pyrgulopsis aardahli Benton Valley (=Aahrdahl's) springsnail +Pyrgulopsis archimedis Archimedes pyrg +Pyrgulopsis cinerana Ash Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis diablensis Diablo Range pyrg +Pyrgulopsis eremica Smoke Creek pyrg +Pyrgulopsis falciglans Likely pyrg +Pyrgulopsis gibba Surprise Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis greggi Kern River pyrg +Pyrgulopsis lasseni Willow Creek pyrg +Pyrgulopsis longae Long Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis owensensis Owens Valley springsnail +Pyrgulopsis perturbata Fish Slough springsnail +Pyrgulopsis rupinicola Sucker Springs pyrg +Pyrgulopsis taylori San Luis Obispo pyrg +Pyrgulopsis ventricosa Clear Lake pyrg +Pyrgulopsis wongi Wong's springsnail +Radiocentrum avalonense Catalina mountainsnail +Rothelix warnerfontis Warner Springs shoulderband +Sterkia clementina San Clemente Island blunt -top snail +Trilobopsis roperi Shasta chaparral +Trilobopsis tehamana Tehama chaparral +Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) +Tryonia margae Grapevine Springs elongate tryonia +Tryonia rowlandsi Grapevine Springs squat tryonia +Vespericola karokorum Karok hesperian +Vespericola marinensis Marin hesperian +Vespericola pressleyi Big Bar hesperian Vespericola scotti Benson Gulch hesperian Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G3 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU G1G2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR G2 S2 None None IUCN:LC USFS:S G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR G1 S1 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None IUCN:NT G1 S1 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None BLM:S USFS:S G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None BLM:S USFS:S G1 S1 None None 473 Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Vespericola shasta Shasta hesperian +Vespericola sierranus Siskiyou hesperian +Xerarionta intercisa horseshoe snail +Xerarionta redimita wreathed cactussnail Xerarionta tryoni Bicolor cactussnail ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) +Aphrastochthonius grubbsi Grubbs' Cave pseudoscorpion Aphrastochthonius similis Carlow's Cave pseudoscorpion Archeolarca aalbui Aalbu's Cave pseudoscorpion +Banksula californica Alabaster Cave harvestman +Banksula galilei Galile's cave harvestman +Banksula grubbsi Grubbs' cave harvestman +Banksula incredula incredible harvestman +Banksula martinorum Martins' cave harvestman +Banksula melones Melones Cave harvestman +Banksula rudolphi Rudolph's cave harvestman +Banksula tuolumne Tuolumne cave harvestman +Banksula tutankhamen King Tut Cave harvestman +Calicina arida San Benito harvestman +Calicina breva Stanislaus harvestman +Calicina cloughensis Clough Cave harvestman +Calicina conifera Crane Flat harvestman +Calicina diminua Marin blind harvestman +Calicina dimorphica Watts Valley harvestman +Calicina macula marbled harvestman +Calicina mesaensis Table Mountain harvestman +Calicina minor Edgewood blind harvestman +Calicina piedra Piedra harvestman +Calileptoneta briggsi Briggs' leptonetid spider +Calileptoneta oasa Andreas Canyon leptonetid spider Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA G1 S1 None None G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None GH SH None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None Other Status Notes USFS:S IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:VU 474 Species Commen ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) +Calileptoneta ubicki Ubick's leptonetid spider +Calileptoneta wapiti Mendocino leptonetid spider +Fissilicreagris imperialis Empire Cave pseudoscorpion +Hubbardia idria Idria short -tailed whipscorpion +Hubbardia secoensis Arroyo Seco short -tailed whipscorpion +Hubbardia shoshonensis Shoshone Cave whip -scorpion +Larca laceyi Lacey's Cave pseudoscorpion +Meta dolloff Dolloff Cave spider +Microcina edgewoodensis Edgewood Park micro -blind harvestman +Microcina homi Hom's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina jungi Jung's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina leei Lee's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina lumi Lum's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina tiburona Tiburon micro -blind harvestman +Neochthonius imperialis Empire Cave pseudoscorpion +Pseudogarypus orpheus Music Hall Cave pseudoscorpion +Socalchemmis gertschi Gertsch's socalchemmis spider +Socalchemmis icenoglei Icenogle's socalchemmis spider +Socalchemmis monterey Monterey socalchemmis spider +Talanites moodyae Moody's gnaphosid spider +Talanites ubicki Ubick's gnaphosid spider Telema sp. Santa Cruz telemid spider Texella deserticola Whitewater Canyon harvestman +Texella kokoweef Kokoweef Crystal Cave harvestman +Texella shoshone Shoshone Cave harvestman CRUSTACEA, Order Anostraca (fairy shrimp) +Artemia monica Mono Lake brine shrimp +Branchinecta campestris pocket pouch fairy shrimp +Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3 S3 None None G2 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None I 1 [01011 W0 BLM:S IUCN:VU 11141►ay07 IUCN:EN Yes 475 Species Commen CRUSTACEA, Order Anostraca (fairy shrimp) +Branchinecta longiantenna longhorn fairy shrimp +Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp +Branchinecta mesovallensis midvalley fairy shrimp +Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp +Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella +Linderiella santarosae Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp +Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp CRUSTACEA, Order Notostraca (tadpole shrimp) +Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp CRUSTACEA, Order Anomopoda (water fleas) +Dumontia oregonensis hairy water flea CRUSTACEA, Order Isopoda (isopods) +Bowmanasellus sequoiae Sequoia cave isopod +Caecidotea tomalensis Tomales isopod +Calasellus californicus Anisopod +Calasellus longus Anisopod CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphipods) +Hyalella muerta Texas Spring amphipod +Hyalella sandra Death Valley amphipod +Stygobromus cherylae Barr's amphipod Stygobromus cowani Cowan's amphipod Stygobromus gallawayae Gallaway's amphipod +Stygobromus gradyi Grady's Cave amphipod Stygobromus grahami Graham's Cave amphipod +Stygobromus harai Hara's Cave amphipod Stygobromus hyporheicus Hypoheic amphipod Stygobromus imperialis Empire Cave amphipod +Stygobromus lacicolus Lake Tahoe amphipod +Stygobromus mackenziei Mackenzie's Cave amphipod Stygobromus myersae Myer's amphipod Stygobromus mysticus Secret Cave amphipod Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA G1 S1 Endangered None G3 S3 Threatened None G2 S2 None None G2 S2 Endangered None G2G3 S2S3 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 Endangered None G3 S2S3 Endangered None G1G3 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None Other Status Notes IUCN:EN IUCN:VU IUCN:EN IUCN:NT IUCN:EN IUCN:EN IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:VU Yes Yes 476 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphipods) Stygobromus rudolphi G1 S1 Rudolph's amphipod Stygobromus sheldoni G1 S1 Sheldon's amphipod Stygobromus sierrensis G1 S1 Sierra amphipod +Stygobromus tahoensis G1 S1 Lake Tahoe stygobromid Stygobromus trinus G1 S1 Trinity County amphipod +Stygobromus wengerorum G1 S1 Wengerors' Cave amphipod CRUSTACEA, Order Decapoda (crayfish & shrimp) +Pacifastacus fortis G1 S1 Shasta crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus klamathensis G5T5 S3 Klamath crayfish +Syncaris pacifica G1 S1 California freshwater shrimp INSECTA, Order Odonata (dragonflies & damselflies) +Ischnura gemina G2 S2 San Francisco forktail damselfly INSECTA, Order Plecoptera (stoneflies) +Capnia lacustra G1 S1 Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly +Cosumnoperla hypocrena G2 S2 Cosumnes stripetail +Megaleuctra sierra G2Q S1? Shirttail Creek stonefly INSECTA, Order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets) +Aglaothorax longipennis G1 G2 S 1 S2 Santa Monica shieldback katydid +Ammopelmatus kelsoensis G 1 G2 S1S2 Kelso jerusalem cricket +Ammopelmatus muwu G1 S1 Point Conception jerusalem cricket +Idiostatus kathleenae G1G2 S1S2 Pinnacles shieldback katydid +Idiostatus middlekauffi G1 G2 S1 Middlekauffs shieldback katydid Macrobaenetes algodonensis G1G2 S 1 S2 Algodones sand treader cricket +Macrobaenetes kelsoensis G2 S2 Kelso giant sand treader cricket +Macrobaenetes valgum G1G2 S1S2 Coachella giant sand treader cricket Pristoceuthophilus sp. G1G3 S1S3 Samwell Cave cricket +Psychomastax deserticola G1G2 S1S2 desert monkey grasshopper +Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis G1G2 S1S2 Coachella Valley jerusalem cricket +Tetrix sierrana G1G2 S1S2 Sierra pygmy grasshopper +Trimerotropis infantilis G1 S1 Zayante band -winged grasshopper +Trimerotropis occidentiloides G1G2 S1S2 Santa Monica grasshopper None None None None CESA Other Status Notes None None None None None None None None IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:CR None None Endangered Endangered IUCN:EN None None IUCN:VU None None None None None None None None IUCN:CR None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None None None IUCN:CR None None None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU Endangered None IUCN:EN None None IUCN:EN 477 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets) +Trimerotropisocculens G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:EN Lompoc grasshopper INSECTA, Order Heteroptera (true bugs) +Ambrysus funebris G1 S1 Candidate None Nevares Spring naucorid bug +Belostoma saratogae G1 S1 None None Saratoga Springs belostoman bug +Oravelia pege G1 S1 None None Dry Creek cliff strider bug +Pelocoris shoshone G1G3 S1S2 None None Amargosa naucorid bug +Saldula usingeri G1 S1 None None Wilbur Springs shorebug INSECTA, Order Neuroptera (lacewings) +Oliarces clara G1G3 S2 None None cheeseweed owlfly (cheeseweed moth lacewing) INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) +Aegialia concinna G1 S1 None None BLM:S Ciervo aegilian scarab beetle IUCN:VU +Agabus rumppi G1G3 S1 None None Death Valley agabus diving beetle Agrilusharenus G1G2S1S2 None None Harenus jewel beetle +Anomala carlsoni G1 S1 None None Carlson's dune beetle +Anomala hardyorum G1 S1 None None Hardy's dune beetle +Anthicus antiochensis G1 S1 None None Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle +Anthicus sacramento G1 S1 None None IUCN:EN Sacramento anthicid beetle +Atractelmis wawona G1G3 S1S2 None None Wawona riffle beetle +Chaetarthria leechi G1? S1? None None Leech's chaetarthrian water scavenger beetle +Cicindela gabbii G2G4 S1 None None western tidal -flat tiger beetle +Cicindela hirticollis abrupta GSTH SH None None Sacramento Valley tiger beetle +Cicindela hirticollis gravida G5T2 S1 None None sandy beach tiger beetle +Cicindela latesignata latesignata G2G4T1T2 S1 None None western beach tiger beetle +Cicindela ohlone G1 S1 Endangered None Ohlone tiger beetle +Cicindela senilis frosti G2G3T1T3 S1 None None senile tiger beetle +Cicindela tranquebarica ssp. G5T1 S1 None None San Joaquin tiger beetle +Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima G5T1 S1 None None greenest tiger beetle +Coelusglobosus G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:VU globose dune beetle +Coelus gracilis G1 S1 None None BLM:S San Joaquin dune beetle IUCN:VU 478 Species Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Comment Rank ESA CESA INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) Coenonycha clementina G1? S1? None None San Clemente Island coenonycha beetle Cyclocephala wandae G1G2 S1S2 None None Wandae dune beetle Deltaspis ivae G1 S1 None None marsh -elder long -horned beetle +Desmocerus californicus dimorphus G3T2 S2 Threatened None valley elderberry longhorn beetle +Dinacoma caseyi G1 S1 Endangered None Casey's June beetle +Dubiraphia brunnescens G1 S1 None None brownish dubiraphian riffle beetle +Dubiraphia giulianii G1G3 S1S3 None None Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle +Elaphrus viridis G1 S1 Threatened None Delta green ground beetle +Glaresis arenata G2 S2 None None Kelso Dunes scarab glaresis beetle +Hydrochara rickseckeri G2? S2? None None Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle +Hydroporus leechi G1? S1? None None Leech's skyline diving beetle +Hydroporus simplex G1? S1? None None simple hydroporus diving beetle +Hygrotus curvipes G1 S1 None None curved -foot hygrotus diving beetle +Hygrotus fontinalis G1 S1 None None travertine band -thigh diving beetle Juniperella mirabilis G1 S1 None None juniper metallic wood -boring beetle +Lepismadora agodones G1 S1 None None Algodones sand jewel beetle +Lichnanthe albipilosa G1 S1 None None white sand bear scarab beetle +Lichnanthe ursina G2 S2 None None bumblebee scarab beetle +Lytta hoppingi G1G2 S1S2 None None Hopping's blister beetle Lytta insperata G1G2 S1S2 None None Mojave Desert blister beetle +Lytta moesta G2 S2 None None moestan blister beetle +Lytta molesta G2 S2 None None molestan blister beetle +Lytta morrisoni G1G2 S1S2 None None Morrison's blister beetle +Microcylloepus formicoideus G1 S1 None None Furnace Creek riffle beetle +Miloderes nelsoni G2 S2 None None Nelson's miloderes weevil +Nebria darlingtoni G1 S1 None None South Forks ground beetle +Nebria gebleri siskiyouensis G4G5T4 S1S2 None None Siskiyou ground beetle +Nebria sahlbergii triad G1T1 S1 None None Trinity Alps ground beetle Ochthebius crassalus G1G3 S1S3 None None wing shoulder minute moss beetle Other Status Notes IUCN:CR 479 Species Commen INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) +Ochthebius recticulus Wilbur Springs minute moss beetle +Onychobaris langei Lange's El Segundo Dune weevil +Optioservus canus Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle Paleoxenus dohrni Dohrn's elegant eucnemid beetle +Polyphylla anteronivea Saline Valley snow -front June beetle +Polyphylla barbata Mount Hermon (=barbate) June beetle +Polyphylla erratica Death Valley June beetle +Polyphylla nubila Atascadero June beetle Prasinalia imperialis Algodones white wax jewel beetle +Pseudocotalpa andrewsi Andrew's dune scarab beetle Scaphinotus behrensi Behrens' snail -eating beetle +Trachykele hartmani serpentine cypress wood -boring beetle Trichinorhipis knulli Knull's metallic wood -boring beetle +Trigonoscuta brunnotesselata brown tassel trigonoscuta weevil +Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea Dorothy's El Segundo Dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi agodones Algodones dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis Imperial dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi punctata Punctate dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi rothi Roth's dune weevil +Trigonoscuta sp. Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil +Trigonoscuta stantoni Santa Cruz Island shore weevil +Vandykea tuberculata serpentine cypress long -horned beetle INSECTA, Order Mecoptera (scorpionflies) +Orobittacus obscurus gold rush hanging scorpionfly INSECTA, Order Diptera (flies) +Ablautus schlingeri Oso Flaco robber fly Apiocera warneri Glamis sand fly +Brennania belkini Belkin's dune tabanid fly +Efferia antiochi Antioch efferian robberfly Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3? S3? None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G2G4 S2S4 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1T1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1Q S1 None None G1? S1? None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Yes 480 Species Commen INSECTA, Order Diptera (flies) Efferia macroxipha Glamis robberfly +Metapogon hurdi Hurd's metapogon robberfly +Paracoenia calida Wilbur Springs shore fly +Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower -loving fly +Rhaphiomidas terminatus terminatus El Segundo flower -loving fly Rhaphiomidas trochilus Valley mydas fly INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) +Adela oplerella Opler's longhorn moth +Apodemia mormo langei Lange's metalmark butterfly +Areniscythris brachypteris Oso Flaco flightless moth Callophrys comstocki desert green hairstreak +Callophrys mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly +Callophrys mossii hidakupa San Gabriel Mountains elfin butterfly +Callophrys mossii marinensis Marin elfin butterfly +Callophrys thornei Thorne's hairstreak +Carolella busckana Busck's gallmoth +Carterocephalus palaemon magnus Sonoma arctic skipper Cercyonis pegala carsonensis Carson Valley wood nymph +Chlosyne leanira elegans Oso Flaco patch butterfly +Coenonympha tullia yontockett Yontocket satyr +Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population +Euchloe hyantis andrewsi Andrew's marble butterfly +Eucosma hennei Henne's eucosman moth +Euphilotes battoides allyni El Segundo blue butterfly +Euphilotes battoides comstocki Comstock's blue butterfly Euphilotes baueri Bauer's dotted -blue +Euphilotes enoptes smithi Smith's blue butterfly Euphilotes mojave Mojave dotted -blue +Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G3 S1S3 None None G1 S1 None None G1T1 S1 Endangered None G1T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G1 S1 None None G3G4 S1S2 None None XERCES:IM G4T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G4T1T2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G4T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None BLM:S G1G3SH None None G5T5 S1 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 None None G4G5T1T2 S1S2 None None G5T1T2 S1 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 None None USFS:S G3G4T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S2 None None G2G4 S1S2 None None USFS:S XERCES:IM G5T1T2 S1S2 Endangered None XERCES:CI G2G3 S1S2 None None XERCES:IM G5T1 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Yes 481 Species Commen INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) +Euphydryas editha monoensis Mono checkerspot butterfly +Euphydryas editha quino quino checkerspot butterfly Euphyes vestris harbisoni dun skipper +Euproserpinus euterpe Kern primrose sphinx moth +Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Palos Verdes blue butterfly +Hesperia miriamae longaevicola White Mountains skipper Hesperopsis gracielae Macneill's sootywing +Lycaena hermes Hermes copper butterfly Lycaena rubidus incana White Mountains copper +Panoquina errans wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper +Philotiella speciosa bohartorum Boharts' blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides albihalos White Mountains icarioides blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides missionensis Mission blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides moroensis Morro Bay blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides parapheres Point Reyes blue butterfly +Plebejus idas lotis lotis blue butterfly +Plebejus saepiolus albomontanus White Mountains saepiolus blue butterfly +Plebejus saepiolus aureolus San Gabriel Mountains blue butterfly +Plebulina emigdionis San Emigdio blue butterfly +Polites mardon mardon skipper Polites sabuleti albamontana White Mountains sandhill skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus alkali skipper +Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Carson wandering skipper +Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Laguna Mountains skipper +Speyeria adiaste adiaste unsilvered fritillary +Speyeria callippe callippe callippe silverspot butterfly +Speyeria egleis tehachapina Tehachapi Mountain silverspot butterfly +Speyeria nokomis carsonensis Carson Valley silverspot Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T2T3 S1S2 None None USFS:S G5T1T2 S1S2 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T1 S1? None None G1G2 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G2G3T1 S1 None None G2G3 S1S2 None None XERCES:VU G1 S1 Candidate None IUCN:VU USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None G4G5 S2 None None IUCN:NT G3G4T1 S1 None None G5T2T3 S2? None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S2 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 None None GSTH SH Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S1S2 None None G5T1 S1 None None USFS:S G1G2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G2G3 S1 None None USFS:S XERCES:IM G5T2 S2 None None G3G4T2 S2 None None G3G4T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G1G2T1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S2 None None USFS:S G3T1 S1 None None Yes 482 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) +Speyeria zerene behrensii G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Behren's silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene hippolyta G5T1 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Oregon silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene myrtleae G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Myrtle's silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene sonomensis G5T1 S1 None None Sonoma zerene fritillary INSECTA, Order Trichoptera (caddisflies) +Cryptochia denningi G1G2 S1S2 None None Denning's cryptic caddisfly +Cryptochia excella G1G2 S1S2 None None Kings Canyon cryptochian caddisfly +Cryptochia shasta G1G2 S1S2 None None confusion caddisfly +Desmona bethula G2G3 S2S3 None None amphibious caddisfly +Diplectrona californica G1G2 S1S2 None None California diplectronan caddisfly +Ecclisomyia bilera G1G2 S1S2 None None Kings Creek ecclysomyian caddisfly +Farula praelonga G1G2 S1S2 None None long-tailed caddisfly +Goeracea oregona G3 S1S2 None None Sagehen Creek goeracean caddisfly +Lepidostoma ermanae G1G2 S1S2 None None Cold Spring caddisfly +Limnephilus atercus G3G4 S1 None None Fort Dick limnephilus caddisfly +Neothremma genella G1G2 S1S2 None None golden -horned caddisfly Neothremma siskiyou G1G2 S1S2 None None Siskiyou caddisfly +Parapsyche extensa GH SH None None King's Creek parapsyche caddisfly +Rhyacophila lineata G1G3 S1S2 None None Castle Crags rhyacophilan caddisfly +Rhyacophila mosana G1G2Q S1S2 None None bilobed rhyacophilan caddisfly +Rhyacophila spinata G1G2 S1S2 None None spiny rhyacophilan caddisfly INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Andrena blennospermatis G2 S2 None None Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee +Andrena macswaini G2 S2 None None An andrenid bee +Andrena subapasta G1G2 S1S2 None None an andrenid bee +Argochrysis lassenae G1 S1 None None Lassen cuckoo wasp +Ashmeadiella chumashae G2? S2? None None Channel Islands leaf -cutter bee +Bombus caliginosus G4? S1S2 None None IUCN:VU obscure bumble bee +Bombus crotchii G3G4 S1S2 None None Crotch bumble bee +Bombus franklini G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR Franklin's bumble bee XERCES:CI Yes 483 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Bombusmorrisoni G4G5S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Morrison bumble bee +Bombus occidentalis G2G3 S1 None None USFS:S western bumble bee XERCES:IM +Bombus suckleyi GU S1 None None Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee +Ceratochrysis bradleyi G1 S1 None None Bradley's cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis gracilis G1 S1 None None Piute Mountains cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis longimala G1 S1 None None Desert cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis menkei G1 S1 None None Menke's cuckoo wasp +Chrysis tularensis G1G2 S1S2 None None Tulare cuckoo wasp Clepteshumboldti G1G2S1S2 None None Humboldt cuckoo wasp +Dufourea stagei G1G2 S1? None None Stage's dufourine bee +Eucerceris ruficeps G1G3 S1S2 None None redheaded sphecid wasp Euparagia unidentata G1G2 S1S2 None None Algodones euparagia Habropoda pallida G1G2 S1S2 None None white faced bee +Halictus harmonius G1 S1 None None XERCES:CI haromonius halictid bee +Hedychridium argenteum G1? S1? None None Riverside cuckoo wasp +Hedychridium milleri G1? S1? None None Borax Lake cuckoo wasp +Lasioglossum channelense G1 S1 None None Channel Island sweat bee +Melitta californica G4? S2? None None California mellitid bee Microbembexelegans G1G2S1S2 None None Algodones elegant sand wasp +Minymischa ventura GU SU None None Ventura cuckoo wasp +Myrmosula pacifica GH SH None None Antioch multilid wasp Neolarra alba GH SH None None white cuckoo bee +Paranomada californica G1 S1 None None California cuckoo bee +Parnopes borregoensis G1? S1? None None Borrego parnopes cuckoo wasp Perdita agodones G1G2 S1S2 None None Algodones perdita Perdita frontalis G1G2 S1S2 None None Imperial Perdita Perdita glamis G1G2 S1S2 None None Glamis perdita +Perdita scitula antiochensis G1T1 S1 None None Antioch andrenid bee +Philanthus nasa/is G1 S1 None None Antioch specid wasp 484 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Protodufourea wasbaueri Wasbauer's protodufourea bee +Protodufourea zavortinki Zavortink's protodufourea bee +Rhopalolemma robertsi Roberts' rhopalolemma bee Sedomaya glamisensis Glamis night tiphiid Sphaeropthalma ecarinata Glamis night mutillid +Sphecodogastra antiochensis Antioch Dunes halcitid bee Stictiella villegasi Algodones sand wasp +Trachusa gummifera San Francisco Bay Area leaf -cutter bee G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None XERCES:DD XERCES:CI 485 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes PETROMYZONTIDAE (lampreys) +Entosphenushubbsi G1G2S1S2 None None AFS:TH Kern brook lamprey CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S Entosphenus lethophagus G3G4 S3 None None AFS:VU Pit -Klamath brook lamprey Entosphenus similis G3G4Q S3 None None AFS:TH Klamath River lamprey CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Entosphenus tridentatus G4 S4 None None AFS:VU Pacific lamprey BLM:S CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Entosphenus tridentatus ssp. 1 G4T1 S1 None None AFS:VU Goose Lake lamprey CDFW:SSC USFS:S Lampetra ayresii G4 S3 None None AFS:VU river lamprey CDFW:SSC ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeon) +Acipensermedirostris (southern DPS) G3 S1S2 Threatened None AFS:VU Yes green sturgeon CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NMFS:SC Acipenser transmontanus G4 S2 None None AFS:EN white sturgeon CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) +Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii G4T4 S3 None None AFS:VU coast cutthroat trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi G4T3 S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Lahontan cutthroat trout +Oncorhynchus clarkii seleniris G4T1T2S1S2 Threatened None AFS:EN Paiute cutthroat trout +Oncorhynchus gorbuscha G5 S1 None None pink salmon Oncorhynchus keta G5 S1 None None chum salmon +Oncorhynchus kisutch G4T2Q S2? Threatened Threatened AFS:TH Yes coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU +Oncorhynchus kisutch G4 S2? Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Yes coho salmon - central California coast ESU +Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita G5T1 S1 None None AFS:TH Volcano Creek golden trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum G5T1 Q S1 None None AFS:TH Eagle Lake rainbow trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti G5T1 Q S1 None None AFS:TH Kern River rainbow trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T3Q S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes steelhead - Klamath Mountains USFS:S Province DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T2T3Q S2S3 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes steelhead - central California coast DPS 486 Species SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - south-central California coast DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - southern California DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - Central Valley DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - northern California DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus summer -run steelhead trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 1 Goose Lake redband trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 2 McCloud River redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 3 Warner Valley redband trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei Little Kern golden trout +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU. +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - Central Valley spring -run ESU +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - Sacramento River winter -run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - Central Valley fall / late fall -run ESU +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - California coastal ESU Prosopium williamsoni mountain whitefish +Salvelinus confluentus bull trout OSMERIDAE (smelt) +Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt +Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt +Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) +Gila coerulea blue chub +Gila elegans bonytail +Gila orcuttii arroyo chub +Lavinia exilicauda chi Clear Lake hitch Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda Sacramento hitch Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T2Q S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5T1Q S1 Endangered None AFS:EN Yes G5T2Q S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5T2T3Q S2S3 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5T4Q S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes G5T2Q S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T1T2Q S1 S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T2Q S1? None None AFS:VU USFS:S G5T2 S2 Threatened None AFS:EN G5 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5 S1 Threatened Threatened AFS:TH Yes G5 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN G5 S2? None None AFS:VU Yes CDFW:SSC NMFS:SC USFS:S G5 S1 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4 SX Threatened Endangered IUCN:VU G1 S1 Threatened Endangered AFS:TH IUCN:EN G5 S1 Candidate Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes (southern DPS) G5 S3 Threatened None G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G1 SH Endangered Endangered AFS:EN IUCN:EN G2 S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G4T1 S1 None Threatened AFS:VU USFS:S G4T2T4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC 487 Species CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) Lavinia exilicauda harengus Pajaro/Salinas hitch +Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus Pit roach +Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis Navarro roach +Lavinia symmetricus parvipinnis Gualala roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1 San Joaquin roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 2 Tomales roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 3 Red Hills roach Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 4 Clear Lake - Russian River roach Lavinia symmetricus subditus Monterey roach +Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead +Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Sacramento splittail +Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado pikeminnow +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 Amargosa Canyon speckled dace +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 2 Owens speckled dace +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 5 Long Valley speckled dace +Siphateles bicolor mohavensis Mohave tui chub Siphateles bicolor pectinifer Lahontan Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor snyderi Owens tui chub +Siphateles bicolor ssp. 1 Eagle Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor ssp. 2 High Rock Spring tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 3 Pit River tui chub +Siphateles bicolor thalassina Goose Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor vaccaceps Cow Head tui chub CATOSTOMIDAE (suckers) +Catostomus fumeiventris Owens sucker +Catostomus latipinnis flannelmouth sucker Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G4T2T4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC G4T2 S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4T3Q S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 None None AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:SSC G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S GNR S3 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN G1 SX Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:VU G5T1Q S1 None None AFS:TH BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5T1T2Q S1S2 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None AFS:EN BLM:S CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP G4T3 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4TX SX None None G4T1T3 S1 S3 None None G4T2T3 S2 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 None None AFS:EN CDFW:SSC G3G4 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G3G4S1 None None Yes Yes Yes 488 Species CATOSTOMIDAE (suckers) +Catostomus microps Modoc sucker +Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus Goose Lake sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus mountain sucker Catostomus rimiculus ssp. 1 Jenny Creek sucker +Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker +Catostomus snyderi Klamath largescale sucker +Chasmistes brevirostris shortnose sucker +Deltistes luxatus Lost River sucker +Xyrauchen texanus razorback sucker CYPRINODONTIDAE (killifishes) +Cyprinodon macularius desert pupfish +Cyprinodon nevadensis amargosae Amargosa pupfish Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G2 S2 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G5T2Q S1 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T2Q S1 None None AFS:VU G1 S1 Threatened None AFS:TH IUCN:VU G3 S3 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G1 S1S2 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G1 S1 G2T1T2 S1S2 +Cyprinodon nevadensis nevadensis G2T1 S1 Saratoga Springs pupfish +Cyprinodon nevadensis shoshone G2T1 S1 Shoshone pupfish +Cyprinodon radiosus G1 S1 Owens pupfish +Cyprinodon salinus milleri G1T1Q S1 Cottonball Marsh pupfish +Cyprinodon salinus salinus G1T1 S1 Salt Creek pupfish GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks) Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus (South of Pt. Conception G5T2T3 S2S3 resident threespine stickleback only) Gasterosteus aculeatus santaannae G5T1 Q S1 Santa Ana (=Shay Creek) threespine stickleback +Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni G5T1 S1 unarmored threespine stickleback POLYPRIONIDAE (wreckfishes) Stereolepis gigas G3 S1 S2 giant sea bass Endangered Endangered AFS:EN IUCN:VU None None AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU None None AFS:EN CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN None Threatened AFS:TH IUCN:EN None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN None None Yes None None AFS:EN Yes Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Yes CDFW:FP None None AFS:VU Yes IUCN:CR 489 Species CENTRARCHIDAE (sunfishes) +Archoplites interruptus Sacramento perch EMBIOTOCIDAE (surfperches) Hysterocarpus traski lagunae Clear Lake tule perch +Hysterocarpus traski pomo Russian River tule perch Hysterocarpus traski traski Sacramento -San Joaquin tule perch GOBIIDAE (gobies) +Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby COTTIDAE (sculpins) +Cottus asperrimus rough sculpin Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin Cottus klamathensis klamathensis Upper Klamath marbled sculpin +Cottus klamathensis macrops bigeye marbled sculpin Cottus klamathensis polyporus Lower Klamath marbled sculpin Cottus perplexus reticulate sculpin Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status (Within native range G2G3 S1 None None AFS:TH only) CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T4 S4 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None G3 S3 Endangered None AFS:EN G2 S2 None G5 S3S4 None G4T1T2 S1S2 None G4T3 S2S3 None G4T2T4 S2S4 None G4 S2S3 None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Threatened AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU None CDFW:SSC None CDFW:SSC None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC None CDFW:SSC None Notes 490 Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders) +Ambystoma californiense G2G3 S2S3 California tiger salamander +Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum G5T1T2 S1 S2 Santa Cruz long -toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum G5T4 S3 southern long -toed salamander DICAMPTODONTIDAE (giant salamanders) Threatened Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP None None +Dicamptodon ensatus G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:NT California giant salamander RHYACOTRITONIDAE (Olympic salamanders) +Rhyacotriton variegatus G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC southern torrent salamander IUCN:LC USFS:S SALAMANDRIDAE (newts) Taricha rivularis G4 S2 None None IUCN:LC red -bellied newt +Taricha torosa (Monterey Co. & south G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC Coast Range newt only) PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) Aneides niger G3 S3 None None Santa Cruz black salamander +Batrachoseps altasierrae G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Greenhorn Mountains slender salamander +Batrachoseps bramei G3 S3 None None USFS:S Fairview slender salamander +Batrachoseps campi G3 S3 None None BLM:S Inyo Mountains slender salamander CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S Batrachoseps diabolicus G2 S3 None None IUCN:DD Hell Hollow slender salamander +Batrachoseps gabrieli G2G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:DD San Gabriel slender salamander USFS:S Batrachoseps incognitus G2G3 S2 None None USFS:S San Simeon slender salamander Batrachoseps kawia G1G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD Sequoia slender salamander Batrachoseps luciae G2G3 S3 None None IUCN:LC Santa Lucia slender salamander +Batrachoseps major aridus G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered desert slender salamander Batrachoseps minor G1 S1 None None IUCN:DD lesser slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps pacificus G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC Channel Islands slender salamander +Batrachoseps regius G2 S2S3 None None IUCN:VU Kings River slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps relictus G1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC relictual slender salamander IUCN:DD USFS:S +Batrachoseps robustus G3 S3 None None IUCN:NT Kern Plateau salamander +Batrachoseps simatus G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened IUCN:VU Kern Canyon slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps stebbinsi G2 S2S3 None Threatened BLM:S Tehachapi slender salamander IUCN:VU Yes 491 Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) +Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator G5T3 S3 None yellow -blotched salamander +Ensatina klauberi G2G3 S3 None large -blotched salamander +Hydromantes brunus G2G3 S2S3 None limestone salamander +Hydromantes platycephalus Mount Lyell salamander +Hydromantes shastae Shasta salamander +Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander +Plethodon elongatus Del Norte salamander +Plethodon stormi Siskiyou Mountains salamander ASCAPHIDAE (tailed frogs) +Ascaphus truei Pacific tailed frog SCAPHIOPODIDAE (spadefoot toads) +Scaphiopus couchii Couch's spadefoot +Spea hammondii western spadefoot BUFONIDAE (true toads) +Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad +Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad +Anaxyrus exsul black toad +Incilius alvarius Sonoran desert toad RANIDAE +Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog +Lithobates yavapaiensis lowland leopard frog +Rana aurora northern red -legged frog +Rana boylii foothill yellow -legged frog +Rana cascadae Cascades frog G4 S4 None G1G2 S3 None G1G2 S1S2 None G4 S3 None G2G3S1S2 None G4 S3S4 None G5 S2 None G3 S3 None G2G3S2S3 G2G3S2S3 G1 S1 G5 SH (Native populations G5 S2 only) G4 SX G4 S3 G3 S3 CESA Other Status Notes None BLM:S CDFW:SSC USFS:S None CDFW:SSC USFS:S Threatened BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU USFS:S None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC Threatened BLM:S IUCN:VU USFS:S Threatened IUCN:VU Yes None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT Threatened IUCN:EN USFS:S None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT Endangered None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN USFS:S None None None None None None G3G4 S3 None Threatened BLM:S Yes CDFW:FP IUCN:VU USFS:S None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC None BLM:S Yes CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None CDFW:SSC Yes USFS:S None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S 492 Species RANIDAE +Rana draytonii California red -legged frog +Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow -legged frog +Rana pretiosa Oregon spotted frog +Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G2G3 S2S3 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:VU G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN USFS:S G2 SH Threatened None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU G1 S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN USFS:S 493 Species CHELONIIDAE (sea turtles) +Chelonia mydas green turtle KINOSTERNIDAE (musk and mud turtles +Kinosternon sonoriense Sonoran mud turtle EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles) +Emys marmorata western pond turtle Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G3 S1 Threatened None IUCN:EN TESTUDINIDAE (land tortoises) +Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise GEKKONIDAE (geckos) +Coleonyx switaki barefoot gecko +Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Diego banded gecko CROTAPHYTIDAE (collared & leopard lizards) Gambelia copeii Cope's leopard lizard +Gambelia sila blunt -nosed leopard lizard PHRYNOSOMATIDAE (spiny lizards) +Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard +Phrynosoma mcallii flat -tailed horned lizard +Sceloporus graciosus graciosus northern sagebrush lizard +Uma inornata Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard +Uma notata Colorado Desert fringe -toed lizard +Uma scoparia Mojave fringe -toed lizard XANTUSIIDAE (night lizards) +Xantusia gracilis sandstone night lizard +Xantusia riversiana island night lizard Xantusia sierrae Sierra night lizard SCINCIDAE (skinks) +Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis Coronado Island skink TEIIDAE (whiptails and relatives) +Aspidoscelis hyperythra orangethroat whiptail +Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail G4 SH None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU G3G4 S3 None None BLM:S Yes CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU USFS:S G3 S2 Threatened Threatened IUCN:VU G4 S1 None Threatened BLM:S IUCN:LC G5T3T4 S1S2 None None G5 S1S2 None None IUCN:LC G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G3G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G3 S2 None Candidate BLM:S Endangered CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G5T5 S3 None None BLM:S G1Q S1 Threatened Endangered IUCN:EN G3 S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G3G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU G3 S3 Delisted None IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T2T3Q S1S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T3T4 S2S3 None None 494 Species ANGUIDAE (alligator lizards) +Elgaria panamintina Panamint alligator lizard ANNIELLIDAE (Legless lizards) +Anniella pulchra nigra black legless lizard +Anniella pulchra pulchra silvery legless lizard HELODERMATIDAE (venomous lizards) +Heloderma suspectum cinctum banded gila monster BOIDAE (boas) +Charina trivirgata rosy boa +Charina umbratica southern rubber boa COLUBRIDAE (egg -laying snakes) Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake Bogertophis rosaliae Baja California rat snake Coluber fuliginosus Baja California coachwhip +Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake +Diadophis punctatus similis San Diego ringneck snake +Lampropeltis zonata (parvirubra) California mountain kingsnake (San Bernardino population) +Lampropeltis zonata (pulchra) California mountain kingsnake (San Diego population) +Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin whipsnake +Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake Pituophis catenifer pumilus Santa Cruz Island gopher snake +Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch -nosed snake NATRICIDAE (live -bearing snakes) +Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake +Thamnophis hammondii two -striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii ssp. Santa Catalina garter snake +Thamnophis sirtalis ssp. south coast garter snake Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA (Coastal plain from Ventura Co. to San Diego Co., from sea level to about 850 m.) G3 S3 None G3G4T2T3Q S2 None G3G4T3T4Q S3 None G4T4 S1 None G4G5 S3S4 None G2G3S2S3 None G5T2 S2 None G4 S1 None G5 S1S2 None G5T2T3Q S2? None G5T2T3 S2? None G4G5 S2? None G4G5S1S2 None G5T2T3 S2? G4T2 S2 G5T1T2 S1? G5T4 S2S3 None Threatened Threatened None None None None CESA Other Status Notes None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU USFS:S None CDFW:SSC USFS:S None CDFW:SSC USFS:S None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT None IUCN:LC USFS:S Threatened USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None USFS:S None USFS:S None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S None BILKS CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S None CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC G2 S2 Threatened Threatened IUCN:VU G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S G4T1? S1 None None G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Yes 495 Species NATRICIDAE (live -bearing snakes) +Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake VIPERIIDAE (vipers) +Crotalus ruber red -diamond rattlesnake Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status G5T2Q S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP G4 S3 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S Notes M: Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA ANATIDAE (ducks, geese, and swans) Anseralbifrons elgasi (Wintering) G5T2 S2S3 None None tule greater white -fronted goose Aythya americana (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None redhead Aythya valisineria (Nesting) G5 S2 None None canvasback Branta bernicla (Wintering & staging) G5 S2? None None brant +Branta hutchinsii leucopareia (Wintering) G5T3 S2 Delisted None cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Bucephala islandica (Nesting) G5 S1 None None Barrow's goldeneye +Dendrocygna bicolor (Nesting) G5 S1 None None fulvous whistling -duck +Histrionicus histrionicus (Nesting) G4 S1 None None harlequin duck PHASIANIDAE (grouse and ptarmigan) +Bonasa umbellus G5 S3S4 None None ruffed grouse +Centrocercus urophasianus (Nesting & leks) G3G4 S2S3 None None greater sage -grouse +Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi G5T2T3 S2S3 None None Mount Pinos sooty grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus G4T3 SX None None columbianus Columbian sharp -tailed grouse ODONTOPHORIDAE (partridge and quail) Callipepla californica catalinensis G5T2 S2 None None Catalina California quail GAVIIDAE (loons) Gavia immer (Nesting) G5 S1 None None common loon DIOMEDEIDAE (albatross) Phoebastria albatrus G1 S1 Endangered None short -tailed albatross HYDROBATIDAE (storm petrels) +Oceanodroma furcata (Nesting colony) G5 S1 None None fork -tailed storm -petrel +Oceanodroma homochroa (Nesting colony) G2 S2 None None ashy storm -petrel +Oceanodroma melania (Nesting colony) black storm -petrel PELECANIIDAE (pelicans) +Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (Nesting colony) American white pelican +Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (Nesting colony & California brown pelican communal roosts) G3G4S1 None None G4 S1 None None G4T3 S3 Delisted Delisted Other Status Notes CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:WL IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:FP USFS:S Yes Yes 497 Species Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status PHALACROCORACIDAE (cormorants) +Phalacrocorax auritus (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL double -crested cormorant IUCN:LC ARDEIDAE (herons, egrets, and bitterns) +Ardea alba (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDF:S great egret IUCN:LC +Ardea herodias (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDF:S great blue heron IUCN:LC Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC American bittern +Egretta thula (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC snowy egret +Ixobrychus exilis (Nesting) G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC least bittern IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Nycticorax nycticorax (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black -crowned night heron THRESKIORNITHIDAE (ibises and spoonbills) +Plegadis chihi (Nesting colony) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL white-faced ibis IUCN:LC CICONIIDAE (storks) Mycteria americana G4 S2? None None CDFW:SSC wood stork IUCN:LC CATHARTIDAE (New World vultures) +Gymnogyps californianus G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDF:S California condor CDFW:FP IUCN:CR NABCI:RWL ACCIPITRIDAE (hawks, kites, harriers, & eagles) +Accipitercooperii (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL Cooper's hawk IUCN:LC +Accipitergentilis (Nesting) G5 S3 None None BLM:S northern goshawk CDF:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S +Accipiterstriatus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL sharp -shinned hawk +Aquila chrysaetos (Nesting & wintering) G5 S3 None None BLM:S golden eagle CDF:S CDFW:FP CDFW:WL IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Buteo regalis (Wintering) G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL ferruginous hawk IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Buteo swainsoni (Nesting) G5 S3 None Threatened BLM:S Swainson's hawk IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Circus cyaneus (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC northern harrier IUCN:LC +Elanus leucurus (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None BLM:S white-tailed kite CDFW:FP IUCN:LC Notes 498 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status ACCIPITRIDAE (hawks, kites, harriers, & eagles) +Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Nesting & wintering) G5 S2 Delisted Endangered BLM:S bald eagle CDF:S CDFW:FP IUCN:LC USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Pandion haliaetus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDF:S osprey CDFW:WL IUCN:LC Parabuteo unicinctus (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL Harris' hawk IUCN:LC FALCONIDAE (falcons) +Falco columbarius (Wintering) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL merlin IUCN:LC +Falco mexicanus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL prairie falcon IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Falco peregrinus anatum (Nesting) G4T4 S3S4 Delisted Delisted CDF:S American peregrine falcon CDFW:FP USFWS:BCC RALLIDAE (rails, coots, and gallinules) +Coturnicops noveboracensis G4 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC yellow rail IUCN:LC NABCI:RWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus G3G4T1 S1 None Threatened BLM:S California black rail CDFW:FP IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Rallus longirostris levipes G5T1T2 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP light-footed clapper rail NABCI:RWL +Rallus longirostris obsoletus G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP California clapper rail NABCI:RWL +Rallus longirostris yumanensis G5T3 S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:FP Yuma clapper rail NABCI:RWL GRUIDAE (cranes) Grus canadensis canadensis (Wintering) G5T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC lesser sandhill crane +Grus canadensis tabida (Nesting & wintering) G5T4 S2 None Threatened BLM:S greater sandhill crane CDFW:FP USFS:S CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and relatives) +Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (Nesting) G3T3 S2 Threatened None CDFW:SSC western snowy plover NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Charadrius montanus (Wintering) G3 S2? None None BLM:S mountain plover CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC HAEMATOPODIDAE (oystercatchers) Haematopus bachmani (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black oystercatcher NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Notes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 499 Species Commen SCOLOPACIDAE (sandpipers and relatives) Numenius americanus (Nesting) long -billed curlew LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds t Rank ESA G5 S2 +Chlidonias niger (Nesting colony) G4 S2 black tern +Gelochelidon nilotica (Nesting colony) G5 S1 gull -billed tern +Hydroprogne caspia (Nesting colony) G5 S4 Caspian tern +Larus californicus (Nesting colony) G5 S4 California gull Leucophaeus atricilla (Nesting colony) G5 S1 laughing gull +Rynchops niger (Nesting colony) G5 S2 black skimmer Sterna forsteri (Nesting colony) G5 S4 Forster's tern +Sternula antillarum browni (Nesting colony) G4T2T3Q S2 California least tern Thalasseus elegans (Nesting colony) G2 S2 elegant tern ALCIDAE (auklets, puffins, and relatives) +Brachyramphus marmoratus (Nesting) G3G4 S1 marbled murrelet +Cerorhinca monocerata (Nesting colony) G5 S3 rhinoceros auklet +Fratercula cirrhata (Nesting colony) G5 S1S2 tufted puffin Ptychoramphus aleuticus (Nesting colony) G4 S2S4 Cassin's auklet +Synthliboramphus scrippsi (Nesting colony) G3 S2 Scripps's murrelet CUCULIDAE (cuckoos and relatives) +Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (Nesting) G5T2T3 S1 western yellow -billed cuckoo STRIGIDAE (owls) +Asio flammeus short -eared owl +Asio otus long-eared owl +Athene cunicularia burrowing owl (Nesting) G5 S3 (Nesting) G5 SP (Burrow sites & some G4 S3 wintering sites) CESA Other Status Notes None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None IUCN:LC Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP NABCI:RWL None None CDFW:WL IUCN:NT Threatened Endangered CDF:S IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Candidate Threatened BLM:S IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC Threatened Endangered BLM:S NABCI:RWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 500 Species STRIGIDAE (owls) +Micrathene whitneyi elf owl Psiloscops flammeolus flammulated owl +Strix nebulosa great gray owl Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl APODIDAE (swifts) Chaetura vauxi Vaux's swift +Cypseloides niger black swift TROCHILIDAE (hummingbirds) +Calypte costae Costa's hummingbird Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird PICIDAE (woodpeckers) +Colaptes chrysoides gilded flicker Melanerpes lewis Lewis' woodpecker +Melanerpes uropygialis Gila woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus White -headed woodpecker +Picoides arcticus black -backed woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker +Sphyrapicus ruber red -breasted sapsucker TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) Contopus cooperi olive -sided flycatcher Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes (Nesting) G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G4 S2S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S1 None Endangered CDF:S IUCN:LC USFS:S G3T3 S2S3 Threatened Candidate CDF:S Yes Threatened CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL G3T3 S3 None None BLM:S Yes CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC (Nesting) G4 S2 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S1S2 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC G5 S2 None None (Nesting) G4G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S4 None None (Nesting) G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC 501 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) +Empidonax traillii (Nesting) G5 S1S2 None Endangered IUCN:LC Yes willow flycatcher USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Empidonax traillii brewsteri (Nesting) G5T3T4 S1 S2 None Endangered USFWS:BCC Yes little willow flycatcher +Empidonax traillii extimus (Nesting) G5T2 S1 Endangered Endangered NABCI:RWL Yes southwestern willow flycatcher +Myiarchus tyrannulus (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:WL brown -crested flycatcher IUCN:LC +Pyrocephalus rubinus (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC vermilion flycatcher IUCN:LC LANIIDAE (shrikes) +Lanius ludovicianus (Nesting) G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC loggerhead shrike IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi G4T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Island loggerhead shrike NABCI:RWL +Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi G4T1 Q S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC Yes San Clemente loggerhead shrike NABCI:RWL VIREONIDAE (vireos) +Vireo bellii arizonae (Nesting) G5T4 S1 S2 None Endangered BLM:S Yes Arizona bell's vireo IUCN:NT USFWS:BCC +Vireo bellii pusillus (Nesting) G5T2 S2 Endangered Endangered IUCN:NT Yes least Bell's vireo NABCI:YWL Vireo huttoni unitti G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC Catalina Hutton's vireo +Vireo vicinior (Nesting) G4 S2 None None BLM:S gray vireo CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC CORVIDAE (Jays, crows, and magpies) Aphelocoma californica cana G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:WL Eagle Mountain scrub -jay Aphelocoma insularis G1 S1 None None IUCN:NT Island scrub -jay NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC Pica nuttalli (Nesting & communal G3G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC yellow -billed magpie roosts) NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC ALAUDIDAE (larks) +Eremophila alpestris actia G5T3Q S3 None None CDFW:WL California horned lark IUCN:LC HIRUNDINIDAE (swallows) +Progne subis (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC purple martin IUCN:LC +Riparia riparia (Nesting) G5 S2 None Threatened BLM:S bank swallow IUCN:LC PARIDAE (titmice and relatives) +Baeolophus inornatus (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC oak titmouse NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Poecile atricapillus G5 S3 None None CDFW:WL black -capped chickadee IUCN:LC 502 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) +Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (San Diego & Orange G5T3Q S3 sandiegensis Counties only) coastal cactus wren Cistothorus palustris clarkae G5T2T3 S2S3 Clark's marsh wren Thryomanes bewickii leucophrys GSTX SX San Clemente Bewick's wren SYLVIIDAE (gnatcatchers) +Polioptila californica californica G3T2 S2 coastal California gnatcatcher +Polioptila melanura G5 S3S4 black -tailed gnatcatcher MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers) +Toxostoma bendirei G4G5 S3 Bendire's thrasher +Toxostoma crissale G5 S3 Crissal thrasher +Toxostoma lecontei G4 S3 Le Conte's thrasher PARULIDAE (wood -warblers) +Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat +Icteria virens yellow -breasted chat +Oreothlypis luciae Lucy's warbler +Oreothlypis virginiae Virginia's warbler None None CDFW:SSC Yes USFS:S USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC None None CDFW:SSC Threatened None None None None None None None None None G5T3 S3 None None (Nesting) G5 S3 None None (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None (Nesting) G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC NABCI:YWL CDFW:WL IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC CDFW:WL IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Setophaga occidentalis (Nesting) G4G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC hermit warbler +Setophaga petechia (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Yes yellow warbler USFWS:BCC +Setophaga petechia sonorana (Nesting) G5T2T3 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Sonoran yellow warbler USFWS:BCC EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) +Aimophila ruficeps canescens G5T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:WL southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps obscura G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Santa Cruz Island rufous -crowned sparrow +Ammodramus savannarum (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC grasshopper sparrow IUCN:LC +Artemisiospiza belli belli G5T2T4 S2? None None CDFW:WL Yes Bell's sage sparrow USFWS:BCC +Artemisiospiza belli clementeae G5T1 Q S1 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes San Clemente sage sparrow NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC +Chondestes grammacus (Nesting) G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC lark sparrow 503 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) +Junco hyemalis caniceps (Nesting) gray -headed junco +Melospiza melodia song sparrow ("Modesto" population) +Melospiza melodia graminea Channel Island song sparrow +Melospiza melodia maxillaris Suisun song sparrow +Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow +Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow Melozone aberti Abert's towhee +Melozone crissalis eremophilus Inyo California towhee Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus Bryant's savannah sparrow +Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus (Wintering) large -billed savannah sparrow Pipilo maculatus clementae San Clemente spotted towhee +Piranga flava (Nesting) hepatic tanager +Piranga rubra (Nesting) summer tanager Pooecetes gramineus affinis (Wintering) Oregon vesper sparrow Spizella atrogularis (Nesting) black -chinned sparrow +Spizella breweri (Nesting) Brewer's sparrow Spizella passerina (Nesting) chipping sparrow CARDINALIDAE (cardinals) +Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal ICTERIDAE (blackbirds) Agelaius phoeniceus aciculatus Kern red -winged blackbird +Agelaius tricolor (Nesting colony) tricolored blackbird +Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (Nesting) yellow -headed blackbird FRINGILLIDAE (finches and relatives) +Spinus lawrencei (Nesting) Lawrence's goldfinch Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T5 S1 None None CDFW:WL G5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G3G4 S3 None None IUCN:LC G4G5T2 S2 Threatened Endangered NABCI:RWL G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T3 S3 None Endangered G5T2T3 S2? None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G5T3? S3? None None CDFW:SSC NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G2G3S1S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G3G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 504 Species TALPIDAE (moles) +Scapanus latimanus insularis Angel Island mole +Scapanus latimanus parvus Alameda Island mole SORICIDAE (shrews) +Sorex lyelli Mount Lyell shrew +Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew Sorex ornatus salarius Monterey shrew +Sorex ornatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew +Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew +Sorex ornatus willetti Santa Catalina shrew +Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt -marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans paludivagus Monterey vagrant shrew PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf -nosed bats) +Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long -tongued bat +Leptonycteris yerbabuenae lesser long -nosed bat +Macrotus californicus California leaf -nosed bat VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) +Antrozous pallidus pallid bat +Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big -eared bat +Euderma maculatum spotted bat +Lasionycteris noctivagans silver -haired bat +Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat +Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat +Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T1 S1 None None G5T1Q S1 None None CDFW:SSC G3G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1? S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2Q S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G4 S1 G4 S1 G4 S3 G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT WBWG:H Endangered None IUCN:VU Yes WBWG:H None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC None G3G4S2 None G4 S3 None G5 S3S4 None G5 S3 None G5 S4 None G5 S3 None IUCN:LC WBWG:H None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H Candidate BLM:S Threatened CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H None IUCN:LC WBWG:M None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H None IUCN:LC WBWG:M None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H Yes Yes 505 Species VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) +Myotis ciliolabrum western small -footed myotis +Myotis evotis long-eared myotis Myotis lucifugus little brown bat +Myotis occultus Arizona Myotis +Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis +Myotis velifer cave myotis +Myotis volans long-legged myotis +Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis MOLOSSIDAE (free -tailed bats) +Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat +Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free -tailed bat +Nyctinomops macrotis big free -tailed bat OCHOTONIDAE (pikas) +Ochotona princeps schisticeps gray -headed pika LEPORIDAE (rabbits and hares) +Brachylagus idahoensis pygmy rabbit +Lepus americanus klamathensis Oregon snowshoe hare +Lepus americanus tahoensis Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare +Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit +Lepus townsendii townsendii western white-tailed jackrabbit +Sylvilagus bachmani riparius riparian brush rabbit APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) +Aplodontia rufa californica Sierra Nevada mountain beaver +Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA G5 S3 None None G5 S3 None None (San Bernardino Mts G3 S2S3 None None population) G4 S1 None None G4 S3 None None G5 S1 None None G5 S3 None None G5 S4 None None G5T4 S3S4 None None G4 S3 None None G5 S3 None None G5T2T4 S2S4 None None Other Status Notes BLM:S IUCN:LC WBWG:M BLM:S IUCN:LC WBWG:M IUCN:LC WBWG:M CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M BLM:S IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M IUCN:LC WBWG:H BLM:S IUCN:LC WBWG:LM BLM:S CDFW:SSC WBWG:H CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:MH IUCN:NT Yes G4 S3 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T3T4Q S2? None None CDFW:SSC G5T3T4Q S2? None None CDFW:SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC G5T5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered G5T3T4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC I Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) +Aplodontia rufa phaea G5T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Point Reyes mountain beaver IUCN:LC SCIURIDAE (squirrels and relatives) +Ammospermophilus nelsoni G2 S2 None Threatened BLM:S Nelson's antelope squirrel IUCN:EN Callospermophilus lateralis bernardinus G5T1 S1 None None San Bernardino golden -mantled ground squirrel +Glaucomys sabrinus californicus G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC San Bernardino flying squirrel USFS:S +Neotamias panamintinus acrus G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None Kingston Mountain chipmunk +Neotamias speciosus callipeplus G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None USFS:S Mount Pinos chipmunk +Neotamias speciosus speciosus G4T2T3 S2S3 None None lodgepole chipmunk +Xerospermophilus mohavensis G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened BLM:S Mohave ground squirrel IUCN:VU +Xerospermophilus tereticaudus G5T2Q S1 S2 None None BLM:S chlorus CDFW:SSC Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel GEOMYIDAE (pocket gophers) Thomomys bottae operarius G5T1? S1? None None Owens Lake pocket gopher HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) +Chaetodipus californicus femoralis G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Dulzura pocket mouse +Chaetodipus fallax fallax G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC northwestern San Diego pocket mouse +Chaetodipus fallax pallidus G5T34 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC pallid San Diego pocket mouse +Dipodomys californicus eximius G4T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Marysville California kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis G3G4T1 S1 None None Berkeley kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni dixoni G3G4T2T3 S2S3 None None Merced kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni morroensis G3G4TH SH Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Morro Bay kangaroo rat +Dipodomysingens G1G2S1S2 Endangered Endangered IUCN:EN giant kangaroo rat +Dipodomys merriami collinus G5T1T2S1S2 None None Earthquake Merriam's kangaroo rat +Dipodomys merriami parvus G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC San Bernardino kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus G3T1 T2 S1 S2 None None BLM:S short -nosed kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides exilis G3TH SH Fresno kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides G3T1 T2 S1 S2 Tipton kangaroo rat +Dipodomys panamintinus argusensis G5T1T3 S1 S3 Argus Mountains kangaroo rat +Dipodomys panamintinus G5T3 S3 panamintinus Panamint kangaroo rat CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:VU None None None None Yes Yes Yes 507 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) Other Status Notes +Dipodomys stephensi G2 S2 Endangered Threatened IUCN:EN Stephens' kangaroo rat +Dipodomys venustus elephantinus G4T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC big -eared kangaroo rat +Dipodomys venustus venustus G4T1 S1 None None Santa Cruz kangaroo rat +Perognathus alticolus alticolus G1 G2TH SH None None BLM:S white -eared pocket mouse +Perognathus alticolus inexpectatus Tehachapi pocket mouse +Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse +Perognathus inornatus psammophilus Salinas pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris bangsi Palm Springs pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris internationalis Jacumba pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris salinensis Saline Valley pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris tularensis Tulare pocket mouse +Perognathus parvus xanthonotus yellow -eared pocket mouse MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) +Arborimus albipes white-footed vole +Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole Microtus californicus halophilus Monterey vole +Microtus californicus mohavensis Mohave river vole +Microtus californicus sanpabloensis San Pablo vole +Microtus californicus scirpensis Amargosa vole +Microtus californicus stephensi south coast marsh vole +Microtus californicus vallicola Owens Valley vole +Neotoma albigula venusta Colorado Valley woodrat +Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat +Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat +Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None None G2G3 S2S3 None None G4T2? S2? None None G5T2T3 S2S3 None None G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None G5T2T3 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S BLM:S CDFW:SSC BLM:S CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 None None G5T2T3 S1S2 None None BLM:S G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G5T1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T3 S3 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5T3T4 S1S2 None None G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1Q S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Yes Yes Yes 508 Species MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) +Neotoma macrotis luciana Monterey dusky -footed woodrat +Onychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse +Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse +Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae Anacapa Island deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus clementis San Clemente deer mouse +Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis Salinas harvest mouse +Reithrodontomys megalotis santacruzae Santa Cruz harvest mouse +Reithrodontomys raviventris salt -marsh harvest mouse +Sigmodon arizonae plenus Colorado River cotton rat +Sigmodon hispidus eremicus Yuma hispid cotton rat DIPODIDAE (jumping mice) +Zapus trinotatus orarius Point Reyes jumping mouse CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) +Canis lupus gray wolf Urocyon littoralis island fox +Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox +Urocyon littoralis clementae San Clemente Island fox +Urocyon littoralis dickeyi San Nicolas Island fox +Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox +Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Santa Cruz Island fox +Urocyon littoralis santarosae Santa Rosa Island fox +Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox +Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada red fox MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) +Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter +Gulo gulo California wolverine +Lontra canadensis sonora southwestern river otter +Martes caurina Pacific marten +Martes caurina humboldtensis Humboldt marten Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:DD G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None BILKS CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G5T1Q S1 None None Yes G1G2 S1S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G5T2T3 SH None None CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T3Q S1 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4 S1 Endangered Endangered IUCN:LC (Mapped by subspecies) G1 S1 None Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 None Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 None Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G4T2 S2 Endangered Threatened G5T1T2 S1 None Threatened USFS:S G4T2 S2 Threatened None CDFW:FP Yes IUCN:EN MMC:SSC G4 S1 None Threatened CDFW:FP IUCN:NT USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yes G5 S3 None None IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S 509 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) +Martes caurina sierrae G5T3 S3 None None USFS:S Sierra marten +Pekania pennanti G5T2T3Q S2S3 Proposed Candidate BLM:S Yes fisher - West Coast DPS Threatened Threatened CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Taxidea taxus G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC American badger IUCN:LC MEPHITIDAE (skunks) +Spilogale gracilis amphiala G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Channel Islands spotted skunk FELIDAE (cats and relatives) Lynx rufus pallescens G5T3? S3? None None pallid bobcat +Puma concolorbrowni G5T1T2Q S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yuma mountain lion OTARIIDAE (sea lions and fur seals) +Arctocephalus townsendi G1 S1 Threatened Threatened CDFW:FP Guadalupe fur -seal IUCN:NT +Callorhinus ursinus G3 S1 None None IUCN:VU northern fur -seal +Eumetopias jubatus G3 S2 Delisted None IUCN:EN Steller (=northern) sea -lion MMC:SSC BOVIDAE (sheep and relatives) +Ovis canadensis nelsoni G4T4 S3 None None BLM:S Yes desert bighorn sheep CDFW:FP USFS:S +Ovis canadensis nelsoni pop. 2 G4T3Q S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:FP Yes Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS +Ovis canadensis sierrae G4T2 S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep 510 Special Animals List - December 2015 End Notes Invertebrates GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) Prophysaon coeruleum Blue -gray taildropper slug 1) May be a species complex. ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) Hubbardia shoshonensis Shoshone Cave whip -scorpion 1) BLM Sensitive Species list has this species as Trithyreus shoshonensis. CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphipods) Hyalella muerta Texas Spring amphipod 1) First North American hypogean hyalellid. Hyalella sandra Death Valley amphipod 1) Population in Texas Springs is an accidental introduction. Population in Nevares Springs may be a new species. INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) Trigonoscuta sp. Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil 1) Sometimes referred to as "Trigonoscuta doyeni" which is an unpublished manuscript name. INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) Callophrys thornei Thorne's hairstreak 1) Formerly Mitoura thornei; changed to Callophrys thornei. Euproserpinus euterpe Kern primrose sphinx moth 1) Known from 2 sites at the south end of California's Central Valley. Until its rediscovery in Kern Co in 1974, this moth had been thought to be extinct. A 2nd population was recently found in SLO (Xerces Society 2005). Speyeria zerene myrtleae Myrtle's silverspot butterfly 1) The USFWS and others have not yet determined if the taxonomic expansion by Emmel and Emmel (1998) into S. z. myrtleae and S. z. puntareyes is warranted. The Speyereia zerene along coast of Marin and Sonoma Counties are Federally Endangered under the subspecies concept in the 1992 listing. Fishes ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeon) Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon 1) Federal listing includes all spawning populations south of the Eel River. 2) The NMFS "Special Concern" designation refers to the northern DPS which includes spawning populations north of the Eel River (inclusive). SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central California coast ESU 1) The federal listing is limited to naturally spawning populations in streams between Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz Co. 2) The state listing is limited to Coho south of Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU 1) Federal listing refers to populations between Cape Blanco, Oregon & Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. California. 2) State listing refers to populations between the Oregon border & Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. California. 511 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Russian River in Sonoma County, south to Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County, inclusive. It includes the San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins, but excludes the Sacramento -San Joaquin River basins. steelhead - Central Valley DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in the Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. steelhead - Klamath Mountains Province DPS 1) This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations residing in streams between the Elk River in Oregon and the Klamath River in California, inclusive. 2) The SSC designation refers only to the California portion of the ESU and refers only to the summer -run. steelhead - northern California DPS 1) The federal designation refers to naturally spawned populations residing below impassable barriers in coastal basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt Co. to, and including, the Gualala River in Mendocino Co. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the summer -run. steelhead - south-central California coast DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Pajaro River south to, but not including, the Santa Maria River. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to southern steelhead trout. steelhead - southern California DPS 1) The federal designation refers to fish in the coastal basins from the Santa Maria River (inclusive), south to the U.S. - Mexico Border. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to southern steelhead trout. summer -run steelhead trout 1) Summer -run steelhead are part of both the Klamath Mountains Province DPS and the Northern California DPS. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - California coastal ESU 1) Originally proposed as part of a larger Southern Oregon & California Coastal ESU. This new ESU was revised to include only naturally spawned coastal spring & fall -run chinook salmon between Redwood Creek in Humboldt Co & the Russian River in Sonoma Co. chinook salmon - Central Valley fall / late fall -run ESU 1) The Central Valley fall/late fall -run ESU refers to populations spawning in the Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the fall -run. Chinook salmon - Central Valley spring -run ESU 1) Federal listing refers to the Central Valley Spring -run ESU. It includes populations spawning in the Sacramento River & its tributaries. OSMERIDAE (smelt) Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt 1) AFS Threatened designation take from: Musick, J.T. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. 2) Federal Candidate status is for the San Francisco Bay -Delta DPS of the longfin smelt. CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1 San Joaquin roach 1) Current taxonomy considers this taxon to be a population of Lavinia symmetricus symmetricus, the Sacramento -San Joaquin roach. Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 Amargosa Canyon speckled dace 1) Current taxonomy considers this taxon to be a distinct population of Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis. Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 2 Owens speckled dace 1) Current taxonomy includes the Benton Valley speckled dace (formerly ssp 4) with the Owens speckled dace. 512 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks) Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus resident threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers to the full species. Gasterosteus aculeatus santaannae Santa Ana (=Shay Creek) threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers to the full species. Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni unarmored threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refer to the full species. POLYPRIONIDAE (wreckfishes) Stereolepis gigas giant sea bass 1) AFS Vulnerable designation taken from: Musick, J.T. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. Amphibians AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders) Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander 1) Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara & Sonoma counties DPS federally listed as endangered. PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) Batrachoseps relictus relictual slender salamander 1) Taxonomy follows Jockusch, Martinez-solano, Hansen, Wake (2012. Morphological and molecular diversification of slender salamanders (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Batrachoseps) in the southern Sierra Nevada of California with descriptions of two new species. Zootaxa 3190:130), which synonymized Batrachoseps Sp. 1, Breckenridge Mountain slender salamander, with B. relictus. Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander 1) Newly described species from what was part of the range of Plethodon stormi (Mead et al. 2005). 2) Since this newly described species was formerly considered to be a subpopulation of Plethodon stormi, and since Plethodon stormi is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Plethodon asupak retains the designation as a Threatened species under CESA (Calif. Regulatory Notice Register, No. 21-Z, p.916, 25 May 2007). BUFONIDAE (true toads) Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad 1) Formerly Bufo microscaphus californicus, now considered a full species. 2) At the time of listing, arroyo toad was known as Bufo microscaphus californicus, a subspecies of southwestern toad. In 2001 it was determined to be its own species, Bufo californicus. Since then, many species in the genus Bufo were changed to the genus Anaxyrus, and now arroyo toad is known as Anaxyrus californicus (Frost et al. 2006). Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad 1) Formerly Bufo canorus; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Charming, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Anaxyrus (Tschudi, 1845). The standard common name remains Yosemite toad. 2) The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the Yosemite toad as Threatened. The effective date for this rule is June 30, 2014. Anaxyrus exsul black toad 1) Formerly Bufo exsul; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Anaxyrus (Tschudi, 1845). The standard common name remains black toad. 513 Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians BUFONIDAE (true toads) Incilius alvarius Sonoran desert toad 1) Formerly Bufo alvarius. Between 2006 & 2009 the scientific name has been changed to Cranopsis alvaria, to 011otis alvaria, to Incilius alvarius, back to 011otis alvarius and then back to Incilius alvarius. The common name has changed from Colorado River toad to Sonoran desert toad. RANIDAE Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog 1) Formerly Rana pipiens; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Lithobates (Fitzinger, 1843). The standard common name remains northern leopard frog. Lithobates yavapaiensis lowland leopard frog 1) Formerly Rana yavapaiensis; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Lithobates (Fitzinger, 1843). The standard common name remains lowland leopard frog. Rana aurora northern red -legged frog 1) A recent mtDNA study consludes that Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii should be recongnized as separate species with a narrow zone of overlap. Rana draytonii California red -legged frog 1) A recent mtDNA study concludes that Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii should be recongnized as separate species with a narrow zone of overlap, and that the range of draytonii extends about 100 km further north in coastal California than previously thought. Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow -legged frog 1) Federal listing refers to populations in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto & San Bernardino Mountains (southern DPS). 2) Federal Proposed status refers to all populations that occur north of the Tehachapi Mountains in the Sierra Nevada (northern DPS). The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the northern DPS of Rana mucosa as Endangered.This rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. 3) Rana muscosa has been split into Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog, found in the northern and central Sierra Nevada and Rana muscosa, the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, found in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog 1) Formerly Rana muscosa. Rana muscosa has been split into Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog, found in the northern and central Sierra Nevada and Rana muscosa, the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, found in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. 2) Rana sierrae is a federally proposed endangered species (Apr 2013). 3) The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog as Endangered.This rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. Reptiles EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles) Emys marmorata western pond turtle 1) The paper: Spinks, Phillip Q. & H. Bradley Shaffer. 2005. Range -wide molecular analysis of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata): cryptic variation, isolation by distance, and their conservation implications. Molecular Ecology (2005) 14, 2047-2064. determined that the current subspecies split was not warranted. Therefore, we are now tracking the western pond turtle only at the full species level. 2) The paper: Spinks, Phillip Q., & H. Bradley Shaffer. 2009. Conflicting Mitochondrial and Nuclear Phylogenies for the Widely Disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) Species Complex, and What They Tell Us about Biogeography and Hybridization. Systematic Biology. 58(1): pp. 1-20 determined that the correct genus name is Emys. 514 Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles HELODERMATIDAE (venomous lizards) Heloderma suspectum cinctum banded gila monster 1) The BLM "Sensitive Species" designation refers to the full species. BOIDAE (boas) Charina trivirgata rosy boa 1) The Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers only to the subspecies roseofusca. 2) The taxonomy of this species is in flux. The name Lichanura trivirgata is a synonym. Some sources list several subspecies while others don't recognize any subspecies. Birds PHASIANIDAE (grouse and ptarmigan) Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage -grouse 1) As of Oct 2013, the Bi-State DPS of greater sage -grouse (Mono Basin; Mono, Alpine, & Inyo Co.) have a federal status of Proposed Threatened; the remaining populations of the species are Candidate. Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi Mount Pinos sooty grouse 1) Formerly merged with D. obscurus as blue grouse, but separated on the basis of genetic evidence and differences in voice, behavior, & plumage. 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. RALLIDAE (rails, coots, and gallinules) Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of "Near Threatened" refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris levipes light-footed clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris yumanensis Yuma clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and relatives) Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover 1) Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population 2) DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to both the coastal & interior populations. 3) USFWS - Birds of Conservation Concern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations of Threatened or Endangered species. Charadrius montanus mountain plover 1) The 5 Dec 2002 proposal to list the mountain plover as a threatened species was withdrawn by the FWS as of 12 May 2011. LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Gelochelidon nilotica gull -billed tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna nilotica 515 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna caspia Sternula antillarum browni California least tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna antillarum browni. 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Thalasseus elegans elegant tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna elegans ALCIDAE (auklets, puffins, and relatives) Synthliboramphus scrippsi Scripps's murrelet 1) Formerly included in Xantus's murrelelt as Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi, now considered a full species STRIGIDAE (owls) Athene cunicularia burrowing owl 1) A burrow site = an observation of one or more owls at a burrow or evidence of recent occupation such as whitewash and feathers. Winter observations at a burrow are mapped. Winter observations with or without a burrow in San Francisco, Ventura, Sonoma, Marin, Napa & Santa Cruz Counties are mapped. Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl 1) There are no northern spotted owl EOs in the CNDDB. All northern spotted owl location information is maintained in a separate data layer. This layer is packaged with the CNDDB layer in BIOS. All RareFind subscribers have access to this information through BIOS (http:BIOS.dfg.ca.gov) 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) USFWS: Birds of Conservation Conern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations of Threatened or Endangered species. Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 3) USFWS - Birds of Conservation Concern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations for Threatened or Endangered species. Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 516 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds LANIIDAE (shrikes) Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi San Clemente loggerhead shrike 1) Subspecific identity of shrikes currently on San Clemente is uncertain. Mundy et al. (1997a, b) provided evidence L. I. mearnsi is genetically distinct from L. I. gambeli and L. I. anthonyi, whereas Patten and Campbell (2000) concluded, based on morphology, that the birds now on San Clemente are intergrades between L. I. mearnsi and L. I. anthonyi. VIREONIDAE (vireos) Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona bell's vireo 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of 'Near Threatened" refers to the full species. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of "Near Threatened" refers to the full species. TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis coastal cactus wren 1) Nomenclature follows the draft DFG Bird Species of Special Concern report. SYLVIIDAE (gnatcatchers) Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher 1) AKA Alta California gnatcatcher 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers) Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte's thrasher 1) The BLM "Sensitive Species" designation refers to the subspecies Toxostoma lecontei macmillanorum. 2) DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the San Joaquin population, AKA T. I. macmillanorum. PARULIDAE (wood -warblers) Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 1) AKA San Francisco common yellowthroat Setophaga petechia yellow warbler 1) This element includes the subspecies S. p. morcormi & S. p. brewsteri, which are tracked under the full species, S. petechia due to difficulty distinguishing them. S. p. sonorana, which nests in California only along the Colorado River is tracked separately. Setophaga petechia sonorana Sonoran yellow warbler 1) Nests in California only along the Colorado River. Observations of yellow warblers from other regions are tracked as the full species, S. petechia. EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell's sage sparrow 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Artemisiospiza belli clementeae San Clemente sage sparrow 1) Subspecific validity uncertain. Recognized by AOU (1957), but not by Patten and Unitt (2002). 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 517 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) Melospiza melodia graminea Channel Island song sparrow 1) Subspecific validity is uncertain. This subspecies when referred to as Santa Barbara song sparrow is extinct. However, the subspecies was merged by Patten (2001) with the San Miguel (M. m. micronyx), and San Clemente (M. m. clementae) song sparrows as the Channel Island song sparrow with the Subspecific name M. m. graminea. Melozone crissalis eremophilus Inyo California towhee 1) Previously was in the genus Pipilo. Piranga flava hepatic tanager 1) According to The A.O.U. Check -list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition, this species is probably misplaced in the current phylogenetic listing but for which data indicating proper placement are not yet available. Piranga rubra summer tanager 1) According to The A.O.U. Check -list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition, this species is probably misplaced in the current phylogenetic listing but for which data indicating proper placement are not yet available. ICTERIDAE (blackbirds) Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird 1) Emergency protection under CESA granted on December 3rd 2014 by the California Fish and Game Commission. Mammals PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf -nosed bats) Leptonycteris yerbabuenae lesser long -nosed bat 1) Listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae. VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation is based on the draft updated Mammalian Species of Special Concern report. Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation is based on the draft updated Mammalian Species of Special Concern report. OCHOTONIDAE (pikas) Ochotona princeps schisticeps gray -headed pika 1) All of the subspecies of pika in California have been synonymized under Ochotona princeps schisticeps. APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) Aplodontia rufa californica Sierra Nevada mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. Aplodontia rufa phaea Point Reyes mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. 518 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" desgination refers to the full species. Chaetodipus fallax pallidus pallid San Diego pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to the full species. Perognathus alticolus alticolus white -eared pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" and the BLM "Sensitive Species" designations refer to the full species. 2) The IUCN "Endangered" designation is at the species level. Perognathus alticolus inexpectatus Tehachapi pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN "Endangered" designation is at the species level. Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse 1) This element includes the subspecies P. i. inornatus & P. i. neglectus, which are tracked under the full species, P. inornatus due to difficulty distinguishing them. P. i. inornatus generally occurs on the eastern side of San Joaquin Valley, while P. i. neglectus generally occurs on the western side. P. i. psammophilus, which occurs only in the Salinas Valley, is tracked separately. MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat 1) This species is currently undergoing taxonomic revision Reithrodontomys megalotis santacruzae Santa Cruz harvest mouse 1) Synonomous with Reithrodontomys megalotus longicaudus, Santa Cruz Island Population. CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) Urocyon littoralis island fox 1) State listing is at the full species level and includes all subspecies on all islands. Federal listing does not include San Nicolas & San Clemente island subspecies. Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis clementae San Clemente Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis dickeyi San Nicolas Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Santa Cruz Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. 519 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) Urocyon littoralis santarosae Santa Rosa Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endanagered" designation refers to the full species. MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter 1) The IUCN "Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Lontra canadensis sonora southwestern river otter 1) SSC status refers only to the supspecies L. canadensis sonora, which is known in California only from the Colorado River. Pekania pennanti fisher - West Coast DPS 1) The subspecies M. p. pacifica is no longer considered a valid subspecies. The west coast population of the fisher is now considered to be a distinct population segment (DPS). 2) Federal candidate status refers to the distinct population segment (DPS) in Washington, Oregon & California. 3) The Fish and Game Commission Notice of Findings stated that the Pacific fisher was a candidate for listing as either an Endangered or Threatened species. At the 23 Jun 2010 meeting the FGC determined that the listing was not warranted. An 11 Mar 2013 Notice of Findings stated that pursuant to court order, the FGC set aside its 15 Sep 2010 findings rejecting the petition to list, and the Pacific fisher is a candidate species for the purposes of CESA. BOVIDAE (sheep and relatives) Ovis canadensis nelsoni desert bighorn sheep 1) Desert bighorn sheep (O. c. nelsoni) in the Peninsular Ranges are tracked as a metapopulation of the subspecies, Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS (O. c. nelsoni pop. 2) Ovis canadensis nelsoni pop. 2 Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS 1) The subspecies peninsular bighorn sheep (O. c. cremnobates) has been synonymized with O. c. nelsoni (Wehausen & Ramey 1993). Peninsular bighorn sheep are now considered to be a metapopulation and are recognized has a federal Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 520 ATTACHMENTS 521 Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and 1SWAPE Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Matt Hagemann Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com January 20, 2016 Amy Minteer Chatten-Brown & Carstens 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Subject: Comments on the Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates Dear Ms. Minteer: We have reviewed the Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates ("Project"). The primary objective of this WQMP is to ensure that the land use approval and permitting process of each local land use authority will prevent or minimize the impact of urban runoff on receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.' In order to meet this primary objective, a number of conditions need to be met. Our review concludes that the Project's WQMP does not comply with requirements set forth by the City of La Quinta (City) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-152. Until the WQMP is prepared in accordance with the Whitewater River Region's preliminary project -specific WQMP guidelines, and all of the required conditions are met, the Project should not be approved. Failure to Satisfy Section IV, Hydrologic Conditions of Concern, Condition "C" Under Section IV of the project -specific WQMP, "Hydrologic Conditions of Concern," the Project must comply with "Condition C" by demonstrating that the runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post -development condition do not exceed the pre -development condition for the 2-year, 24-hour and 10-year 24-hour rainfall events (WQMP, p. 1-8). To attempt to satisfy this condition, the WQMP provides plans and runoff calculations for an underground retention system (a 39 foot -long, 48 inch - diameter pipe) to capture the excess stormwater runoff generated by the Project site, post - development. This system will not satisfy the requirements of Section IV, Condition "C." The ' Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan Guidance Document, January 2015, available at: http://rcflood.org/downloads/NPDES/Documents/WW SWMP WQMP/WWR WQMP Guidance Jan15 2015.pdf, p. 1 522 underground retention system will be inundated by Project flows that combine with offsite stormwater runoff before being routed to the underground pipe. The hydrologic modeling calculations that attempt to demonstrate compliance with Condition "C" are included in the Hydrology Report for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 (Appendix F). The calculations in Appendix F show that runoff from just 0.6 acres of the Project site, constituted by 0.5 acres of paving/hardscape and 0.1 acres of landscaping (pp. 208 of 305), are to be routed to the underground retention system. This approach is incorrect because the area that will contribute flow to the proposed retention system is much greater than just the 0.6-acre portion that will be developed. The general topography of the site, as detailed in the WQMP Site plan, shows that runoff from both the undeveloped portion and the developed portion of the site would flow into and be captured by this basin. According to Appendix F, "Based on the existing topography, the site is naturally divided into three tributary areas: "A", "B" and "C" as noted on the hydrology map" (pp. 206 of 305). Area B1 = 1.7ac Area C1 0.7ac i Area Al = 0.6ac� r' r - - _ Area C2 - I. lac Area A2 = 0-lac r Area B2 = 2.Oac • w 36, Legend « We tet 0OV-SRe Tnbucary Area * PrPlec2 Sde 1 inch = 500 feet Appendix F of the WQMP continues on to explain that while stormwater runoff from Tributary Areas A and C will flow directly off -site, runoff from Tributary Area B will flow into the proposed retention basin. Appendix F states, "Tributary Flows — offsite flow from Area B1 and a portion of storm runoff from Area B2 is tributary to the proposed access road. To protect the road, a brow ditch is proposed above the road with a connection to a storm drain inlet and pipe, which will convey the flow directly to an underground retention system. Minor runoff will sheet flow down the access road. Some of the flow may percolate through the pavers. The remainder will be intercepted by a catch basin and piped to the underground retention system" (pp. 207 of 305). 2 523 The portion that will be developed is located within Area B2. Therefore, 0.6 acres of the 2-acre area would be developed, with approximately 1.4 acres remaining undeveloped. Additionally, all 1.7-acres of Area B1 will remain undeveloped. As stated in the WQMP, runoff from Areas 61 and B2 will flow into the proposed retention basin. Therefore, by designing the retention basin to capture the runoff from just the developed portion of Tributary Area B, runoff from approximately 3.1 acres of undeveloped land is unaccounted for in the design (see figure below). Stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas within Tributary Area B was not considered in calculating the volume requirements of the retention system. As a result, the retention system, as designed, would be inundated during the design storms, overwhelming the ability of the system to infiltrate, and thereby treat, Project stormwater runoff. To effectively retain, and thereby treat, all Project flows that comingle with offsite runoff before being routed to the retention system, additional onsite retention capacity should be implemented prior to Project approval. To show the impact that runoff from Areas 131 and B2 would have on the proposed retention system, we conducted our own analysis using the same methods utilized in the WQMP and Hydrology Report (Appendix F). Our calculations, attached, demonstrate that the undeveloped areas within Tributary Area 3 524 B could contribute as much as 10,723 cubic feet of runoff during a 2-year, 24-hour rain event, and could contribute as much as 22,784 cubic feet of runoff during a 10-year, 24-hour rain event (see table below).z Stormwater Volume from Undeveloped Area SWAPE Model 2 Year, 24 Hour 10 Year, 24 Hour Discharge (cfs) 0.49 0.98 Velocity (fps) N/A N/A Required Storage (cubic feet) 10,723 22,784 Flood Volume (cubic feet) 10,813 22,974 Duration (minutes) 1,440 1,440 Our calculations demonstrate that the contribution from the undeveloped areas of Areas 61 and B2 would be significant. The retention system, as planned with a proposed capacity of 490 cubic feet, will be overwhelmed by stormwater runoff from these areas that will exceed the capacity of the system by more than 20 times for the 2-year storm and by more than 45 times for the 10-year storm. Failure to retain the combined flow volume, to include Project flow and the flow from undeveloped areas of 131 and B2, means that treatment though infiltration will not be effectual. Instead, Project flows, combined with 131 and B2 flows, will be routed untreated to the flood control channel at the base of the slope as described in the Hydrology Report: "Should the proposed underground retention system capacity be exceeded, emergency overflow is conveyed out of the grated inlet via a rock -lined swale and into the adjacent flood control channel, following the existing drainage pattern" (pp. 208 of 305). Our calculations show that the capacity for the retention system will be greatly exceeded for the design storms used in the WQMP. Untreated Project runoff will therefore flow to the flood control channel as described above, causing water quality degradation. Therefore, the goal of the WQMP plan — "to prevent or minimize the impact of urban runoff on receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable" — will not be met. A revised WQMP must be prepared to include additional on -site retention capacity, capable of treating all flow from design storms, including from Areas 131 and B2, that combines with flow from the developed 0.6-acre portion of the Project. Alternatively, offsite flow from Areas B1 and B2 could be routed away from the planned retention structure so that offsite flows do not comingle with Project flows and inundate the capacity of the system. Any diversion that is considered would need to incorporate measures to prevent erosion of the ground surface where offsite flows are routed. z Calculation details included as attachment to this letter for reference. 4 525 Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Jessie Jaeger 526 10-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B PHYSICAL DATA [1) CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2) AREA DESIGNATION 10-YEAR [3] AREA -ACRES 3.1 [4] L-FEET 750 [51 L-MILES 0.142 [61 L,FEET 350 [7) La -MILES 0.066 [8] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 360 [91 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 52 [10] H-FEET 308 [111 S-FEET/MILE 2169.3 [121 5-0.5 46.57 [131 _'LCA/S^0.5 0 [14] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.02 [15] LAG TIME -HOURS 0.02 [16] LAG TIME -MINUTES 1.1 [17] 100%OF LAG -MINUTES 1.1 [18] 200%OF LAG -MINUTES 2.3 [19] UNIT TIME -MINUTES (100%-200%OF LAG) 15 [24] TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0 RAINFALL DATA [S] SOURCE [2] FREQUENCY -YEARS 10 [31 DURATION -HOURS 24 [I2] POINT RAIN -INCHES (Plate E-5.6) 2.42 [131 AREA -ACRES 3.1 STORM EVENT SUMMARY DURATION -HOURS 24 EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 2.04 FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 22973.54 FLOOD VOLUME (acre-ft) 0.53 REQUIRED STORAGE(cu-ft) 22783.55 REQUIRED STORAGE (acre-ft) 0.52 PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.98 ADJUSTED LOSS RATE SOIL GROUP [Plate C-1] LAND USE RI NUMBER [Plate E-6.1] PERVIOUS AREA INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) [Plate E-6.2] DECIMAL PERCENT OF AREA IMPERVIOUS [Plate E-6.31 ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) AREA (acres] AVERAGE ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) A COMMERCIAL 32 0.74 90% 0.14 0 0 A PAVING/HARDSCAPE 32 0.74 100% 0.07 0 0 A SF-1ACRE 32 0.74 20% 0.61 0 0 A SF - 1/2 ACRE 32 0.74 40% 0.47 0 0 A 5F-1/4 ACRE 32 0.74 50% 0.41 0 0 A MF- CONDOMINIUMS 32 0.74 65% 0.31 0 0 A MF-APARTMENTS 1 32 1 0.74 1 80% 1 0.21 0 0 A MOBILE HOME PARKS 32 0.74 75% 0.24 0 0 A LANDSCAPING 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A AS RETENTION BINS 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A GOLF COURSE 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 D MOUNTAINOUS 93 0.09 90% 0.02 3.1 1 0.0171 SUM 3.1 1 0.0171 EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 3.1 UNITTIME-MINUTES 15 LAGTIME-MINUTES 1.14 UNITTIME-PERCENT OF LAG 1319.8% TOTALADIUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES 2.42 CONSTANT L05S RATE -in/hr N/A VARIABLE LOSS RATE -in/hr 0.0171 MINIMUM LOSS RATE -in/hr 0.009 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0 C 0.00016 PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0 Unit Time Period Time Pattern Percent Storm Rain (in/hr) Loss Rate (in/hr) Effective Rain (in/hr) Flood Hydrograph Flow (cfs) Required Storage (cu. ft) Minutes Hours Max Low 1 15 0.25 0.2 0.019 0.030 0.00 0.019 0.06 54.46 2 30 0.50 0.3 0.029 0.030 0.00 0.029 0.09 81.70 3 45 0.75 0.3 0.029 0.029 0.00 0.029 0.09 81.70 4 60 1.00 0.4 0.039 0.029 0.00 0.010 0.03 27.40 5 75 1.25 0.3 0.029 0.029 0.00 0.029 0.09 81.70 6 90 1.50 0.3 0.029 0.028 0.00 0.001 0.00 2.10 7 105 1.75 1 0.3 0.029 0.028 0.00 0.001 0.00 3.05 8 120 2.00 0.4 0.039 0.028 0.00 1 0.011 0.03 31.23 9 1 135 2.25 0.4 0.039 0.027 0.00 0.011 0.04 32.17 10 I50 2.50 0.4 0.039 0.027 0.00 0.012 0.04 33.11 11 165 2.75 0.5 0.048 0.027 0.00 0.022 0.07 61.27 12 180 3.00 0.5 0.048 0.026 0.00 0.022 0.07 62.19 13 195 3.25 0.5 0.048 0.026 0.00 0.022 0.07 63.11 14 210 3.50 0.5 am 0.026 0.00 0.023 0.07 64.02 15 225 3.75 0.5 0.048 0.025 0.00 0.023 0.07 64.93 16 240 4.00 0.6 0.058 0.025 0.00 0.033 0.10 93.06 17 255 4.25 1 0.6 0.058 0.025 0.00 0.033 0.10 93.96 18 270 4.50 0.7 0.068 0.024 0.00 0.043 0.14 122.08 19 285 4.75 0.7 0.068 0.024 0.00 1 0.044 0.14 1 122.96 20 300 5.00 0.8 0.077 0.024 0.00 0.054 0.17 151.06 21 315 5.25 0.6 0.058 0.023 0.00 0.035 0.11 97.47 22 33D 5.50 0.7 0.068 0.023 0.00 0.045 0.14 125.56 23 345 5.75 0.8 0.077 0.023 0.00 0.055 0.17 153.65 24 360 6.00 0.8 0.077 0.023 0.00 0.055 0.17 154.50 25 375 6.25 0.9 0.087 0.022 0.00 0.065 0.20 182.57 26 1 390 6.50 0.9 0.087 0.022 0.00 0.065 0.20 183.41 27 405 6.75 1.0 0.097 0.022 0.00 0.075 0.23 211A7 28 420 7.00 1.0 0.097 0.021 0.00 0.075 0.24 212.30 29 435 7.25 1.0 0.097 0.021 0.00 0.076 0.24 213.11 30 456 7.50 1.1 0.106 0.021 0.00 0.086 0.27 241.16 31 465 7.75 1.2 0.116 0.020 0.00 0.096 0.30 269.19 32 480 8.00 1.3 0.126 0.020 0.00 0.106 0.33 297.22 33 495 8.25 1.5 0.145 0.020 0.00 0.125 0.39 352.47 34 SID 8.50 1.5 0.145 0.020 0.00 0.126 0.39 353.26 35 525 8.75 1.6 0.155 0.019 0.00 0.136 0.42 381.26 36 1 540 9.00 1.7 0.165 0.019 0.00 1 0.145 0.45 409.27 37 555 9.25 1.9 0.184 0.019 0.00 0.165 0.52 464.49 38 570 9.50 2.6 0.194 0.019 0.00 0.175 0.55 492.48 39 585 9.75 2.1 0.203 0.018 0.00 0.185 0.58 520.46 40 600 10.00 2.2 0.213 0.018 0.00 0.195 0.61 548.43 41 615 10.25 1.5 0.145 0.018 0.00 0.127 0.40 358.54 42 630 10.50 1.5 0.145 0.017 0.00 0.128 0.40 3S9.27 43 645 10.75 2.0 6.194 0.017 0.00 0.176 0.55 496AS 44 660 11.00 2.0 0.194 0.017 0.00 0.177 0.55 496.86 45 675 1 11.26 1 1.9 0.184 0.017 0.00 0.167 0.52 470.33 46 690 11.50 1.9 0.184 0.016 0.00 0.167 0.52 471.02 47 705 11.75 f 1.7 0.165 1 0.016 0.00 0.148 0.46 417.25 48 720 12.00 1.8 0.174 0.016 0.00 0.158 0.49 445.16 49 735 12.25 2.5 0.242 0.016 0.00 0.226 0.71 636.46 50 750 12.50 2.6 0.252 0.016 0.00 0.236 0.74 664.36 51 765 HIS 2.8 0.271 0.015 0.00 0.256 0.80 219.48 527 10-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B 528 2-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B PHYSICAL DATA [11 CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [21 AREA DESIGNATION 2-YEAR [31 AREA ACRES 3.1 [41 L-FEET 750 [51 L-MILES 0.142 [6] La -FEET 350 [7] La -MILES 0.066 [81 ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 360 [91 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 52 [101 H-FEET 308 [111 S-FEET/MILE 2168.3 [121 SA0.5 46.57 [131 L'LCA/SA0.5 0 [141 AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.02 [151 LAG TIME -HOURS 0.02 [161 LAG TIME -MINUTES 1.1 [371 0%OF LAG -MINUTES 1.1 [18] 20300%OF LAG -MINUTES 2.3 [19]UNIT TIME -MINUTES (100%-200% OF LAG) 15 [241 TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (crs) 0 _ RAINFALL DATA [11 SOURCE [21 FREQUENCY -YEARS 2 [31 DURATION -HOURS 24 [121 POINT RAIN -INCHES (Plate E-5.6) 1.26 [131 AREA -ACRES 3.1 STORM EVENT SUMMARY DURATION -HOURS 24 EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.96 FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 10812.71 FLOOD VOLUME (acre-ft) 0.25 REQUIRED STORAGE(cu-It) 10723.29 REQUIRED STORAGE(acre-ft) 0.25 PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.49 ADJUSTED LOSS RATE _ SOIL GROUP [Plate C-1] LAND USE RI NUMBER [Plate E-6.11 PERVIOUS AREA INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) [Plate E-6.2] DECIMAL PERCENT OF AREA IMPERVIOUS [Plate E-6.3] ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) AREA (acres) AVERAGE ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) A COMMERCIAL 32 0.74 90% 0.14 0 0 A PAVING/HARDSCAPE 32 0.74 100% 0.07 0 0 A SF - 1 ACRE 32 0.74 20% 0.61 0 0 A SF-1/2 ACRE 32 0.74 40% 0.47 0 0 A SF-1/4 ACRE 32 0.74 50% 0.41 0 0 A MF- CONDOMINIUMS 32 0.74 65% 0.31 0 0 A MF-APARTMENTS 32 0.74 80% 0.21 0 0 A MOBILE HOME PARKS 1 32 1 0.74 75% 0.24 0 0 A LANDSCAPING 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A RETENTION BASINS 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A GOLF COURSE 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 D MOUNTAINOUS 93 0.09 90% 0.02 3.1 0.0171 SUM 3.1 0.0171 EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM UNITTIME- INUTES 15 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.14 UNITTIME - PERCENT OF LAG 1319.8% TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES 1.2G VARIABLE LOSS RATE - m/h, 0.0171 MINIMUM LOSS RATE - in/hr 0.009 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0 C 0.00016 PERCOLATION RATE r ®� Pattern Percent Storm Rain (In/hr) ®Flood Hydrogr ph Flow (ds) � 529 2-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B 530 J_SWAPE]Ldq@tion Technical Consuitation, Data Analysis and Support for the Environment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2104; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); 531 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 532 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 533 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 534 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy -making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 535 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 536 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 537 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 0 538 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. 0 539 JESSIE MARIE JAEGER Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and �SWAPE Litigation Support for the Environment EDUCATION SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (530) 867-6202 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: jessie0swape.com UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOSANGELES B.S. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JUNE2014 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Calculated roadway, stationary source, and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions released during construction and operational activities of proposed land use projects using CalEEMod and EMFAC2011 emission factors. • Utilized AERSCREEN, a screening dispersion model, to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables comparing results of particulate matter analyses to CEQA thresholds. • Prepared reports that discuss results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. SENIOR ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Quantified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a "business as usual" scenario for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod. • Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan for each land use sector, and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in California. • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. PROJECT MANAGER: OFF -GASSING OF FORMALDEHYDE FROM FLOORING PRODUCTS • Determined the appropriate standard test methods to effectively measure formaldehyde emissions from flooring products. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data. Produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) and to CARB's Phase 2 Standard. • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. • Participated in meetings with clients to discuss project strategy and identify solutions to achieve short and long term goals. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINANTS EMITTED BY INCINERATOR • Reviewed and organized sampling data, and determined the maximum levels of arsenic, dioxin, and lead in soil samples. • Determined cumulative and hourly particulate deposition of incinerator and modeled particle dispersion locations using GIS and AERMOD. • Conducted risk assessment using guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). • Utilized LeadSpread8 to evaluate exposure, and the potential adverse health effects from exposure, to lead in the environment. • Compared final results of assessment to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Recipient, Bruins Advantage Scholarship, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2010-JUNE2014 • Academic Honoree, Dean's List, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2013-JUNE2014 • Academic Wellness Director, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2013-JUNE2014 • Student Groups Support Committee Member, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2012 - JUNE2013 540 541 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 PHONE:760.777.7125 FAX:760.777.1233 Office Use Only Case Number Accepted Assigned -M Day By To Dea-dWe APPt_ Notes: APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR/COMMISSION DECISION APPLICATION M ATTACHM ENT 9 r` R4-EC"ED CITY OF U OUINTA OOMMUNI T� DEVELOPMENT FMAR�l 8 2016 0 CITY01 LAQUWTP. C0MMnITYCIEUEWPMEW DEPAR T NII-NT Sections A. B and C are to be completed by the applicant in their entirety and shall be accompanied by all listed plans, studies,, reports and exhibits fisted in Section 0 unless specifically warred by the appropriate City staff member and noted thereon. SECTION A - PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Swenson Residence Please identify the type of action being appealed: 0 Planning Commission Decision ❑ Community Development Director Determination ❑ Other Please identify each Community Development Case # and/or Condition(s) of Approval being appealed: Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Appeal of Planning Commission/Director Decision Application Page 1 of 4 City of La Quinta - Planning Department - 760,777.7125 05.2C543 P:Wpplication Submittal FormsWpplications\APUAPL Application - 05.20.13.doc SECTION C - APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION Afea )44, Applicant: - ��� / V�zl e i' �� .f—�? tti,�i � ����C 1` ✓�%� ��— (Phone) (Mailing Address) (Email) Applicant Certification I certify that I have read this application packet in its entirety and understand the City's appeal process. . /+1,9Pe ti4rrt':: 5i rr0f&,1c: Applicant's Signature: Print Name:�r'''/ 1 Owner Certification Date: I certify under the penalty of the laws of the State of California that I am the property owner of the property that is the subject matter of this application and I am authorizing and hereby do consent to the filing of this application and acknowledge that the final approval by the City of La Quinta, if any, may result in restrictions, limitations and construction obligations being imposed on this real property. , Owner/Authori: Print Name(s): SECTION D - APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Additional information may be required based on review of the project description. Submittal waivers may be obtained through staff consultation, a pre -submittal meeting, or a preliminary review application. No applications will be accepted by mail. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — INITIAL TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY STAFF # of E- # of copies in PDF Waiver 'E 'o Each of the following items is required for submittal. paper format OK'd by copies (on CD- (initials) CO) ROM) FILING FEES p I NA Filing Fees Receipt 1 NA NA APPLICATION INFORMATION p NA Application w/Statement of Appeal 1 NA NA Appeal of Planning Commission/Director Decision Application Page 3 of 4 City of La Quinta - Planning Department - 760.777.7125 05.20.13 P:Wpplication Submittal Forms\Applications\APLWPL Application - 05.20.13.doc 543 cQh SECTION E - SUBMITTAL ITEM DESCRIPTIONS FILING FEES Filing Fees are to be paid at the time of application. As part of the submittal process you will be asked to pay your fees at the Finance Department counter and return to the Planning Department counter with the receipt showing payment of fees which will be copied and submitted along with the other application materials. REQUIRED AT TIME OF APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Appeal of Planning Commission/Director Decision Application Fee: $1,573* * Payable to City of La Quinta APPLICATION INFORMATION Application: A City application form complete with all requested information and original signatures provided. Statement of Appeal; The statement of appeal portion (Section B) of the application explains what decision or portion of a decision is being appealed and why. Please be specific and cover all issues you wish to appeal. If you have any questions regarding filling out the Application, please contact the Community Development Department at (760) 777-7125. Appeal of Planning Commission/Director Decision Application Page 4 of 4 City of La Quinta . Planning Department - 760.777.7125 05.20.1,34 P:\Application Submittal Forms\Applications\APL\APL Application - 05.20.13.doc SECTION B - STATEMENT OF APPEAL Please provide sufficient information so as to make clear each issue being appealed and the grounds upon which your appeal is based. Please use additional sheets if needed. The bases of this appeal of the Planning Commission decision to adopt an MND instead of requiring an EIR and its decision to approve a CUP for the Swenson Residence are set forth in the following attached documents: January 20, 2016 ,'batten -Brown & Carstens letter on MND with expert report (Attach #1); March 8, 201�1 letter from Joe McVeigh opposing the .Swenson Project (Attach #2); March 18, 2016 Letter from Joe McVeigh responding to Planning Commission Staff Report (Attach #3) 4nd February 5, 2016 letter regarding the need for story poles (Attach #4). %n addition to the bases set forth in attachments, grounds for this appeal include; 1) City relied upon misleading photo simulations to evaluate visual impacts instead of using story poles as requested; 2) the Planning Commission failed to consider March 8, 2016 McVeigh letter; 3) the Planning Commission's decision is based upon a hydrology report the project proponent acknowledges is flawed; 4)Planning Commissioners met with project proponent but did not meet with appellant; 5)the project description is flawed because it fails to mention thai 3,000 square feet of mountain would -need to be removed for the project; 6 the pr2ject ro onent's architect provided incorrect information about the retaining walls groposed to the rear of the garage; 7 the proposed RL2ject fail to preserve the integrity of the existing adjacent stormwater channel; and 8) the project is inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Natural Open Space for the site, -this land use designation controls over the zoning code and any specific plan. Additionally, I reserve the right to supplement and further support the bases for appeal prior to the City Council hearing. Appeal of Planning Commission/Director Decision Application Page 2 of 4 City of La Quinta • Planning Department • 760.777.7126 05.20."5 Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 March 18, 2016 La Quinta City Council Members City of La Quints 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear City Council Members: We did not have sufficient time in which to submit comments on the staff report to the Planning Commission prior to the March 8, 2016 hearing by the Commission. We obtained the staff report at 5 p.m. Friday, March 4, 2016. In this connection we are submitting to the Council some of our primary concerns and comments related to the staff report to the Planning Commission. We don't agree with the staff report as to the manner in which the project is described. Based on the number of details of how the project is described in the staff report certain impressions are created that result in inaccurate conclusions. Our comments set forth below related to the staff report provide our perspective of aspects of the project as we see it. As noted elsewhere our house is adjacent and contiguous to the Swenson parcel. Everyday that we are here we view the hillside and mountain and have a realistic impression as we observe on a daily basis everything about the mountain hillside. This includes observance of the wildlife. We have seen Bighorn sheep on several occasions each season during the eight (8) years we have been in the Mountain Estates. In April of 2014 we observed five (5) sheep gathered at one time at one location about thirty (30) yards from our property line. We frequently observe road runners, chuckwalla, coyotes, and lizards. Occasionally we see a mountain lion at the foot of the mountain and on several occasions we have had a rattlesnake in our courtyard. On March 8, 2016 we submitted to the Planning Commission a detailed letter of reasons for our opposition to the project. Unfortunately our concerns were not considered by the Planning Commission in their evaluation and decision making as they relate to our several requests. Our Comments Re: Staff Report 1 546 1) Applicant proposes construction of a single family home in an area that has 3.16 acres consisting of hillside and mountain area. The area of the home development will cover approximately 12,700 square feet. This is after the removal of approximately 3,000 square feet of the mountain. There will also be cuts in the mountain ridges and other areas. The remainder of the acreage consists of rock outcrops and Santa Rosa mountain. 2) There was a tentative Tract map which was a paper subdivision for the 3.16 acre property in approximately 1990. (Tract No. 26251) The final map was never recorded. In 1996 the owner at that time recorded a tract map which reverted the 3.16 acre area to land. Tract No. 26251 was then considered null and void and is not relevant to the current situation. At the present time Tract No. 28335-R covers the land. 3) The access driveway and pad have never been graded. There is a dirt trail which leads to a flat area at the top of the hillside. The area that was disturbed at the trail and the flat area above consisted mainly of pushing rock to another part of the hillside. Not only were no permits for any type of earth movement obtained but the trail and the flat area are now topped with non - engineered sand and dirt. 4) Unfortunately the Enclave Mountain Estates (EME) Homeowners Association never reported to the City the previous disturbance of the hillside. The City did not follow up on sections of the city ordinance that require an owner to repair any unauthorized work done on a hillside in which the hillside is scarred. See LQMC 9.140.040 Section I, paragraph 1-5 5) The project site is designated open space in accordance with the City's General Plan and zoning maps. A conditional use permit is required for any development on the project. The Applicant has provided various reports pursuant to City requirements. In most cases these reports are preliminary and will be completed only after all approvals have been obtained and prior to a building permit being issued. 6) We engaged a hydrologist to review the Applicant's hydrology report. Our expert found flaws in the applicant's hydrology report and recommendations. At this time the hydrology review and report submitted to and relied upon by the City Planning Commission is flawed and incomplete. 7) We believe when the specific plan was prepared that this parcel was covered under Section 5 and was designated Open Space. 8) The description in the staff report that the proposed project site is located on a rock promontory is misleading. There is a flat area at an elevation at 35 2 547 feet above street level. The balance of the parcel consists of rock outcrops and mountain ridges of the Santa Rosa Mountain. 9) This parcel was not in the Enclave Mountain Estates when that subdivision (Tract No. 25237) was created and developed. The Mountain Estates subdivision was created under Tract No: 25237. This tract had 54 homesites at street level with buildable final graded lots. The final grading plan was approved by the City of La Quinta. The 3.16 acre parcel was not a part of the 54 homesite subdivision and has never been part of Tract No. 25237. 10)The 3.16 acre parcel was annexed to the Enclave Mountain Estates homeowners association in 1993. The parcel is still under Tract No. 28335- R. (3.16 acres of land) 11)In March 2013 the Applicant submitted its development intentions to the City staff and an application review was conducted. There was a letter written by Jay Wuu dated March 14, 2013 which among other things provided various city requirements, especially General Plan consistency. 12)Staff report states that this proposed residential development is exempt from the hillside overlay because the parcel was approved prior to the Overlay adoption. We believe that because this area was in Section 5 of the Specific Plan of Santa Rosa resort area that it is still subject to the Hillside Overlay zone. 13)Since the CUP application was submitted in May 2013 homeowners adjacent to the Parcel have on many occasions presented to the HOA their opposition to development. Please refer to letter to Planning Commission by Joseph McVeigh dated March 8, 2016 for multiple reasons for opposition to this project. 14)Notwithstanding that the EME HOA entered into a settlement agreement with the Applicant the agreement is not recognized by the City according to Nicole Criste and the community development director. Since the City does not recognize the Settlement Agreement all references in the staff report to the HOA Agreement should be ignored by the Council. 15)Since the applicant has submitted various plans to the City for parcel development the city submitted an initial study under CEQA. (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Please refer to letter dated January 20, 2016 from Chatten, Brown & Carstens setting forth all of the reasons why the MND does not meet CEQA requirements. For all these reasons we request preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. 3 548 16)The project includes construction of a proposed driveway traversing the hillside and which is 390 lineal feet in length. Staff report refers to existing access which is undersized and in poor condition. The reason for this condition is that at some prior time there was unauthorized movement of earth and currently it is simply a dirt path which traverses the hillside. 17)The Applicant proposed a "retreat" above the house within the ridgelines of the mountain. In order to build this retreat substantial rock outcrop would have to be removed on the mountain. The horizontal distance from the north edge of the proposed building pad to the proposed "retreat" area is 43 feet. 18)Rock fall walls are proposed on either side of the driveway. Rockfall walls on the mountain side will be constructed on the property line. The mountain is on the property line. Therefore the footings in the wall will be extremely close to the mountain rock. The footings for the wall will have to be drill ed/jackhammered or dug out in some way and all of this will be adjacent to the existing mountain. It may not be possible to avoid moving into the mountain. At the least there will probably be some destabilization of the mountain affected from drilling, jackhammering the edge of the mountain for footings. 19)If the driveway is constructed there will be substantial storm related water flows which will proceed down the driveway because the driveway has about an 11% slope. Because of the design and proposed construction of the driveway with walls on either side the driveway will act as an aqueduct for storm water that flows downward to the cul-de-sac on to Loma Vista. There are no catch basins for underground water exit at the cul-de-sac. The water is supposed to be carried in the gutter to a further point on Loma Vista where it goes into a ditch which flows into the golf course. There is no way to prevent flooding of the Loma Vista cul-de-sac in a major storm. 20)If there are major storms similar to the 2013 and 2014 events it will be extremely difficult for the cul-de-sac to handle the water flow and will threaten the well being and safety of the homes in the cul-de-sac. 21)It is proposed there will be a subsurface retention system to be located near the base of the driveway. Earthwork required to prepare this retention system will be dangerously close to the existing culvert pipes in the existing storm channel. This has definite threats to the integrity of the culvert which is a part of the storm channel. 22) The proposed work in #21 above should be prohibited. 4 549 23)The project includes proposed patio and pool area at the southern third of the building pad. Building pad is a misnomer because there is not an existing building pad. In the area of the proposed building pad there is a flat area where the soil and sand have to be excavated. Adjacent to the flat area is a much lower area where over 1,000 cubic yards of fill will have to be imported as the foundation for the pool and patio area. There also will have to be substantial excavation and removal of certain rock outcrops in this area. 24)All references in the staff report to "building pad" should be ignored. The Swenson architect in his correspondence to HOA and homeowners states that "current building pad" is a misnomer, there is no existing building pad. Substantial excavation and grading has to be performed in order to prepare a pad for the proposed building. 25)Applicant's plan proposes an access gate about 15 feet wide and about 5 to 10 yards from our property line and very close to the area where there are large culvert pipes for the drainage channel. This is a significant potential impact because of the work preparation to install a gate and threatens the integrity of the culvert pipes. 26)The HOA and the 54 EME homeowners have an easement which includes unlimited access to the storm channel. Installation of a gate would interfere with the unlimited storm channel access which is granted by the existing easement. The City should not allow a gate installation as proposed. Nicole Criste had informed us that the gate is not required by the City. She told us the gate is required by CVWD. This is not so. CVWD confirmed to us in writing they don't require the gate. 27)The rock fall wall retaining wall on the south side of the driveway and around the entire south edge of the proposed building pad will be finished with natural rock excavated from the site. These walls are hundreds of feet in length and range in height from three feet to twenty feet. This indicates substantial excavation on the site and some method of breaking and forming the excavated rock for the walls. The operation for the method of breaking the rocks to be used to cover the walls is not mentioned in any of the reports. 28)Storm flows will be intercepted on the site and carried to the subsurface retention system to be located near the base of the driveway. There will be substantial earth movement to establish this retention system. The placement near the base of the driveway will be dangerously close to our property and will also result in a long term threat to the non paved area and is so close to our property that it will continue to present some danger to us. 5 550 29)Site design states that a building pad has been previously graded. The report is referring to the flat area 91 feet above sea level. This area was never properly graded and is a misnomer to call it graded because dirt and rocks were merely shoved off the site to other parts of the hillside and there was no finished grading. 30) Also the earth movement was done without a permit from the city and is a violation of the city ordinance. The area should have been restored by the owner but unfortunately was not discovered by the City. The HOA was negligent in not reporting the movement of the dirt (not permitted by the City) when it should have. See #5 above. 31)Per staff report Applicant proposes to "cut" into the hillside on the northern end of the proposed building pad, a distance of approximately 20 feet. This is not only not a "cut" into the hillside, it actually is removal of 3,000 feet of mountain. It removes an area including a mountain ridge of up to 16.5 feet high. 32)Because of the removal of the mountain, Applicant's geotechnical engineer recommended a large retaining wall in this area. The retaining wall will be a minimum of twenty feet high and 115 feet in length. 33)Staff report states moving of the home north was undertaken in response to neighbor concerns regarding the home overlooking its neighbors. Our home is the closest to the proposed project and we never made a suggestion to do as stated in the previous sentence. Not only that but the neighbors have never recommended nor approved the removal of 3,000 square feet of mountain. 34)It is proposed to have hundreds of feet of retaining wall around the perimeter of the proposed house. Staff is not concerned about these walls because they are going to be finished with natural rock placed on the wall. Adjacent neighbors are extremely concerned about these walls. These walls will block neighbors view of what is now natural mountain. 3 5) Regardless of how walls are finished over 800 lineal feet of walls on the hillside will still be walls and will be a visual blight on the hillside. 36)Staff states that access to the site will be provided by expansion of the existing driveway. There is no existing driveway. It is only a dirt trail acess to the flat area of the hillside. 37) Retaining and rock falls walls along the proposed driveway will constitute a visual blight on the hillside. Staff mentions a "retreat" is proposed in the 6 551 hillside above the house. To prepare the construction of this "retreat" requires removal of significant quantity of existing rock out crops (approximately a few thousand square feet) which are a part of the scenic area of the Santa Rosa mountain. 38)Applicant has proposed and staff has approved landscaping which includes a substantial number of trees and plants. This type of landscaping conflicts with the natural look of the hillside and mountains. 39) I make a point of the mischaracterization of the condition of the access trail and flat area at top of hillside because to properly correct this area will require substantial excavation, movement of dirt and grading to obtain a finished grade. Descriptions of these areas used in the staff report give a distorted impression of this area to a reader and anyone who is not familiar with the physical terrain. 40)Applicant and staff state that the landscaping will enhance the existing condition of the hillside. We disagree. If the hillside was changed because of prior earth movement it was done in violation of the city ordinance and should be restored. 41)Staff states that activities at the proposed residence are consistent with activities in any other single- family neighborhood in the City. This is not the point. There is probably no other residence in the City that is 87 feet above sea level with a house that reaches up to approximately 105 feet above sea level and where the hillside will be filled with trees, shrubs etc. In this situation activities are not the same as any other residences. The majority of other residences are on level ground. They are not at an elevation high above the street level. Activities per se may be the same but they are much more visible and distracting to residents below the hillside. 42)The City architectural landscaping review board recommended to keep overall site disturbance to a minimum including establishment of the overlook area. We believe this recommendation is not being followed because proposed excavation and grading are substantial. See my March 8, 2016 letter to the Planning Commission which includes the statistics for all the quantities of import/export fill of rock. Also, several thousand square feet of rock outcrop will be removed to install what is necessary for the "retreat"/outlook area. 43)If such is the case for all the disturbance on the hillside it is not in compliance with the recommendation of the ALRB. In the Planning commission staff report, page 6 final paragraph, the Division has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have 7 552 been incorporated. As an adjacent homeowner we do not agree with the aforementioned conclusion. See letter dated January 20, 2016 from Chatten- Brown & Carstens objecting to the staffs mitigated negative declaration and our request for an environmental impact report. 44)Page 1, response 1, this refers to the project's hydrology study. Please see my letter dated March, 2016 to the Planning Commission. In addition to anything else in my correspondence I reiterate that the Hydrology and onsite flow control and retention system present a significant impact and will continue to do so. 45)As a general comment the water flow coming off the mountain in the 2013 and 2014 major storm events contributed significantly to the build up of water in the channel ultimately resulting in millions of dollars in damage to mountain estates homeowners. Now the hillside is going to have substantial earth movement, excavation, export/import of fill, substantial movement of rocks, and removal of 3,000 feet of mountain. The hydrology and related drainage issues have presented a major problem related to the mountain side in its current and past condition. Our hydrology expert found the Applicant's analysis and report is flawed. All of the proposed work on the mountain will only exacerbate these conditions and endanger the existing homes in the surrounding 54 homesite mountain estates community. Sincerley, Joseph McVeigh Owner 77220 Loma Vista, La Quinta 77339 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta 77240 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta 8 553 CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS LLP 2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, STE. 318 TELEPHONE: (3I O) 798-2400 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 E-MAIL: FACSIMILE: (3I O) 798-2402 ACM@CBCEARTHLAW COM www.cbcearthlaw.com January 20, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Swenson Project, 77210 Loma Vista Dear Ms. Criste:. On behalf of La Quinta resident Joseph McVeigh, we object to the use of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for the proposed residential project at 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates, referred to as the "Swenson Project." This Project includes the construction of an over 6,000 square foot house with a large outdoor pool, spa and patio area on 3.16 acres of steep and rocky hillside land, designated by the City's General Plan for natural open space uses. The Swenson Project would require massive of amounts of excavation and grading of this steep hillside area for the 355 foot long driveway and 13,000 square foot building pad. Additionally, due to the steep location and rocky terrain, the Project would require construction of rockfall and retaining walls along the length of the driveway and several hundred feet of retaining walls adjacent to the building pad. The Swenson Project would result in significant adverse impacts, including: impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep and species of special concern, massive grading of scenic hillside, resulting in highly visible aesthetic impacts; excessive particulate matter and noise levels during constructing; traffic hazards from haul trips; water quality and flooding impacts; destabilizing a hillside; inconsistency with the City's General Plan, the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan and the City's Hillside Ordinance; an ability to cause growth inducing and cumulative impacts; and the inclusion of improperly deferred mitigation measures. Due to these impacts, the City is required to prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project instead of a MND. 554 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 2 of 15 I. The City Failed to Provide Public Notice of the MND to Surrounding Residents. Several residents that own homes within 500 feet of the Project site did not receive notice of the City's intent to adopt a MND for the Swenson Project. We are not aware of any publication of the notice of intent in a newspaper. However, even if the City did publish the notice of intent, it would not have provided adequate notice to residents in a resort community, many of whom are part-time residents. Additionally, the MND was released on December 23, 2015, at a time when many residents are traveling for Christmas and New Year's Day. Publication in a newspaper at this time would not provide adequate notice to the residents that would be impacted by the Swenson Project. We request that the City reissue its notice of intent to adopt a MND and extend the comment period to allow all impacted residents the opportunity to submit comments. II. An EIR is Required. Because issuing an MND truncates the CEQA process with often minimal environmental review, CEQA's "legal standards reflect a preference for requiring an EIR to be prepared." (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 322, 332.) An agency proposing to rely upon an MND must make the analysis accompanying the proposed MND as complete and comprehensive as possible. (Long Beach Savings and Loan Assn. v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 263.) When considering whether to require preparation of a full EIR or allow review culminating in an MND instead, a court will examine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the stated mitigation measures may not achieve the goal of reducing impacts below a level of significance. (Citizen's Com. To Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1157.) If any substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact after the agency's proposed mitigation measures are implemented exists, then preparation of an MND is not appropriate, even if substantial evidence exists to the contrary. (Public Resources Code § 21080(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, 1002.) An EIR must be prepared instead of a NIND when there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "If there is substantial evidence of a 555 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 3 of 15 significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15064.) "[T]he significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (b).) The development of a single family home that may have minimal impacts in an urban setting could have significant impacts in an aesthetically and biologically sensitive area such as this. Courts show a clear preference for resolving doubts in favor of preparing an EIR. (Architectural Heritage Association. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 1095, 1110; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.AppAth 608, 617-618; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602-03.) Here, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Swenson Project may have numerous significant adverse impacts. III. The MND's Analysis is Inadequate and Inaccurate. The purpose of the initial study, upon which the City's MND relies, is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and "documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4t" 1170, 1201.) "Where an agency... fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. A. The MND Provides and Incomplete Project Description. The MND fails to give the public a complete picture of the Project, downplaying the extent and impact of the development. The information contained within the MND is to be used as a basis for the decision on what would be the least impactful means for the project to proceed. "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." (McQueen v. Act Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 4 of 15 Board of Directors of the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs ...." (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193.) Here, the MND fails to disclose and analyze the significant landscaping that will be included as part of the Project. The MND also fails to inform decision makers that this Project would be the first of its kind, allowing development at a greater elevation than any other residential development in the City, which will make it visible from a significant distance. The MND inaccurately claims the Project would be adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills when it will actually be constructed on those foothills. The MND also lacks information regarding the full extent of the building pad. The document discusses only the square footage for the residence, it does not analyze the square footage for the large outdoor entertaining area that is proposed as part of the Project. This outdoor area includes a pool, spa, large overlook viewing area and additional outdoor recreation area. The impacts of all aspects of the Project must accurately disclosed and thoroughly analyzed. B. The MND Provides an Inaccurate Description of the Existing Conditions. The "physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published... will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) The California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the longstanding requirement that an agency use the existing environmental conditions to determine the significance of impacts, and recognized a narrow exception to this requirement when using the existing conditions analysis would be misleading. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 457.) Here, the MND relies on an inaccurate description of the existing conditions at the Project site as the baseline for environmental analysis. The MND repeatedly references an existing building pad on the Project site. (MND p. 1.) There has never been any approved grading of the site. At some point in time, a previous owner (without any plans or permits) made a path traversing the lower slope to an elevation of 90 feet, but did not grade a building pad. The only relatively flat surface on the site is located at a 90 foot elevation. Such surface has never been graded pursuant to an approved plan or permit. The area around this surface has incurred substantial erosion in recent years. The physical condition of the lot requires substantial excavation, grading, ripping of rock and 557 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 5 of 15 placement of over 800 feet of walls. All of this work will have severe impacts for the hillside, slope and the mountain that must be disclosed in the MND. C. The MND's Analysis of the Project's Impacts is Inadequate 1. The Project Would Have Significant Biological Impacts. a. Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Require a Mandatory Finding of Significance. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance of an impact where a project "has the potential to ... reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065 (a).) Peninsular bighorn sheep have been observed on the Swenson Project site recently and on several occasions. (Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site.) On one of those occasions, in April of 2014, five Peninsular bighorn sheep were observed on the Project site by Mr. McVeigh. The construction of this Project would adversely impact this endangered species by allowing development to intrude further into their habitat, thereby restricting their range. This impact requires a mandatory finding of significance and the preparation of an EIR instead of an MND. b. The MND Fails to Disclose Impacts to Species of Special Concern. The biological survey conducted for the Project site identified numerous species that are expected or were observed on the site. The MND claims that no sensitive species were observed, but this claim is inaccurate. There are several species, or evidence of such species, that were found during the surveys, but were not identified as special status species in the surveys or in the MND, even though the Department of Fish and Wildlife identify them as such. The following special status species were identified in the biological survey: • Rosy Boa, US Forest Service sensitive species • Costa's Hummingbird, US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern • Pallid Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern • Spotted Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern • Hoary Bat, Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority 558 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 6 of 15 • Southern Grasshopper Mouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (See Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016.) Even though not currently listed as threatened or endangered, the impacts to these species of special concern must be studied and mitigated as part of the environmental review process. These species of special concern are not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, but nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, and/or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The MND fails to disclose the Project's impacts to these special status species. C. Wildlife Movement Would Be Restricted by the Project. The installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail. The MND fails to analyze the impacts to wildlife movement that would result from the bifurcation of the Project site by the driveway rockfall walls. 2. The Project Would Have Significant Aesthetic Impacts. "[Ajny substantial, negative effect ol'a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a "significant" environmental impact under CEQA." (Quail Botanical Gardens I oundation, Inc. v. CitY (?f Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4t" 1597, 1604.) According to the California Court of Appeal, lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004 ) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 402.) Expert testimony on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for which personal observations are sufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882.) The analysis of aesthetic impacts for the Swenson Project is inaccurate and incomplete. First, the photo simulations prepared for the Project are misleading. They are taken from very nearby areas, which fail to disclose the visual impacts of the Project from a distance. Located two stories above existing adjacent homes and other residences in La Quinta, the Swenson Project will be highly visible from the adjacent existing homes and from a distance. 559 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 7 of 15 The photo simulations also fail to include renderings of the 350 foot long and up to seven foot high driveway walls that would be included in the Project, as well as the extensive outdoor recreation areas. These walls, and the required 18 foot tall retaining walls, will be incompatible with the desert landscape and with the development below. The magnitude of the planned walls disrupts the continuity of views of the Santa Rosa Mountain range and would deprive the community of the scenic benefits they have enjoyed for many years. This would be the only scar on the scenic mountains which are a prime aesthetic "element" in the City. The use of cast stone and faux rock walls does not mitigate this impact. There are no walls within the developed area (completed areas) of the Mountain Estates that are faced with cast stone. The massive amount of development that would occur as part of the Project would require extensive cuts into the steeply sloped hillside. The grading required for the driveway, wall structures and residence will severely and permanently scar the hillside. The MND must evaluate whether this massive reshaping of the landscape will be visible from nearby hiking trails. Additionally, the MND fails to analyze the off -site impacts of constructing the driveway rockfall walls along the western property line for the site. The footings required for the rockfall walls will require jack -hammering and rock removal on the preserved property adjacent to the Project site. To truly evaluate the visual impacts of the Swenson Project, the City should require the installation of story poles denoting the location and height of the house and walls associated with this Project. This will allow the City to assess the visibility of the Swenson Residence and will enable residents to more accurately comment upon the visual impacts of the project. Further, not only will the Project result in an adverse aesthetic impact from the construction of a large residence, but it will also bring incompatible landscaped vegetation to the desert backdrop. The City of La Quinta has written frequently in various publications about the scenic aspects and related benefits of the Santa Rosa Mountains surrounding and within the City. The plans for the Swenson Project provide for a large quantity of new trees, shrubs and ground cover. Extensive landscaping may be appropriate in non -mountain locations but for this Project it would have a negative impact related to the benefits of the scenic views of the mountain range. A change to a landscaped hillside for the purpose of screening off structures on the hillside would have a significant negative impact. 560 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 8 of 15 3. The MND Underestimates Construction Air Quality Impacts. The MND claims that there only would be 700 cubic yards of fill that would be removed from the site as part of the Project, but does not provide any analysis or evidence to substantiate this figure. This appears to be an underestimation of the amount of fill that would be required to be removed to a depth of at least four feet for the construction of a nearly 6,000 square foot home. It appears this calculation may not include the fill removal that would be required for the 350 foot long driveway and extensive outdoor recreation area. Based on the size of the residence and driveway, and depth of excavation required, a more reasonable estimate of the amount of fill that would be removed from the site is over 1,100 cubic yards. The massive amount of grading required for the project could also result in the release of particulate matter from the fine dirt and sand on the site. The Santa Rosa Cove area of La Quinta is subject to severe windstorms during the year. Significant quantities of dirt and sand will blow on the homes located adjacent to the Project site, including a house within 25 yards of the Project. According to the MND's calculations, the Project is just below the localized significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Once the analysis of construction air quality impacts is revised to include all of the grading that would be required for the Project, it is likely the Swenson Project would exceed these thresholds of significance, which were designed to protect the health of residents living adjacent to construction sites. The excavation of the Project site could also result in health impacts from release of the fungus that causes valley fever. Valley fever is particularly dangerous for persons over age 55, which many of the residents in this area are. The MND fails to analyze this potentially significant impact. 4. The MND Fails to Analyze Haul Trips. As set forth above, the MND underestimates the amount of fill that would need to be removed as part of this Project. Even if 700 cubic yards of fill is accurate, the MND fails to analyze the haul trips that would be required. Assuming a dump truck holds an average of 10 cubic yards of fill, the Project would require at least 70 haul trips. The MND does not include any analysis of the traffic impacts and traffic hazards that would result from this large number of haul trips on narrow residential streets. Additionally, movement of heavy construction equipment and trucks used for export and import of fill will put a burden on the community's streets, which already show numerous cracks in the 561 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 9 of 15 asphalt and excessive wear and tear. 5. The MND's Analysis of Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Is Inadequate. The Swenson Project requires substantial excavation and grading, including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. To flatten the site for the driveway and building pad and to install footings for the hundreds of feet of walls included in the project, large rocks lodged about the site will need to be removed using jackhammers. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which have never before been disturbed. It will also have major noise and ground vibration impacts and could result in rock slide hazards for nearby residents. The MND fails to set a threshold of significance for the construction noise that will be produced by the Project in violation of CEQA. Noise levels at nearby homes could exceed 100 decibels during construction. That is louder than the sound of an airplane taking off. Exposure to such noise levels for more than 15 minutes could result in serious health impacts. (See 11LI1):://(langCI'OLI�,decibcls.nr 7/�eductitioii/inlorinatioii- center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/, incorporated by reference.) These significant impacts require the preparation of an EIR. Additionally, these significant noise levels would adversely impact the Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species of special concern found on and adjacent to the Project site. The MND is also inadequate because it does not include any analysis of the ground vibrations that would result from the jack -hammering and rock ripping activities that would be required to construct the Project. The nearest home is only 25 yards from the Project. Vibrations from the construction activities could have severe consequences to the foundations, walls and floors of residences contiguous to the Swenson's property. Further, the geotechnical study prepared for the Project proposed that rocks greater than 6 inches that will be removed from the site could be crushed and used as fill. (Geotechnical report p. 21.) The MND fails to disclose or analyze the impacts that would be associated with rock crushing activities if they are employed as part of the Project. 6. The MND Fails to Analyze Operational Noise Impacts. The Swenson Project includes a large outdoor entertainment area, including a pool, spa, and recreation area. Project plans submitted to the Enclave Mountain Estates KIM Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 10 of 15 Homeowners Association show that there will be an outdoor television and speakers. The noise from the site would carry because it is located 40 feet above the existing homes. The MND does not include any analysis of whether activities at these outdoor areas would adversely impact adjacent residents. 7. Hydrological Impacts Will Be Significant. As set forth in the attached review of the water quality management plan, prepared by hydrologic experts at SWAPE, the Project would have significant adverse flooding and water quality impacts that are not mitigated. The underground retention system proposed for the Project is inadequate to address flows from the Project site. (Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan.) While the Project applicant has submitted a report to support the proposed retention system, the disagreement between the applicant's expert and experts at SWAPE necessitate the preparation of an EIR to analyze the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (g).) Thus, even if the City's consultants disagree with these assessments, an EIR should be prepared to resolve the disputes. (City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 247-249 [expert disagreement about extent of a wetlands required preparation of EIR to resolve dispute]; Friend of Old Trees v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.0 1383, 1398-1403 [expert dispute regarding project's impacts on water supplies required further environmental review].) Additionally, the MND and the hydrology and water quality reports fail to address the significant impacts that resulted under existing conditions during the storms of 2013 and 2014. Substantial flooding occurred at and adjacent to the Project site, causing significant property damage to the homes located near the site. The reports and MND fail to disclose that the Project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions. 8. Geotechnical Impacts The Swenson Project could destabilize the hillside, resulting in hazardous conditions for the residents below. The geotechnical report acknowledges the potential for rock fall and other destabilization hazards. The report makes initial recommendations for addressing these impacts after completion of the Project by installing rockfall walls, but does not address mitigation of these hazards during construction when ground shaking from construction material will be greatest. 563 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 11 of 15 This Project would unnecessarily increase hazards to the residents below the site after construction is completed as well. As proposed, the Project would crush a portion of the excavated bedrock and use that along with imported fill as engineered fill on top of which the project would be built. Development constructed on top of man-made fill such as this is more prone to distress from earthquakes than those built on cut areas since fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Earthquakes are common in this area; there was just one felt by residents on January 6, 2016. 9. The Project Would Have Significant Land Use Impacts. a. The Project Is Inconsistent With the General Plan Land Use Designation and Policies. "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) A general plan is the "constitution for future development" and controls over other local land use regulations, including zoning. (De Vita v. Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773.) "[T]he requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (Debottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.) Here, the Swenson Project would be inconsistent with the land use designation for the site established in the City's General Plan. The Project site is designated for Natural Open Space. "This land use designation is applied to areas of natural open space, whether owned by private parties or public entities. With the exception of trail or trailhead development, little development is permitted in this designation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-5.) The preservation of these areas is particularly important in areas such as the Project site, which is located in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains: The Natural Open Space category applies particularly to lands in the foothills of the mountains that the City has always strived to preserve. These lands provide a backdrop to the development on the Valley floor, and are areas important to biological resource preservation. They provide an important social and economic asset to the City that cannot be undervalued. (General Plan Land Use Element II-21 to 22.) The City's Land Use Element preserves these Natural Open Space designated areas "for the long term, and reasserts the City's commitment to their preservation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-22.) The Open 564 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 12 of 15 Space Element includes Policy 3.1 which requires the City "to the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat." The Project site meets all of these qualifications for maximum preservation. Development of the Project site with a residence would be inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement to preserve this site as open space. (See also General Plan Open Space Goal 3, Policy OS-1.1, Policy OS-3.3.) b. The Project Is Inconsistent With the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. We disagree with the City's conclusion that the Project site is located within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Based on the map included in this Specifc Plan, a designation ofPlaniung Area V is more likely the appropriate designation for the site. The Specific Plan designates Planning Area V as open space and defines it by the areas with slope in excess of 20 percem. The "Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form" submitted by the applicant for this Project describes the site as having a slope of at least 25 percent. Thus, based on both the maps and the slope for the site, a designation of Planning Area V should apply to the Swenson Project site. The development of a house on this site designated for open space would be inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Project is also inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan's policies and goals encouraging preservation of hillside areas because they "contribute to the City's visual, wildlife and archaeological resources." (Specific Plan p. 2.30.) The Specific Plan also requires that building masses not overwhelm the street scene. The Swenson Project, which would be built 40 feet above the existing street, would overwhelm the street scene in violation of this requirement. (Specific Plan p. 2.44.) The Specific Plan states that development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the City's scenic resources and those hillside areas should be maintained as open space. (Specific Plan pp. 4.2, 4.4, 4.5.) The hillsides should also be preserved to protect to prevent impacts to residents and their property from seismic events, flooding and noise. (Specific Plan p. 4.7.) The Specific Plan also requires the City to be protected from the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. (Specific Plan p. 4.5.) Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 13of15 C. The Project Does Not Comply With the City's Hillside Ordinance. The Project would include massive amounts of grading that will forever change the contours of this highly visible hillside and will develop a large house, with long stretches of retaining and rock walls. All of this is in direct contrast of the intent of the City Hillside Ordinance which provides, among other purposes, the following: • To maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features, including but not limited to mountainsides, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridgecrest, hilltops... rock outcroppings, view corridors and scenic vistas... • To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and cut and fill slopes. To ensure the building "will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design or location of the developmental use." 10. The Project Would Have Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts. Under section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental review document must discuss "the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." A growth inducing impact may come from a project that removes obstacles to population growth. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d).) An EIR, instead of a MND, is required when a project that viewed by itself seems limited, but that could function as a catalyst for foreseeable future development. (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325.) Additionally, when the possible effects of a project are "individually limited but cumulatively considerable" a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment must be made. (Public Resources Code § 21083.) When an unmitigated cumulatively considerable impact is found, an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) Here, the Swenson Project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. It would open the door to more development in this scenic environment, encouraging other development in the mountain/hillside areas of the City. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 14 of 15 IV. The MND Includes Improperly Deferred Mitigation Courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The court in Sundstrom found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id. at 306-308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884.) The mitigation measures for numerous potentially significant effects of this Project are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to Project approval. Preparation of a project specific geotechnical report, grading plans and drainage plans is improperly deferred until after Project approval. Additionally, no information on the design and engineering for the rockfall walls has been provided and will not be prepared until post -approval. Plans and mitigation measures need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document, so that the public and decision makers can evaluate their efficacy before the Project is approved. (Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(2).) Conclusion CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) An MND is appropriate only when, due to the mitigation measures, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence t.o support a fair argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Amy Minteer 567 Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 15 of 15 Cc: Les Johnson, Community Development Director Enclosure: Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016 Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan 568 O ATTACHMENT 1 570 ATTACHMENT 2 572 n W California Department of Fish and Wildlife , California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)' SPECIAL ANIMALS LIST January 2016 573 Recommended Citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. January 2016. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 51 pp. 574 Table of Contents iv SpecialAnimals.......................................................................................................................................... v NatureServeElement Ranking .................................. ................................................................................... Animal Element Occurrences and Mapping ........................ ..................................................... ................. vii vi i i TaxonomicReferences. ............................................................................................................................. ix Listing and Special Status Information....................................................................................................... xiii Table of Special Status Code Abbreviations ............................................ ................. ............................... SpecialAnimals List ...... ........ ..................................................... .................. ............................................ xiv 575 Special Animals (906 taxa) Last updated December 2015 "Special Animals" is a broad term used to refer to all the animal taxa tracked by the Department of Fish and Wildlife's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species". The Special Animals list includes species, subspecies, or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) where at least one of the following conditions applies: - Officially listed or proposed for listing under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; - Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern (SSC); - Taxa which meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. (More information on CEQA is available at: http://resources.ca.g-ov/cega/guidelines - Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range but not currently threatened with extirpation; - Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range but are threatened with extirpation in California; - Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at a significant rate (e.g. wetlands, riparian, vernal pools, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands, valley shrubland habitats, etc.); - Taxa designated as a special status, sensitive, or declining species by other state or federal agencies, or a non -governmental organization (NGO) and determined by the CNDDB to be rare, restricted, declining, or threatened across their range in California. Taxa marked with a "+" to the left of the scientific name are those for which there is location information in the CNDDB Geographic Information System (GIS), as of the date of this list. Taxa with a "Yes" in the "Notes" column have more information in an end note at the back of the list. Additional information on the CNDDB is available on the Department of Fish and Wildlife web site at: http//www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb Additional information on other Department resource management programs is available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.ciov/Conservation The Species Conservation & Recovery Program has additional information on wildlife habitat, threats, and survey guidelines at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame iv aR NatureServe Element Ranking All Heritage Programs, such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) use the same ranking methodology, originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and now maintained and recently revised by NatureServe. It includes a Global rank (G-rank), describing the rank for a given taxon over its entire distribution and a State rank (S-rank), describing the rank for the taxon over its state distribution. For subspecies and varieties, there is also a "T" rank describing the global rank for the infraspecific taxon. The next page of this document details the criteria used to assign element ranks, from G1 to G5 for the Global rank and from S1 to S5 for the State rank. Procedurally, state programs such as the CNDDB develop the State ranks. The Global ranks are determined collaboratively among the Heritage Programs for the states/provinces containing the species. NatureServe then checks for consistency and logical errors at the national level. Because the units of conservation may include non -taxonomic biological entities such as populations or ecological communities, NatureServe refers to the targets of biological conservation as elements rather than taxa. An element rank is assigned using standard criteria and rank definitions. This standardization makes the ranks comparable between organisms and across political boundaries. NatureServe has developed a "rank calculator" to help increase repeatability and transparency of the ranking process. The three main categories that are taken into consideration when assigning an element rank are rarity, threats, and trends. Within these three categories, various factors are considered including: • Range extent, area of occupancy, population size, total number of occurrences, environmental specificity and number of good occurrences (ranked A or B). • Overall threat impact as well as intrinsic vulnerability (if threats are unknown). Long-term and short-term trends. Detailed information on the newest element ranking methodology can be found here: https://connect natureserve.org/pLiblications/StatusAssess Me[hodology With the above considerations in mind, refer below for the numerical definitions for G1-5 and S1-5. An element's ranking status may be adjusted up or down depending upon the considerations above. v 577 Element Ranking GLOBAL RANKING The gfobal rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range. Both Global and State ranks represent a letter and number score that reflects a combination of Rarity, Threat, and Trend factors, with weighting being heavier on Rarity than the other two. SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITY LEVEL G1 = Critically imperiled —At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = Imperiled —At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = Vulnerable —At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure —Common; widespread and abundant. SUBSPECIES LEVEL Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the giobal situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp_ phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp, phaea. STATE RANKING The state rank (S-rank) is assigned much the same way as the global rank, but state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California's state boundaries. S1 = Critically Imperiled —Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled —Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable —Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S4 = Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare in the state; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure —Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Notes: 1 Other considerations used when ranking a 3. Other symbols: species or natural community include the pattern of distribution of the element on the landscape, GH All sites are historical; tl fragmentation of the population/stands, and not been seen for at leas historical extent as compared to its modern suitable habitat still exist range. It is important to take a bird's eye or California sites are histoi aerial view when ranking sensitive elements rather than simply counting element GX All sites are extirpated; occurrences. extinct in the wild (SX = sites are extirpated). GXC Extinct in the wild; exists 2. Uncertainty about the rank of an element is expressed in two major ways: By expressing the ranks as a range of values: G1Q The element is very rare e.g., S2S3 means the rank is somewhere taxonomic questions a between S2 and S3. T Rank applies to a subsp By adding a "T' to the rank: e.g., S2? This represents more certainty than S2S3, but less certainty than S2. _ .. VI le element has ;t 20 years, but s (SH = All -ical). this element is 4II California in cultivation. , but there are ssociated with it. ecies or variety. 578 Animal Element Occurrences and Mapping What is an Element Occurrence? An Element Occurrence (EO) is a location where the element has been documented to occur. It is a concept developed and applied within the NatureServe natural heritage network. An EO is not a population, but it may indicate that a population is present in that area; and a single population may be represented by more than one EO. An EO is based upon the source documents available to us at the time it was mapped. Both the mapped feature and the text portion of EO's are updated as new information becomes available. Element Occurrence (EO) Definitions vary by taxa: The EO definition refers to the types of information we map. For most animal taxa, the CNDDB is interested in information that indicates the presence of a resident population. However, for many migratory birds the CNDDB tracks detections of nest sites or behaviors indicating reproduction is occurring at the site. Details about avian detections are available in our Submitting Avian Detections document at: https://www.dfg.ca.ciov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting data to cnddb.asp. For other taxa where we track only a certain part of their range or life history, the area or life stage is indicated on the list under the "Comment" column. Mapping Conventions: Our information is mapped to balance precision and uncertainty, based upon the source materials used to determine the location of the element occurrence (EO). Data with precise location information are mapped with 80m radius circles or specific polygons. Data with vague location information are mapped with non-specific circular features or non-specific polygons. Non-specific features indicate that the species was found somewhere within the mapped area, but the exact location was unknown. Generally, observations/collections within % mile and/or within continuous habitat, are combined into a single element occurrence (EO). vii 579 Taxonomic References Last updated October 2015 Taxonomic References and Sources of Additional Information: The CNDDB follows current published taxonomy for animals as recognized by the scientific organizations listed below. The CNDDB reviews publications that propose new taxonomy and nomenclature for CNDDB-tracked species, and evaluates whether these proposals are recognized and accepted by the larger scientific community. The CNDDB makes every effort to use the best available science in the taxonomy we use, but different experts may recognize different names for some time after a taxonomic change is proposed. In these cases, the CNDDB will generally use the preexisting nomenclature until a change is formally recognized beyond the initial publication. In addition, the CNDDB recognizes some taxa identified by experts on the California fauna where these taxa may not be recognized by national biological societies. We generally follow the taxonomy used by NatureServe, with additional evaluation of taxonomy from the following sources: For reptiles and amphibians: The Center for North American Herpetology (http://www.cnah.org) The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (http://www.ssarherps.org) For fish: Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa -Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp. Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz -Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. For birds: The checklist of the American Ornithologists' Union: http://checklist.aou.org/ For mammals: The American Society of Mammalogists: http://www.mammaIsociety.org/pubiications/mammalian-species Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffman, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, & C. Jones. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/or)s/op229.pdf viii 580 Listing and Special Status Information Last updated March, 2015 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES: The listing status of each species is current as of the date of this list. The most current changes in listing status will be found in the "Endangered and Threatened Animals List," which the CNDDB updates and issues quarterly. SE State listed as Endangered ST State listed as Threatened SCE State candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State candidate for listing as Threatened SCD State candidate for delisting FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES: The listing status is current as of the date of this list. The most current changes in listing status will be found in the "Endangered and Threatened Animals List," which the CNDDB updates and issues quarterly. Federal listing actions contained in the Federal Register are also available at: http://www.regulations.gov FE Federally listed as Endangered FT Federally listed as Threatened FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened FPD Federally proposed for delisting FC Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. Five year reviews from the Pacific Southwest Region are available at: httr)://www.fws.gov/cno/es/recovery.html OTHER STATUS CODES The status of species on the Special Animals List according to other conservation organizations is provided. Taxa on these lists are reviewed for inclusion in the CNDDB Special Animals List, but are not automatically included. For example, taxa that are regionally rare within a portion of California may not be included, because they may be of lesser conservation concern across their full range in California. American Fisheries Society (AFS): Designations for freshwater and diadromous species were taken from the paper: Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras- BaIderas, E. Diaz -Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008_jelks_h001.pdf ix 581 Designations for marine and estuarine species were taken from the paper: Musick, J.A. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. Available at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sawfish/Reprintl390.pdf BLM Sensitive: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual §6840 states that "BLM sensitive species are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as Bureau sensitive by the State Director(s). All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting will be conserved as Bureau sensitive species." The California-BLM Sensitive Animals list is available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wildlife.htmI CDF Sensitive: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection classifies "sensitive species" as those species that warrant special protection during timber operations. The list of "sensitive species" is given in §895.1 (Definitions) of the California Forest Practice Rules. The 2014 Forest Practice Rules are available at: http:/Iwww.calfire.ca.gov/resource mot/resource mgt forestpractice.php. CQFW Species of Special Concern (SSC): It is the goal and responsibility of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain viable populations of all native species. To this end, the Department has designated certain vertebrate species as Species of Special Concern because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. The goal of designating species as "Species of Special Concern" is to halt or reverse their decline by calling attention to their plight and addressing the issues of concern early enough to secure their long term viability. Not all "Species of Special Concern have declined equally; some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a "Threatened" or "Endangered" species under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. More information is available at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/non-game/ssc/ CDFW Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under the California and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; the exceptions are white-tailed kite, golden eagle, trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal, and ring-tailed cat. The white-tailed kite and the golden eagle are tracked in the CNDDB; the trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal and ring-tailed cat are not. The Fish and Game Code sections dealing with Fully Protected species state that these species "...may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected" species, although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language arguably makes the "Fully Protected" designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the "take" of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with Fully Protected species were amended to allow the Department to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state -listed species. More information on Fully Protected species and the take provisions can be found in the Fish and Game Code, (birds at §3511, mammals at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515). Additional information on Fully x AMN Protected fish can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter 2, Article 4, §5.93. The category of Protected Amphibians and Reptiles in Title 14 has been repealed. The Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations are available online. IUCN - The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCM: The IUCN assesses, on a global scale, the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties and even selected subpopulations in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and therefore promote their conservation. Detailed information on the IUCN and the Red List is available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org Marine Mammal Commission Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern: Section 202 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to make recommendations to the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies on research and management actions needed to conserve species of marine mammals. To meet this charge, the Commission devotes special attention to particular species and populations that are vulnerable to various types of human -related activities, impacts, and contaminants. Such species may include marine mammals listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, the Commission often directs special attention to other species or populations of marine mammals not so listed whenever special conservation challenges arise that may affect them. More information on the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern list is available at: http://www.mmc.gov/species/welcome.shtml. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI): The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies and private organizations that works to ensure the long-term health North America's native bird populations. They publish an annual State of the Birds report which includes a watch list of bird species in need of conservation help. Species on the list are assigned to either the Red Watch List for species with extremely high vulnerability, or Yellow Watch List for species that may be range restricted or may be more widespread but with declines and high threats. More information is available at: http://stateofthebirds.org. National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS S ecies of Concern: The Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is a headquarters program office of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service, or NMFS), under the U.S. Department of Commerce, with responsibility for protecting marine mammals and endangered marine life. NOAA's Office of Protected Resources works to conserve, protect, and recover species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The category "Species of Concern" was established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) effective 15 April 2004. Species of Concern are those species about which NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). "Species of Concern" status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA, but is meant to draw proactive attention and conservation action to these species. More information is available at: httr)://www.nmfs.noaa.ciov/pr/species/concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern: The goal of the Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 report is to accurately identify the migratory and non -migratory A 583 bird species (beyond those already designated as Federally Threatened or Endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. This report is available at: http:/iwww.fws.gov/migratorybirds/cLars'entbirdissues/manavement/BCC.html U.S. Forest Service Sensitive: USDA Forest Service defines sensitive species as plant and animal species identified by a regional forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Regional Foresters shall identify sensitive species occurring within the region. California is the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). More information is available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals and at: http://www.fs.usda.-gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5435266.xlsx Western Bat Working Group (WBWG): The WBWG is comprised of agencies, organizations and individuals interested in bat research, management and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. The goals are (1) to facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) to provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) to develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance and encourage education programs. Species are ranked as High, Medium, or Low Priority in each of 10 regions in western North America. Because California includes multiple regions where a species may have different WBWG Priority ranks, the CNNDB includes categories for Medium -High, and Low -Medium Priority. The CNDDB tracks bat species that are at least Low - Medium Priority in California. More information is available at: http://www.wbwci.orci. Xerces Society Red List: The Xerces Society is an international non-profit organization dedicated to protecting biological diversity through invertebrate conservation. The Society advocates for invertebrates and their habitats by working with scientists, land managers, educators, and citizens on conservation and education projects. Their core programs focus on endangered species, native pollinators, and watershed health. More information on the Red List is available at: http://www.xerces.orq. xii 584 Table of Special Status Code Abbreviations Organization Abbreviation American Fisheries Society -..Endangered AFS EN American Fisheries Society - Threatened AFS TH American Fisheries Society - Vulnerable AFS VU Bureau of Land Management - Sensitive BLM S Calif Dept of Forestry & Fire Protection - Sensitive CDF S Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Fully Protected CDFW FP Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Species of Special Concern CDFW SSC Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Watch Lis_ t CDFW WL IUCN - Critically Endangered IUCN CR IUCN - Endangered IUCN EN IUCN - Near Threatened IUCN NT IUCN - Vulnerable IUCN VU IUCN - Least Concern IUCN LC IUCN - Data Deficient IUCN DID IUCN - Conservation Dependent IUCN CD Marine Mammal Commission - Species of Special Concern MMC SSC National Marine Fisheries Service - Species of Concern NMFS SC North American Bird Conservation Initiative- Red Watch List NABCI RWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative- Yellow Watch List NABCI YWL U. S. Forest Service - Sensitive USFS S U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern USFWS BCC Western Bat Working Group - High Priority WBWG H Western Bat Working Group - Medium -High Priori WBWGvMH Western Bat Working Group - Medium Priori WBWG M Western Bat Working Group - Low -Medium Priority WBWG LM Xerces Society - Critically Imperiled XERCES CI Xerces Society - Imperiled XERCES IM Xerces Society - Vulnerable XERCES VU Xerces Society - Data Deficient XERCES DID xin 585 Special Animals List The remainder of this document contains the CNDDB's Special Animals List current as of the date on the title page of this document. For additional information on how CNDDB determines what species to track please see the CNDDB webpage. AV Mi: Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes PELECYPODA (clams and mussels) +Anodonta californiensis G3Q S2? None None USFS:S California floater Anodonta oregonensis G5Q S2? None None Oregon floater +Gonidea angulata G3 S1 S2 None None western ridged mussel +Margaritifera falcata G4G5 S1 S2 None None western pearlshell +Pisidium ultramontanum G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU montane peaclam USFS:S GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) Algamorda newcombiana G1G2S1S2 None None Newcomb's littorine snail +Ammonitella yatesii G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU tight coin (=Yates' snail) +Ancotrema voyanum G1G2 S1S2 None None BLM:S hooded lancetooth +Assiminea infima G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Badwater snail +Binneya notabilis G1 S1 None None IUCN:DD Santa Barbara shelled slug +Colligyrusconvexus G1G2S1S2 None None canary duskysnail +Eremarionta immaculata G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU white desertsnail Eremarionta millepalmarum G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Thousand Palms desertsnail +Eremarionta morongoana G1G3 S1 None None IUCN:NT Morongo (=Colorado) desertsnail +Eremarionta rowelli bakerensis G3G4T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD Baker's desertsnail +Eremarionta rowelli mccoiana G3G4T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD California Mccoy snail +Fluminicola seminalis G2 S1 S2 None None USFS:S nugget pebblesnail +Fontelicella sp. G1 S1 None None Deep Springs Fontelicella Glyptostoma gabrielense G2 S2 None None San Gabriel chestnut Haliotis corrugata G3? S2? None None NMFS:SC pink abalone +Haliotis cracherodii G3 S1 S2 Endangered None IUCN:CR black abalone Haliotis fulgens G3G4 S2 None None NMFS:SC green abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana G3G4 S2 None None IUCN:EN pinto abalone NMFS:SC Haliotis sorenseni G1 S1 Endangered None white abalone +Haplotrema catalinense G1 S1 None None Santa Catalina lancetooth +Haplotremaduranti G1G2S1S2 None None ribbed lancetooth +Helisoma newberryi G1Q S1 None None USFS:S Great Basin rams -horn +Helminthoglypta allynsmithi G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Merced Canyon shoulderband +Helminthoglypta arrosa monticola G2G3T1 S1 None None mountain shoulderband 587 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Helminthoglypta arrosa pomoensis Porno bronze shoulderband +Helminthoglypta ayresiana sanctaecrucis Ayer's snail +Helminthoglypta callistoderma Kern shoulderband +Helminthoglypta coelata mesa shoulderband +Helminthoglypta concolor whitefir shoulderband Helminthoglypta fontiphila Soledad shoulderband +Helminthoglypta hertleini Oregon shoulderband +Helminthoglypta milleri peak shoulderband +Helminthoglypta mohaveana Victorville shoulderband +Helminthoglypta nickliniana awania Peninsula coast range shoulderband +Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Bridges' coast range shoulderband +Helminthoglypta sequoicola consors redwood shoulderband +Helminthoglypta stiversiana williamsi Williams' bronze shoulderband +Helminthoglypta talmadgei Trinity shoulderband +Helminthoglypta taylod westfork shoulderband Helminthoglypta traskii pacoimensis Pacoima shoulderband +Helminthoglypta traskii traskii Trask shoulderband Helminthoglypta uvasana Grapevine shoulderband Helminthoglypta vasquezi Vasquez shoulderband +Helminthoglypta walkeriana Morro shoulderband (=banded dune) snail Herpeteros angelus Soledad desertsnail +Hesperarion plumbeus leaden slug +lpnobius robustus robust tryonia +Juga acutifilosa topaz juga +Juga chacei Chace juga +Juga occata scalloped juga +Juga orickensis redwood juga Lanx alta highcap lanx Lanx klamathensis scale lanx CESA Other Status Notes G2G3T1 S1 None None G1G2T1T2 SiS2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3T1 S1 None None G3T1 S1 None None G2T1 S1 None None G2G3T1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2T1 S1 None None G1G2T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None G1 S1 None None G1G3 S1S3 None None G1G2 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S1S2 None None G2 SiS2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:DD IUCN:EN IUCN:VU BLM:S IUCN:NT IUCN:DD IUCN:DD IUCN:DD IUCN:DD BLM:S IUCN:CR USFS:S USFS:S USFS:S 588 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Lanx patelloides G2 S2 None None USFS:S kneecap lanx +Megomphix californicus G 1 G2 S1 S2 None None Natural Bridge megomphix +Micrarionta facta G1G2 S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Santa Barbara islandsnail +Micrarionta feralis G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR San Nicolas islandsnail +Micrarionta gabbi G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU San Clemente islandsnail +Micrarionta opuntia G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU pricklypear islandsnail +Monadenia callipeplus G1G2 S1S2 None None downy sideband +Monadenia chaceana G2G3 S2 None None BLM:S Siskiyou shoulderband +Monadenia churchi G2G3 S2 None None Klamath sideband +Monadenia circumcarinata G1 S1 None None BLM:S keeled sideband IUCN:VU +Monadenia cristulata G1G2 S1S2 None None crested sideband +Monadenia fidelis leonina G4G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None A terrestrial snail +Monadenia fidelis pronotis G4G5T1 S1 None None rocky coast Pacific sideband +Monadenia infumata ochromphalus G2T1 S1 None None yellow -based sideband +Monadenia infumata setosa G2T2 S2 None Threatened IUCN:VU Trinity bristle snail Monadenia marmarotis G1 S1 None None marble sideband +Monadenia mormonum buttoni G2T1 S1 None None Button's Sierra sideband +Monadenia mormonum hirsuta G2T1 S1 None None BLM:S hirsute Sierra sideband +Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None None IUCN:DD Shasta sideband USFS:S Monadenia troglodytes Wintu G1G2T1T2 SiS2 None None IUCN:DD Wintu sideband USFS:S +Monadenia tuolumneana G1 S1 None None BLM:S Tuolumne sideband +Monadenia yosemitensis G1 S1 None None Yosemite Mariposa sideband +Novo intersessa G2 S2 None None Ten Mile shoulderband +Pomatiopsis binneyi G1 S1 None None robust walker Pomatiopsis californica G1 S1 None None Pacific walker Pomatiopsis chacei G1 S1 None None marsh walker +Pristiloma shepardae G1 S1 None None Shepard's snail +Pristinicola hemphilli G3 S1 None None USFS:S pristine pyrg Prophysaon coeruleum G3G4 S1 S2 None None Yes Blue -gray taildropper slug Species Comment GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Punctum hannai Trinity Spot +Pyrgulopsis aardahli Benton Valley (=Aahrdahl's) springsnail +Pyrgulopsis archimedis Archimedes pyrg +Pyrgulopsis cinerana Ash Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis diablensis Diablo Range pyrg +Pyrgulopsis eremica Smoke Creek pyrg +Pyrgulopsis falciglans Likely pyrg +Pyrgulopsis gibba Surprise Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis greggi Kern River pyrg +Pyrgulopsis lasseni Willow Creek pyrg +Pyrgulopsis longae Long Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis owensensis Owens Valley springsnail +Pyrgulopsis perturbata Fish Slough springsnail +Pyrgulopsis rupinicola Sucker Springs pyrg +Pyrgulopsis taylori San Luis Obispo pyrg +Pyrgulopsis ventricosa Clear Lake pyrg +Pyrgulopsis wongi Wong's springsnail +Radiocentrum avalonense Catalina mountainsnail +Rothelix warnerfontis Warner Springs shoulderband +Sterkia clementina San Clemente Island blunt -top snail +Trilobopsis roperi Shasta chaparral +Trilobopsis tehamana Tehama chaparral +Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) +Tryonia margae Grapevine Springs elongate tryonia +Tryonia rowlandsi Grapevine Springs squat tryonia +Vespericola karokorum Karok hesperian +Vespericola marinensis Marin hesperian +Vespericola pressleyi Big Bar hesperian Vespericola scotti Benson Gulch hesperian Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Rank ESA CESA G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G3 SiS2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None Other Status Notes IUCN:VU IUCN:VU USFS:S USFS:S IUCN:CR IUCN:LC USFS:S IUCN:CR USFS:S IUCN:NT USFS:S BLM:S USFS:S IUCN:DD IUCN:DD BLM:S USFS:S 590 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Vespericola shasta G1 S1 None None USFS:S Shasta hesperian +Vespericola sierranus G2 SiS2 None None Siskiyou hesperian +Xerarionta intercisa G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU horseshoe snail +Xerarionta redimita G1G2 S1 None None IUCN:VU wreathed cactussnail Xerarionta tryoni G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Bicolor cactussnail ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) +Aphrastochthoniusgrubbsi G1G2S1S2 None None Grubbs' Cave pseudoscorpion Aphrastochthoniussimilis G1G2S1S2 None None Carlow's Cave pseudoscorpion Archeolarcaaalbui G1G2S1S2 None None Aalbu's Cave pseudoscorpion +Banksula californica GH SH None None Alabaster Cave harvestman +Banksula galilei G1 S1 None None Galile's cave harvestman +Banksulagrubbsi G1 S1 None None Grubbs' cave harvestman +Banksula incredula G1 S1 None None incredible harvestman +Banksula martinorum G1 S1 None None Martins' cave harvestman +Banksula melones G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Melones Cave harvestman +Banksula rudolphi G1 S1 None None Rudolph's cave harvestman +Banksula tuolumne G1 S1 None None Tuolumne cave harvestman +Banksula tutankhamen G1 S1 None None King Tut Cave harvestman +Calicina arida G1 S1 None None San Benito harvestman +Calicina brava G1 S1 None None Stanislaus harvestman +Calicina cloughensis G1 S1 None None Clough Cave harvestman +Calicina conifera G1 S1 None None Crane Flat harvestman +Calicina diminua G1 S1 None None Marin blind harvestman +Calicina dimorphica G1 S1 None None Watts Valley harvestman +Calicina macula G1 S1 None None marbled harvestman +Calicina mesaensis G1 S1 None None Table Mountain harvestman +Calicina minor G1 S1 None None Edgewood blind harvestman +Calicina piedra G1 S1 None None Piedra harvestman +Calileptoneta briggsi G1 S1 None None Briggs' leptonetid spider +Calileptoneta oasa G1 S1 None None Andreas Canyon leptonetid spider 591 Species Commen ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) +Calileptoneta ubicki Ubick's leptonetid spider +Calileptoneta wapiti Mendocino leptonetid spider +Fissilicreagris imperialis Empire Cave pseudoscorpion +Hubbardia idria Idria short -tailed whipscorpion +Hubbardia secoensis Arroyo Seco short -tailed whipscorpion +Hubbardia shoshonensis Shoshone Cave whip -scorpion +Larca laceyi Lacey's Cave pseudoscorpion +Meta dolloff Dolloff Cave spider +Microcina edgewoodensis Edgewood Park micro -blind harvestman +Microcina homi Hom's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina jungi Jung's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina leei Lee's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina lumi Lum's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina tiburona Tiburon micro -blind harvestman +Neochthonius imperialis Empire Cave pseudoscorpion +Pseudogarypus orpheus Music Hall Cave pseudoscorpion +Socalchemmis gertschi Gertsch's socalchemmis spider +Socalchemmis icenoglei Icenogle's socalchemmis spider +Socalchemmis monterey Monterey socalchemmis spider +Talanites moodyae Moody's gnaphosid spider +Talanites ubicki Ubick's gnaphosid spider Telema sp. Santa Cruz telemid spider Texella deserticola Whitewater Canyon harvestman +Texella kokoweef Kokoweef Crystal Cave harvestman +Texella Shoshone Shoshone Cave harvestman CRUSTACEA, Order Anostraca (fairy shrimp) +Artemia monica Mono Lake brine shrimp +Branchinecta campestris pocket pouch fairy shrimp +Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3 S3 None None G2 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None IUCN:VU BLM:S Yes IUCN:VU IUCN:CD IUCN:EN 592 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes CRUSTACEA, Order Anostraca (fairy shrimp) +Branchinecta longiantenna G1 S1 Endangered None IUCN:EN longhorn fairy shrimp +Branchinecta lynchi G3 S3 Threatened None IUCN:VU vernal pool fairy shrimp +Branchinecta mesovallensis G2 S2 None None midvalley fairy shrimp +Branchinecta sandiegonensis G2 S2 Endangered None IUCN:EN San Diego fairy shrimp +Linderiella occidentalis G2G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:NT California linderiella +Linderiella santarosae G1G2 S1 None None Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp +Streptocephaluswoottoni G1G2S1S2 Endangered None IUCN:EN Riverside fairy shrimp CRUSTACEA, Order Notostraca (tadpole shrimp) +Lepidurus packardi G3 S2S3 Endangered None IUCN:EN vernal pool tadpole shrimp CRUSTACEA, Order Anomopoda (water fleas) +Dumontia oregonensis G1G3 S1 None None hairy water flea CRUSTACEA, Order Isopoda (Isopods) +Bowmanasellus sequoiae G1 S1 None None Sequoia cave isopod +Caecidotea tomalensis G2 S2 None None Tomales isopod +Calasellus californicus G2 S2 None None An isopod +Calasellus longus G1 S1 None None Anisopod CRUSTACEA, Order Amphlpoda (amphlpods) +Hyalella muerta G1 S1 None None Yes Texas Spring amphipod +Hyalella Sandra G1 S1 None None Yes Death Valley amphipod +Stygobromus cherylae G1 S1 None None Barr's amphipod Stygobromus cowani G1 S1 None None Cowan's amphipod Stygobromus gallawayae G1 S1 None None Gallaway's amphipod +Stygobromusgradyi G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Grady's Cave amphipod Stygobromus grahami G2 S2 None None Graham's Cave amphipod +Stygobromusharai G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Hara's Cave amphipod Stygobromus hyporheicus G1 S1 None None Hypoheic amphipod Stygobromus imperialis G1 S1 None None Empire Cave amphipod +Stygobromus lacicolus G1 S1 None None Lake Tahoe amphipod +Stygobromus mackenziei G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU Mackenzie's Cave amphipod Stygobromus myersae G1G2S1S2 None None Myer's amphipod Stygobromus mysticus G1 S1 None None Secret Cave amphipod 593 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphlpods) Stygobromus rudolphi G1 S1 Rudolph's amphipod Stygobromus sheldoni G1 S1 Sheldon's amphipod Stygobromus sierrensis G1 S1 Sierra amphipod +Stygobromus tahoensis G1 S1 Lake Tahoe stygobromid Stygobromus trinus G1 S1 Trinity County amphipod +Stygobromus wengerorum G1 S1 Wengerors' Cave amphipod CRUSTACEA, Order Decapoda (crayfish & shrimp) +Pacifastacus fortis G1 S1 Shasta crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus klamathensis G5T5 S3 Klamath crayfish +Syncaris pacifica G1 S1 California freshwater shrimp INSECTA, Order Odonsta (dragonflies & damselflies) +Ischnura gemina G2 S2 San Francisco forktail damselfly INSECTA, Order Plecoptera (stoneflles) +Capnia lacustra G1 S1 Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly +Cosumnoperla hypocrena G2 S2 Cosumnes stripetail +Megaleuctra sierra G2Q S1? Shirttail Creek stonefly INSECTA, Order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets) +Aglaothorax longipennis G1 G2 S1 S2 Santa Monica shieldback katydid +Ammopelmatus kelsoensis G1G2 S1S2 Kelso jerusalem cricket +Ammopelmatus muwu G1 S1 Point Conception jerusalem cricket +Idiostatus kathleenae G1 G2 S1 S2 Pinnacles shieldback katydid +Idiostatus middlekauffi G1G2 S1 Middlekauff's shieldback katydid Macrobaenetes algodonensis G 1 G2 S 1 S2 Algodones sand treader cricket +Macrobaenetes kelsoensis G2 S2 Kelso giant sand treader cricket +Macrobaenetes valgum G1G2 S1S2 Coachella giant sand treader cricket Pristoceuthophilus sp. G1 G3 Si S3 Samwell Cave cricket +Psychomastax deserticola G 1 G2 S 1 S2 desert monkey grasshopper +Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis G 1 G2 S 1 S2 Coachella Valley jerusalem cricket +Tetrix sierrana G i G 2 S 1 S2 Sierra pygmy grasshopper +Trimerotropis infantilis G1 S1 Zayante band -winged grasshopper +Trimerotropis occidentiloides G i G 2 S 1 S2 Santa Monica grasshopper CESA Other Status Notes None None None None None None None None None None None None IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:CR None None Endangered Endangered IUCN:EN None None IUCN:VU None None None None None None None None IUCN:CR None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None None None IUCN:CR None None None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU Endangered None IUCN:EN None None IUCN:EN 594 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets) +Trimerotropisocculens G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:EN Lompoc grasshopper INSECTA, Order Heteroptera (true bugs) +Ambrysus funebris G1 S1 Candidate None Nevares Spring naucorid bug +Belostoma saratogae G1 S1 None None Saratoga Springs belostoman bug +Oravelia pege G1 S1 None None Dry Creek cliff strider bug +Pelocorisshoshone G1G3S1S2 None None Amargosa naucorid bug +Saldula usingeri G1 S1 None None Wilbur Springs shorebug INSECTA, Order Neuroptera (lacewings) +Oliarces clara G1 G3 S2 None None cheeseweed owlfly (cheeseweed moth lacewing) INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) +Aegialia concinna G1 S1 None None BLM:S Ciervo aegilian scarab beetle IUCN:VU +Agabus rumppi G1G3 S1 None None Death Valley agabus diving beetle Agrilusharenus G1G2S1S2 None None Harenus jewel beetle +Anomala carlsoni G1 S1 None None Carlson's dune beetle +Anomala hardyorum G1 S1 None None Hardy's dune beetle +Anthicus antiochensis G1 S1 None None Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle +Anthicus sacramento G1 S1 None None IUCN:EN Sacramento anthicid beetle +Atractelmis wawona GiG3 S1S2 None None Wawona riffle beetle +Chaetarthria leechi G1? S1? None None Leech's chaetarthrian water scavenger beetle +Cicindela gabbii G2G4 S1 None None western tidal -flat tiger beetle +Cicindela hirticollis abrupta GSTH SH None None Sacramento Valley tiger beetle +Cicindela hirticollis gravida G5T2 S1 None None sandy beach tiger beetle +Cicindela latesignata latesignata G2G4T1T2 S1 None None western beach tiger beetle +Cicindela ohlone G1 S1 Endangered None Ohlone tiger beetle +Cicindela senilis frosti G2G3T1T3 S1 None None senile tiger beetle +Cicindela tranquebarica ssp. G5T1 S1 None None San Joaquin tiger beetle +Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima G5T1 S1 None None greenest tiger beetle +Coelusglobosus G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:VU globose dune beetle +Coelusgracilis G1 S1 None None BLM:S San Joaquin dune beetle IUCN:VU Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) Coenonycha clementina G1? S1? None None San Clemente Island coenonycha beetle Cyclocephalawandae G1G2S1S2 None None Wandae dune beetle Deltaspis ivae G1 S1 None None marsh -elder long -horned beetle +Desmocerus californicus dimorphus G3T2 S2 Threatened None valley elderberry longhorn beetle +Dinacoma caseyi G1 S1 Endangered None Casey's June beetle +Dubiraphia brunnescens G1 S1 None None brownish dubiraphian riffle beetle +Dubiraphiagiulianii G1G3S1S3 None None Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle +Elaphrus viddis G1 S1 Threatened None Delta green ground beetle +Glaresis arenata G2 S2 None None Kelso Dunes scarab glaresis beetle +Hydrochara rickseckeri G2? S2? None None Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle +Hydroporusleechi G1?S1? None None Leech's skyline diving beetle +Hydroporus simplex G 1 ? S1 ? None None simple hydroporus diving beetle +Hygrotus curvipes G1 S1 None None curved -foot hygrotus diving beetle +Hygrotus fontinalis G1 S1 None None travertine band -thigh diving beetle Juniperella mirabilis G1 S1 None None juniper metallic wood -boring beetle +Lepismadora algodones G1 S1 None None Algodones sand jewel beetle +Lichnanthe albipilosa G1 S1 None None white sand bear scarab beetle +Lichnanthe ursina G2 S2 None None bumblebee scarab beetle +Lytta hoppingi G1G2S1S2 None None Hopping's blister beetle Lyttainsperata G1G2S1S2 None None Mojave Desert blister beetle +Lytta moesta G2 S2 None None moestan blister beetle +Lytta moeesta G2 S2 None None molestan blister beetle +Lytta morrisoni G1G2S1S2 None None Morrison's blister beetle +Microcylloepus formicoideus G1 S1 None None Furnace Creek riffle beetle +Miloderes nelsoni G2 S2 None None Nelson's miloderes weevil +Nebria darlingtoni G1 S1 None None South Forks ground beetle +Nebria gebleri siskiyouensis G4G5T4 S1 S2 None None Siskiyou ground beetle +Nebria sahlbergii triad G1T1 S1 None None Trinity Alps ground beetle Ochthebius crassalus G1G3 S1S3 None None wing shoulder minute moss beetle Other Status Notes IUCN:CR ATV Species Comment INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) +Ochthebius recticulus Wilbur Springs minute moss beetle +Onychobaris langei Lange's El Segundo Dune weevil +Optioservus canus Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle Paleoxenus dohrni Dohrn's elegant eucnemid beetle +Polyphylla anteronivea Saline Valley snow -front June beetle +Polyphylla barbata Mount Hermon (=barbate) June beetle +Polyphylla erratica Death Valley June beetle +Polyphylla nubila Atascadero June beetle Prasinalia imperialis Algodones white wax jewel beetle +Pseudocotalpa andrewsi Andrew's dune scarab beetle Scaphinotus behrensi Behrens' snail -eating beetle +Trachykele hartmani serpentine cypress wood -boring beetle Trichinorhipis knulli Knull's metallic wood -boring beetle +Trigonoscuta brunnotesselata brown tassel trigonoscuta weevil +Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea Dorothy's El Segundo Dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi algodones Algodones dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis Imperial dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi punctata Punctate dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi rothi Roth's dune weevil +Trigonoscuta sp. Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil +Trigonoscuta stantoni Santa Cruz Island shore weevil +Vandykea tuberculata serpentine cypress long -horned beetle INSECTA, Order Mecoptera (scorplonflles) +Orobittacus obscurus gold rush hanging scorpionfly INSECTA, Order Dlptera (files) +Ablautus schlingeri Oso Flaco robber fly Apiocera warneri Glamis sand fly +Brennania belkini Belkin's dune tabanid fly +Efferia antiochi Antioch efferian robberfly Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3? S3? None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None GI S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G2G4 S2S4 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1T1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1G2 SiS2 None None G1G2S1S2 None None G1Q S1 None None G1? S1? None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2S1S2 None None GiG2 SIIS2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Yes 597 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Dlptera (files) Efferiamacroxipha G1G2S1S2 None None Glamis robberfly +Metapogonhurdi G1G3S1S3 None None Hurd's metapogon robberfly +Paracoenia calida G1 S1 None None Wilbur Springs shore fly +Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis G1T1 S1 Endangered None Delhi Sands flower -loving fly +Rhaphiomidas terminatus terminatus G1T1 S1 None None El Segundo flower -loving fly Rhaphiomidas trochilus G1 S1 None None Valley mydas fly INSECTA, Order Lepldoptera (butterflies & moths) +Adela oplerella G2 S2 None None Opler's longhorn moth +Apodemia mormo langei G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Lange's metalmark butterfly +Areniscythrisbrachypteris G1 S1 None None Oso Flaco flightless moth Callophrys comstocki G3G4 S1 S2 None None XERCES:IM desert green hairstreak +Callophrys mossii bayensis G4T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI San Bruno elfin butterfly +Callophrys mossii hidakupa G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None USFS:S San Gabriel Mountains elfin butterfly +Callophrys mossii marinensis G4T1 S1 None None Marin elfin butterfly +Callophrys thornei G1 Si None None BLM:S Yes Thorne's hairstreak +Carolella busckana G1G3 SH None None Busck's gallmoth +Carferocephalus palaemon magnus G5T5 S1 None None Sonoma arctic skipper Cercyonis pegala carsonensis G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None Carson Valley wood nymph +Chlosyne leanira elegans G4G5T1T2 SiS2 None None Oso Flaco patch butterfly +Coenonympha tullia yontockett G5T1T2 S1 None None Yontocket satyr +Danaus plexippus pop. 1 G4T2T3 S2S3 None None USFS:S monarch - California overwintering population +Euchloe hyantis andrewsi G3G4T1 S1 None None Andrew's marble butterfly +Eucosma hennei G1 S1 None None Henne's eucosman moth +Euphilotes battoides allyni G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI El Segundo blue butterfly +Euphilotes battoides comstocki G5T2 S2 None None Comstock's blue butterfly Euphilotes baueri G2G4 S1 S2 None None USFS:S Bauer's dotted -blue XERCES:IM +Euphilotes enoptes smithi G5T1T2 SiS2 Endangered None XERCES:CI Smith's blue butterfly Euphilotes mojave G2G3 S1S2 None None XERCES:IM Mojave dotted -blue +Euphydryas editha bayensis G5T1 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Bay checkerspot butterfly 598 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Lepldoptera (butterflies & moths) +Euphydryas editha monoensis G5T2T3 S1S2 None None USFS:S Mono checkerspot butterfly +Euphydryas editha quino G5T1T2 SIS2 Endangered None XERCES:CI quino checkerspot butterfly Euphyes vestris harbisoni G5T1 S1? None None dun skipper +Euproserpinus euterpe G1G2 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Kern primrose sphinx moth +Glaucopsyche lygdamus G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI palosverdesensis Palos Verdes blue butterfly +Hesperia miriamae longaevicola G2G3T1 S1 None None White Mountains skipper Hesperopsis gracielae G2G3 S1 S2 None None XERCES:VU Macneill's sootywing +Lycaena hermes G1 S1 Candidate None IUCN:VU Hermes copper butterfly USFS:S Lycaena rubidus incana G5T1 S1 None None White Mountains copper +Panoquina errans G4G5 S2 None None IUCN:NT wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper +Philotiella speciosa bohartorum G3G4T1 S1 None None Boharts' blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides albihalos G5T2T3 S2? None None White Mountains icarioides blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides missionensis G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Mission blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides moroensis G5T2 S2 None None Morro Bay blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides parapheres G5T1T2 S1S2 None None Point Reyes blue butterfly +Plebejus idas lotis GSTH SH Endangered None XERCES:CI lotis blue butterfly +Plebejus saepiolus albomontanus G5T2 S1 S2 None None White Mountains saepiolus blue butterfly +Plebejus saepiolus aureolus G5T1 S1 None None USFS:S San Gabriel Mountains blue butterfly +Plebulinaemigdionis G1G2S1S2 None None USFS:S San Emigdio blue butterfly +Polites maroon G2G3 S1 None None USFS:S mardon skipper XERCES:IM Polites sabuleti albamontana G5T2 S2 None None White Mountains sandhill skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus G3G4T2 S2 None None alkali skipper +Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus G3G4T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Carson wandering skipper +Pyrgus ruralis lagunae G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Laguna Mountains skipper +Speyeria adiaste adiaste G1G2T1 S1 None None unsilvered fritillary +Speyeria callippe callippe G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI callippe silverspot butterfly +Speyeria egleis tehachapina G5T2 S2 None None USFS:S Tehachapi Mountain silverspot butterfly +Speyeria nokomis carsonensis G3T1 S1 None None Carson Valley silverspot Yes 4•` Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Lepldoptera (butterflies & moths) +Speyeria zerene behrensli G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Behren's silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene hippolyta G5T1 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Oregon silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene myrtleae G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Myrtle's silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene sonomensis G5T1 S1 None None Sonoma zerene fritillary INSECTA, Order Trlchoptera (caddisflles) +Cryptochiadenningi G1G2S1S2 None None Denning's cryptic caddisfly +Cryptochia excella G1G2 SiS2 None None Kings Canyon cryptochian caddisfly +Cryptochiashasta G1G2S1S2 None None confusion caddisfly +Desmona bethula G2G3 S2S3 None None amphibious caddisfly +Diplectrona californica G1G2S1S2 None None California diplectronan caddisfly +Ecclisomyiabilera G1G2S1S2 None None Kings Creek ecclysomyian caddisfly +Farulapraelonga G1G2S1S2 None None long-tailed caddisfly +Goeracea oregona G3 S1S2 None None Sagehen Creek goeracean caddisfly +Lepidostomaermanae G1G2S1S2 None None Cold Spring caddisfly +Limnephilus atercus G3G4 S1 None None Fort Dick limnephilus caddisfly +Neothremmagenella G1G2S1S2 None None golden -horned caddisfly Neothremmasiskiyou G1G2SiS2 None None Siskiyou caddisfly +Parapsyche extensa GH SH None None King's Creek parapsyche caddisfly +Rhyacophila lineata G1G3 S1 S2 None None Castle Crags rhyacophilan caddisfly +Rhyacophilamosana G1G2QS1S2 None None bilobed rhyacophilan caddisfly +Rhyacophilaspinata G1G2S1S2 None None spiny rhyacophilan caddisfly INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Andrena blennospermatis G2 S2 None None Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee +Andrena macswaini G2 S2 None None An andrenid bee +Andrenasubapasta G1G2S1S2 None None an andrenid bee +Argochrysis lassenae G1 S1 None None Lassen cuckoo wasp +Ashmeadiella chumashae G2? S2? None None Channel Islands leaf -cutter bee +Bombus caliginosus G4? S1S2 None None IUCN:VU obscure bumble bee +Bombus crotchii G3G4 S1 S2 None None Crotch bumble bee +Bombus franklini G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR Franklin's bumble bee XERCES:CI Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Bombus morrisoni G4G5 S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Morrison bumble bee +Bombus occidentalis G2G3 S1 None None USFS:S western bumble bee XERCES:IM +Bombus suckleyi GU S1 None None Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee +Ceratochrysis bradleyi G1 S1 None None Bradley's cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysisgracilis G1 S1 None None Piute Mountains cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis longimala G1 S1 None None Desert cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis menkei G1 S1 None None Menke's cuckoo wasp +Chrysistularensis G1G2S1S2 None None Tulare cuckoo wasp Clepteshumboldti G1G2S1S2 None None Humboldt cuckoo wasp +Dufoureastagei G1G2S1? None None Stage's dufourine bee +Eucercerisruficeps G1G3S1S2 None None redheaded sphecid wasp Euparagia unidentata G1G2S1S2 None None Algodones euparagia Habropodapallida G1G2S1S2 None None white faced bee +Halictus harmonius G1 S1 None None XERCES:CI haromonius halictid bee +Hedychridium argenteum G1? S1? None None Riverside cuckoo wasp +Hedychridium milled G1?S1? None None Borax Lake cuckoo wasp +Lasioglossum channelense G1 S1 None None Channel Island sweat bee +Melitta californica G4? S2? None None California mellitid bee Microbembexelegans G1G2S1S2 None None Algodones elegant sand wasp +Minymischa ventura GU SU None None Ventura cuckoo wasp +Myrmosula pacifica GH SH None None Antioch multilid wasp Neolarra alba GH SH None None white cuckoo bee +Paranomada californica G1 S1 None None California cuckoo bee +Parnopes borregoensis G1? S1? None None Borrego parnopes cuckoo wasp Perditaalgodones G1G2S1S2 None None Algodones perdita Perditafrontalis G1G2S1S2 None None Imperial Perdita Perditaglamis G1G2S1S2 None None Glamis perdita +Perdita scitula antiochensis GiT1 S1 None None Antioch andrenid bee +Philanthus nasalis G1 S1 None None Antioch specid wasp 601 Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Protodufourea wasbaued G1 Si None None XERCES:DD Wasbauer's protodufourea bee +Protodufourea zavortinki G1 S1 None None Zavortink's protodufourea bee +Rhopalolemma robertsi G1 S1 None None Roberts' rhopalolemma bee Sedomayaglamisensis G1G2SiS2 None None Glamis night tiphiid Sphaeropthalma ecarinata G1G2 S1S2 None None Glamis night mutillid +Sphecodogastra antiochensis G1 S1 None None XERCES:CI Antioch Dunes halcitid bee Stictiellavillegasi G1G2S1S2 None None Algodones sand wasp +Trachusa gummifera G1 S1 None None San Francisco Bay Area leaf -cutter bee Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes PETROMYZONTIDAE (lampreys) +Entosphenushubbsi GiG2SIIS2 None None AFS:TH Kern brook lamprey CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S Entosphenus lethophagus G3G4 S3 None None AFS:VU Pit -Klamath brook lamprey Entosphenus similis G3G4Q S3 None None AFS:TH Klamath River lamprey CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Entosphenus tridentatus G4 S4 None None AFS:VU Pacific lamprey BLM:S CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Entosphenus tridentatus ssp. 1 G4T1 S1 None None AFS:VU Goose Lake lamprey CDFW:SSC USFS:S Lampetra ayresii G4 S3 None None AFS:VU river lamprey CDFW:SSC ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeon) +Acipensermedirostris (southern DPS) G3 SIIS2 Threatened None AFS:VU Yes green sturgeon CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NMFS:SC Acipenser transmontanus G4 S2 None None AFS:EN white sturgeon CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) +Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii G4T4 S3 None None AFS:VU coast cutthroat trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi G4T3 S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Lahontan cutthroat trout +OncorhY nchus clarkii se/eniris G4T1T2 S1S2 Threatened None AFS:EN Paiute cutthroat trout +Oncorhynchus gorbuscha pink salmon Oncorhynchus keta chum salmon +Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU +Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central California coast ESU +Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita Volcano Creek golden trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum Eagle Lake rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti Kern River rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - Klamath Mountains Province DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS G5 S1 None None G5 S1 None None G4T2Q S2? Threatened Threatened AFS:TH Yes G4 S2? Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Yes G5T1 S1 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T1Q S1 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5TIIQ S1 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T30 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes USFS:S G5T2T3Q S2S3 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes 603 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T2Q S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes steelhead - south-central California coast DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T1 Q S1 Endangered None AFS:EN Yes steelhead - southern California DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T2Q S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes steelhead - Central Valley DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T2T3Q S2S3 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes steelhead - northern California DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T4Q S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes summer -run steelhead trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. f G5T2Q S2 None None AFS:VU Goose Lake redband trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 2 G5T1T2Q SiS2 None None AFS:VU McCloud River redband trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 3 G5T2Q S1 ? None None AFS:VU Warner Valley redband trout USFS:S +Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei G5T2 S2 Threatened None AFS:EN Little Kern golden trout +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha G5 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC chinook salmon - upper Klamath and USFS:S Trinity Rivers ESU. +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha G5 S1 Threatened Threatened AFS:TH Yes chinook salmon - Central Valley spring -run ESU +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha G5 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN chinook salmon - Sacramento River winter -run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha G5 S2? None None AFS:VU Yes chinook salmon - Central Valley fall / CDFW:SSC late fall -run ESU NMFS:SC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha G5 S1 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes chinook salmon - California coastal ESU Prosopium williamsoni G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC mountain whitefish +Salvelinus confluentus G4 SX Threatened Endangered IUCN:VU bull trout OSMERIDAE (smelt) +Hypomesus transpacificus G1 S1 Threatened Endangered AFS:TH Delta smelt IUCN:EN +Spirinchus thaleichthys G5 S1 Candidate Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes longfin smelt +Thaleichthys pacificus (southern DPS) G5 S3 Threatened None eulachon CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) +Gila coerulea G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC blue chub +Gila elegans G1 SH Endangered Endangered AFS:EN bonytail IUCN:EN +Gila orcuttii G2 S2 None None AFS:VU arroyo chub CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Lavinia exilicauda chi G4T1 S1 None Threatened AFS:VU Clear Lake hitch USFS:S Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda G4T2T4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC Sacramento hitch 604 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) Lavinia exilicauda harengus G4T2T4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC Pajaro/Salinas hitch +Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus G4T2 S2 None None AFS:VU Pit roach CDFW:SSC +Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Navarro roach +Lavinia symmetricus parvipinnis G4T1T2 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC Gualala roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1 G4T3Q S3 None None CDFW:SSC San Joaquin roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 2 G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Tomales roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 3 G4T1 S1 None None AFS:VU Red Hills roach BLM:S CDFW:SSC Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 4 G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Clear Lake - Russian River roach Lavinia symmetricus subditus G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Monterey roach +Mylopharodon conocephalus G3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC hardhead USFS:S +Pogonichthys macrolepidotus GNR S3 None None AFS:VU Sacramento splittail CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN +Ptychocheiluslucius G1 SX Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Colorado pikeminnow IUCN:VU +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 G5T1 Q S1 None None AFS:TH Amargosa Canyon speckled dace BLM:S CDFW:SSC +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 2 G5T1T2Q S1S2 None None AFS:TH Owens speckled dace CDFW:SSC +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 G5T1 S1 None None AFS:TH Santa Ana speckled dace CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 5 G5T1 S1 None None AFS:EN Long Valley speckled dace BLM:S CDFW:SSC +Siphateles bicolor mohavensis, G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Mohave tui chub CDFW:FP Siphateles bicolor pectinifer G4T3 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC Lahontan Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor snyderi G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Owens tui chub +Siphateles bicolor ssp.1 G4T1T2S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC Eagle Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor ssp. 2 G4TX SX None None High Rock Spring tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp.3 G4T1T3SiS3 None None Pit River tui chub +Siphateles bicolor thalassina G4T2T3 S2 None None AFS:TH Goose Lake tui chub CDFW:SSC +Siphateles bicolor vaccaceps G4T1 S1 None None AFS:EN Cow Head tui chub CDFW:SSC CATOSTOMIDAE (suckers) +Catostomus fumeiventris G3G4 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Owens sucker +Catostomus latipinnis G3G4 S1 None None flannelmouth sucker Yes Yes Yes BR, Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes CATOSTOMIDAE (suckers) +Catostomus microps G2 S2 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Modoc sucker CDFW:FP IUCN:EN +Catostomus occidentalis G5T2Q S1 None None AFS:VU lacusanserinus CDFW:SSC Goose Lake sucker USFS:S Catostomus platyrhynchus G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC mountain sucker Catostomus rimiculus ssp. 1 G5T2Q S1 None None AFS:VU Jenny Creek sucker +Catostomussantaanae G1 S1 Threatened None AFS:TH Santa Ana sucker IUCN:VU +Catostomus snyderi G3 S3 None None AFS:TH Klamath Iargescale sucker CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT +Chasmistesbrevirostris G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN shortnose sucker CDFW:FP IUCN:EN +Deltistes luxatus G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Lost River sucker CDFW:FP IUCN:EN +Xyrauchentexanus G1 SiS2 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN razorback sucker CDFW:FP IUCN:EN CYPRINODONTIDAE (killifishes) +Cyprinodon macularius G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN desert pupfish IUCN:VU +Cyprinodon nevadensis amargosae G2T1T2 S1S2 None None AFS:VU Amargosa pupfish BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU +Cyprinodon nevadensis nevadensis G2T1 S1 None None AFS:TH Saratoga Springs pupfish CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU +Cyprinodon nevadensis Shoshone G2T1 S1 None None AFS:EN Shoshone pupfish CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU +Cyprinodon radiosus G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Owens pupfish CDFW:FP IUCN:EN +Cyprinodon salinus milleri G1T1Q S1 None Threatened AFS:TH Cottonball Marsh pupfish IUCN:EN +Cyprinodon salinussalinus G1T1 S1 None None AFS:VU Salt Creek pupfish CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks) Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus (South of Pt. Conception G5T2T3 S2S3 None None Yes resident threespine stickleback only) Gasterosteus aculeatus santaannae G5T1Q S1 None None AFS:EN Yes Santa Ana (=Shay Creek) threespine stickleback +Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Yes unarmored threespine stickleback CDFW:FP POLYPRIONIDAE (wreckfishes) Stereolepisgigas G3S1S2 None None AFS:VU Yes giant sea bass IUCN:CR :1: Species CENTRARCHIDAE (sunfishes) +Archoplites interruptus Sacramento perch EMBIOTOCIDAE (surfperches) Hysterocarpus traski lagunae Clear Lake tule perch +Hysterocarpus traski pomo Russian River tule perch Hysterocarpus traski traski Sacramento -San Joaquin tule perch GOBIIDAE (gobles) +Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby COTTIDAE (sculpins) +Cottus asperrimus rough sculpin Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin Cottus klamathensis klamathensis Upper Klamath marbled sculpin +Cottus klamathensis macrops bigeye marbled sculpin Cottus klamathensis polyporus Lower Klamath marbled sculpin Cottus perplexus reticulate sculpin Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status (Within native range G2G3 S1 None None AFS:TH only) CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T4 S4 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None G3 S3 G2 S2 Endangered None AFS:EN None G5 S3S4 None G4T1T2 S1S2 None G4T3 S2S3 None G4T2T4 S2S4 None G4 S2S3 None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Threatened AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU None CDFW:SSC None CDFW:SSC None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC None CDFW:SSC None Notes 607 Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders) +Ambystoma californiense G2G3 S2S3 Threatened Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes California tiger salamander IUCN:VU +Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum G5T1T2 S1S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Santa Cruz long -toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum G5T4 S3 None None southern long -toed salamander DICAMPTODONTIDAE (giant salamanders) +Dicamptodon ensatus G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:NT California giant salamander RHYACOTRITONIDAE (Olympic salamanders) +Rhyacotriton variegatus G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC southern torrent salamander IUCN:LC USFS:S SALAMANDRIDAE (newts) Taricha rivularis G4 S2 None None IUCN:LC red -bellied newt +Taricha torosa (Monterey Co. & south G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC Coast Range newt only) PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) Aneides niger G3 S3 None None Santa Cruz black salamander +Batrachoseps altasierrae G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Greenhorn Mountains slender salamander +Batrachoseps bramei G3 S3 None None USFS:S Fairview slender salamander +Batrachoseps campi G3 S3 None None BLM:S Inyo Mountains slender salamander CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S Batrachoseps diabolicus G2 S3 None None IUCN:DD Hell Hollow slender salamander +Batrachoseps gabrieli G2G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:DD San Gabriel slender salamander USFS:S Batrachoseps incognitus G2G3 S2 None None USFS:S San Simeon slender salamander Batrachoseps kawia G1G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD Sequoia slender salamander Batrachoseps luciae G2G3 S3 None None IUCN:LC Santa Lucia slender salamander +Batrachoseps major aridus G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered desert slender salamander Batrachoseps minor G1 S1 None None IUCN:DD lesser slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps pacificus G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC Channel Islands slender salamander +Batrachoseps regius G2 S2S3 None None IUCN:VU Kings River slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps relictus G1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yes relictual slender salamander IUCN:DD USFS:S +Batrachoseps robustus G3 S3 None None IUCN:NT Kern Plateau salamander +Batrachoseps simatus G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened IUCN:VU Kern Canyon slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps stebbinsi G2 S2S3 None Threatened BLM:S Tehachapi slender salamander IUCN:VU Off Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) +Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator yellow -blotched salamander +Ensatina klauberi large -blotched salamander +Hydromantes brunus limestone salamander +Hydromantes platycephalus Mount Lyell salamander +Hydromantes shastae Shasta salamander +Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander +Plethodon elongatus Del Norte salamander +Plethodon stormi Siskiyou Mountains salamander ASCAPHIDAE (tailed frogs) +Ascaphus truei Pacific tailed frog SCAPHIOPODIDAE (spadefoot toads) +Scaphiopus couchii Couch's spadefoot +Spea hammondii western spadefoot BUFONIDAE (true toads) +Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad +Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad +Anaxyrus exsul black toad +Incilius alvarius Sonoran desert toad RANIDAE G5T3 S3 G2G3 S3 G2G3 S2S3 G4 S4 G1G2 S3 G1G2 S1S2 G4 S3 G2G3 SiS2 G4 S3S4 G5 S2 G3 S3 G2G3 S2S3 G2G3 S2S3 G1 S1 G5 SH +Lithobates pipiens (Native populations G5 S2 northern leopard frog only) +Lithobates yavapaiensis G4 SX lowland leopard frog +Rana aurora G4 S3 northern red -legged frog +Rana boylii G3 S3 foothill yellow -legged frog +Rana cascadae G3G4 S3 Cascades frog CESA Other Status Notes None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S None Threatened BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None Threatened BLM:S IUCN:VU USFS:S None Threatened IUCN:VU None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT None Threatened IUCN:EN USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT Endangered None CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN Threatened None CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S None Threatened BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes :1' Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes RANIDAE +Rana draytonii G2G3 S2S3 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes California red -legged frog IUCN:VU +Rana muscosa G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:SSC Yes southern mountain yellow -legged IUCN:EN frog USFS:S +Rana pretiosa G2 SH Threatened None BLM:S Oregon spotted frog CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU +Rana sierrae G1 S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog IUCN:EN USFS:S 610 Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes CHELONIIDAE (sea turtles) +Chelonia mydas G3 S1 Threatened None IUCN:EN green turtle KINOSTERNIDAE (musk and mud turtles) +Kinosternon sonoriense G4 SH None None CDFW:SSC Sonoran mud turtle IUCN:VU EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles) +Emys marmorata G3G4 S3 None None BLM:S Yes western pond turtle CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU USFS:S TESTUDINIDAE (land tortoises) +Gopherus agassizii G3 S2 Threatened Threatened IUCN:VU desert tortoise GEKKONIDAE (geckos) +Coleonyxswitaki G4S1 None Threatened BLM:S barefoot gecko IUCN:LC +Coleonyx variegatus abbotti G5T3T4 S1 S2 None None San Diego banded gecko CROTAPHYTIDAE (collared & leopard lizards) Gambelia copeii G5 S1 S2 None None IUCN:LC Cope's leopard lizard +Gambelia sila G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP blunt -nosed leopard lizard IUCN:EN PHRYNOSOMATIDAE (spiny lizards) +Phrynosoma blainvillii G3G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S coast horned lizard CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC +Phrynosoma mcallii G3 S2 None Candidate BLM:S flat -tailed horned lizard Endangered CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT +Sceloporus graciosus graciosus G5T5 S3 None None BILKS northern sagebrush lizard +Uma inornata G1Q S1 Threatened Endangered IUCN:EN Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard +Uma notata G3 S2 None None BLM:S Colorado Desert fringe -toed lizard CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT +Uma scoparia G3G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S Mojave fringe -toed lizard CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC XANTUSIIDAE (night lizards) +Xantusiagracilis G1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC sandstone night lizard IUCN:VU +Xantusia riversiana G3 S3 Delisted None IUCN:LC island night lizard Xantusia sierrae G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Sierra night lizard USFS:S SCINCIDAE (skinks) +Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis G5T2T3Q S1 S2 None None BLM:S Coronado Island skink CDFW:SSC TEIIDAE (whlptalls and relatives) +Aspidoscelis hyperythra G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC orangethroat whiptail IUCN:LC USFS:S +Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri G5T3T4 S2S3 None None coastal whiptail 611 Species Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status ANGUIDAE (alligator lizards) +Elgaria panamintina G3 S3 None None BLM:S Panamint alligator lizard CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU USFS:S ANNIELLIDAE (Legless lizards) +Anniella pulchra nigra G3G4T2T3Q S2 None None CDFW:SSC black legless lizard USFS:S +Anniella pulchra pulchra G3G4T3T4Q S3 None None CDFW:SSC silvery legless lizard USFS:S HELODERMATIDAE (venomous lizards) +Heloderma suspectum cinctum G4T4 S1 None None BLM:S banded gila monster CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT BOIDAE (boas) +Charina trivirgata G4G5 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC rosy boa USFS:S +Charina umbratica G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened USFS:S southern rubber boa COLUBRIDAE (egg -laying snakes) Arizona elegans occidentalis G5T2 S2 None None California glossy snake Bogertophis rosaliae G4 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Baja California rat snake IUCN:LC Coluber fuliginosus G5 S1 S2 None None Baja California coachwhip +Diadophis punctatus modestus G5T2T3Q S2? None None USFS:S San Bernardino ringneck snake +Diadophis punctatus similis G5T2T3 S2? None None USFS:S San Diego ringneck snake +Lampropeltis zonata (parvirubra) G4G5 S2? None None BLM:S California mountain kingsnake (San CDFW:SSC Bernardino population) IUCN:LC USFS:S +Lampropeltis zonata (pulchra) G4G5 SiS2 None None BLM:S California mountain kingsnake (San CDFW:SSC Diego population) IUCN:LC USFS:S +Masticophis flagellum ruddocki G5T2T3 S2? None None CDFW:SSC San Joaquin whipsnake +Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus G4T2 S2 Threatened Threatened Alameda whipsnake Pituophis catenifer pumilus G5T1T2S1? None None CDFW:SSC Santa Cruz Island gopher snake +Salvadora hexalepis virgultea G5T4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC coast patch -nosed snake NATRICIDAE (live -bearing snakes) +Thamnophis gigas G2 S2 Threatened Threatened IUCN:VU giant garter snake +Thamnophis hammondii G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S two -striped garter snake CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S Thamnophis hammondii ssp. Santa Catalina garter snake +Thamnophis sirtalis ssp. south coast garter snake G4T1? S1 None None (Coastal plain from G5T1T2 SiS2 None None Ventura Co. to San Diego Co., from sea level to about 850 m.) CDFW:SSC Notes Yes Yes 612 Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes NATRICIDAE (live -bearing snakes) +Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia G5T2Q S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP San Francisco garter snake VIPERIIDAE (vipers) +Crotalus ruber G4 83 None None CDFW:SSC red -diamond rattlesnake USFS:S 613 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes ANATIDAE (ducks, geese, and swans) Anser albifrons elgasi (Wintering) G5T2 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC tule greater white -fronted goose Aythya americana (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC redhead IUCN:LC Aythya valisineria (Nesting) G5 S2 None None IUCN:LC canvasback Branta bernicla (Wintering & staging) G5 S2? None None CDFW:SSC brant IUCN:LC +Branta hutchinsii leucopareia (Wintering) G5T3 S2 Delisted None cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Bucephala islandica (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Barrow's goldeneye IUCN:LC +Dendrocygna bicolor (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC fulvous whistling -duck IUCN:LC +Histrionicus histrionicus (Nesting) G4 S1 None None CDFW:SSC harlequin duck IUCN:LC PHASIANIDAE (grouse and ptarmigan) +Bonasa umbellus G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL ruffed grouse IUCN:LC +Centrocercus urophasianus (Nesting & leks) G3G4 S2S3 None None BLM:S greater sage -grouse CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S +Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Mount Pinos sooty grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus G4T3 SX None None CDFW:SSC columbianus Columbian sharp -tailed grouse ODONTOPHORIDAE (partridge and quail) Callipepla californica catalinensis G5T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Catalina California quail GAVIIDAE (loons) Gavia immer (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC common loon IUCN:LC DIOMEDEIDAE (albatross) Phoebastria albatrus G1 Si Endangered None CDFW:SSC short -tailed albatross IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL HYDROBATIDAE (storm petrels) +Oceanodroma furcata (Nesting colony) G5 S1 None None BLM:S fork -tailed storm -petrel CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC +Oceanodroma homochroa (Nesting colony) G2 S2 None None BLM:S ashy storm -petrel CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Oceanodroma melania (Nesting colony) G3G4 S1 None None CDFW:SSC black storm -petrel IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL PELECANIIDAE (pelicans) +Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (Nesting colony) G4 S1 None None CDFW:SSC American white pelican IUCN:LC +Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (Nesting colony & G4T3 S3 Delisted Delisted BLM:S California brown pelican communal roosts) CDFW:FP USFS:S Yes Yes 614 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes PHALACROCORACIDAE (cormorants) +Phalacrocorax auritus (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL double -crested cormorant IUCN:LC ARDEIDAE (herons, egrets, and bitterns) +Ardea alba (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDF:S great egret IUCN:LC +Ardea herodias (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDF:S great blue heron IUCN:LC Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC American bittern +Egretta thula (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC snowy egret +Ixobrychus exilis (Nesting) G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC least bittern IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Nycticorax nycticorax (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black -crowned night heron THRESKIORNITHIDAE (Ibises and spoonbills) +Plegadis chihi (Nesting colony) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL white-faced ibis IUCN:LC CICONIIDAE (storks) Mycteria americana G4 S2? None None CDFW:SSC wood stork IUCN:LC CATHARTIDAE (New World vultures) +Gymnogyps californianus G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDF:S California condor CDFW:FP IUCN:CR NABCI:RWL ACCIPITRIDAE (hawks, kites, harriers, & eagles) +Accipitercooperii (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL Cooper's hawk IUCN:LC +Accipitergentilis (Nesting) G5 S3 None None BLM:S northern goshawk CDF:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S +Accipiterstriatus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL sharp -shinned hawk +Aquila chrysaetos (Nesting &wintering) G5 S3 None None BLM:S golden eagle CDF:S CDFW:FP CDFW:WL IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Buteo regalis (Wintering) G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL ferruginous hawk IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Buteo swainsoni (Nesting) G5 S3 None Threatened BLM:S Swainson's hawk IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Circus cyaneus (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC northern harrier IUCN:LC +Elanus leucurus (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None BLM:S white-tailed kite CDFW:FP IUCN:LC 615 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes ACCIPITRIDAE (hawks, kites, harriers, & eagles) +Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Nesting & wintering) G5 S2 Delisted Endangered BLM:S bald eagle CDF:S CDFW:FP IUCN:LC USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Pandion haliaetus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDF:S osprey CDFW:WL IUCN:LC Parabuteo unicinctus (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL Harris' hawk IUCN:LC FALCONIDAE (falcons) +Falco columbarius (Wintering) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL merlin IUCN:LC +Falco mexicanus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL prairie falcon IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Falco peregrinus anatum (Nesting) G4T4 S3S4 Delisted Delisted CDF:S American peregrine falcon CDFW:FP USFWS:BCC RALLIDAE (rails, coots, and galllnules) +Coturnicops noveboracensis G4 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC yellow rail IUCN:LC NABCI:RWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus G3G4T1 S1 None Threatened BLM:S Yes California black rail CDFW:FP IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Rallus longirostris levipes G5T1T2 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Yes light-footed clapper rail NABCI:RWL +Rallus longirostris obsoletus G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Yes California clapper rail NABCI:RWL +Rallus longirostris yumanensis G5T3 S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:FP Yes Yuma clapper rail NABCI:RWL GRUIDAE (cranes) Grus canadensis canadensis (Wintering) G5T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC lesser sandhill crane +Grus canadensis tabida (Nesting & wintering) G5T4 S2 None Threatened BLM:S greater sandhill crane CDFW:FP USFS:S CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and relatives) +Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (Nesting) G3T3 S2 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes western snowy plover NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Charadrius montanus (Wintering) G3 S2? None None BLM:S Yes mountain plover CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC HAEMATOPODIDAE (oystercatchers) Haematopus bachmani (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black oystercatcher NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Wri Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes SCOLOPACIDAE (sandpipers and relatives) Numenius americanus (Nesting) G5 S2 None None CDFW:WL long -billed curlew IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC LARIDAE (gulls and terns) +Chlidonias niger (Nesting colony) G4 S2 None None CDFW:SSC black tern IUCN:LC +Gelochelidon nilotica (Nesting colony) G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC gull -billed tern IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC +Hydroprogne caspia (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC Caspian tern USFWS:BCC +Larus californicus (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL California gull IUCN:LC Leucophaeus atricilla (Nesting colony) G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL laughing gull IUCN:LC +Rynchops niger (Nesting colony) G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC black skimmer IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Sterna forsted (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC Forster's tern +Sternula antillarum browni (Nesting colony) G4T2T3Q S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP California least tern NABCI:RWL Thalasseus elegans (Nesting colony) G2 S2 None None CDFW:WL elegant tern IUCN:NT ALCIDAE (auklets, puffins, and relatives) +Brachyramphus marmoratus (Nesting) G3G4 S1 Threatened Endangered CDF:S marbled murrelet IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL +Cerorhinca monocerata (Nesting colony) G5 S3 None None CDFW:WL rhinoceros auklet IUCN:LC +Fratercula cirrhata (Nesting colony) G5 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC tufted puffin IUCN:LC Ptychoramphus aleuticus (Nesting colony) G4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC Cassin's auklet IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Synthliboramphus scrippsi (Nesting colony) G3 S2 Candidate Threatened BLM:S Scripps's murrelet IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CUCULIDAE (cuckoos and relatives) +Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (Nesting) G5T2T3 S1 Threatened Endangered BLM:S western yellow -billed cuckoo NABCI:RWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC STRIGIDAE (owls) +Asio flammeus (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC short -eared owl IUCN:LC +Asio otus (Nesting) G5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC long-eared owl IUCN:LC +Athene cunicularia (Burrow sites & some G4 S3 None None BLM:S burrowing owl wintering sites) CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 617 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes STRIGIDAE (owls) +Micrathene whitneyi (Nesting) G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S elf owl IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Psiloscops flammeolus (Nesting) G4 S2S4 None None IUCN:LC flammulated owl NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC +Strix nebulosa (Nesting) G5 S1 None Endangered CDF:S great gray owl IUCN:LC USFS:S Strix occidentalis caurina G3T3 S2S3 Threatened Candidate CDF:S Yes northern spotted owl Threatened CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL Strix occidentalis occidentalis G3T3 S3 None None BLM:S Yes California spotted owl CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S USFWS:BCC APODIDAE (swifts) Chaetura vauxi (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Vaux's swift IUCN:LC +Cypseloides niger (Nesting) G4 S2 None None CDFW:SSC black swift IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC TROCHILIDAE (hummingbirds) +Calypte costae (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC Costa's hummingbird USFWS:BCC Selasphorus rufus (Nesting) G5 S1S2 None None IUCN:LC rufous hummingbird NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Selasphorus sasin (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC Allen's hummingbird NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC PICIDAE (woodpeckers) +Colaptes chrysoides G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S gilded flicker IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Melanerpes lewis (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC Lewis' woodpecker NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC +Melanerpes uropygialis G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S Gila woodpecker IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Picoides albolarvatus (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC d d d k USFWS:BCC White-hea a woo pec er +Picoides arcticus G5 S2 None None black -backed woodpecker Picoides nuttallii (Nesting) G4G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC Nuttall's woodpecker USFWS:BCC +Sphyrapicus ruber (Nesting) G5 S4 None None red -breasted sapsucker TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) Contopus cooperi (Nesting) G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC olive -sided flycatcher IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC 618 Species TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) +Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher +Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher +Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher +Myiarchus tyrannulus brown -crested flycatcher +Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher LANIIDAE (shrikes) +Lanus ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi Island loggerhead shrike +Lanus ludovicianus mearnsi San Clemente loggerhead shrike VIREONIDAE (vireos) +Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona bell's vireo +Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Vireo huttoni unitti Catalina Hutton's vireo +Vireo vicinior gray vireo CORVIDAE Qays, crows, and magpies) Aphelocoma californica cana Eagle Mountain scrub -jay Aphelocoma insularis Island scrub -jay Pica nuttalli yellow -billed magpie ALAUDIDAE (larks) +Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark HIRUNDINIDAE (swallows) +Progne subis purple martin +Riparia riparia bank swallow PARIDAE (titmice and relatives) +Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse Poecile atricapillus black -capped chickadee Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes (Nesting) G5 SIIS2 None Endangered IUCN:LC USFS:S USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5T3T4S1S2 None Endangered USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5T2 S1 Endangered Endangered NABCI:RWL (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC (Nesting) G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC G4T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC NABCI:RWL G4T1Q S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC NABCI:RWL (Nesting) G5T4S1S2 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:NT USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5T2 S2 Endangered Endangered IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC (Nesting) G4 S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC G5T1T2 S1S2 None None CDFW:WL G1 S1 None None IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting & communal G3G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC roosts) NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5T30 S3 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC (Nesting) G5 S2 None Threatened BILKS IUCN:LC (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S3 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 619 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) +Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (San Diego & Orange G5T3Q S3 None None CDFW:SSC Yes sandiegensis Counties only) USFS:S coastal cactus wren USFWS:BCC Cistothorus palustris clarkae G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Clark's marsh wren Thryomanes bewickii leucophrys G5TX SX None None CDFW:SSC San Clemente Bewick's wren SYLVIIDAE (gnatcatchers) +Polioptila californica californica G3T2 S2 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes coastal California gnatcatcher NABCI:YWL +Polioptila melanura G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL black -tailed gnatcatcher IUCN:LC MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers) +Toxostoma bendirei G4G5 S3 None None BLM:S Bendire's thrasher CDFW:SSC +Toxostoma crissale G5 S3 None None Crissal thrasher +Toxostoma lecontei G4 S3 None None Le Conte's thrasher PARULIDAE (wood -warblers) +Geothlypis trichas sinuosa G5T3 S3 None None saltmarsh common yellowthroat +Icteria wens (Nesting) G5 S3 None None yellow -breasted chat +Oreothlypis luciae (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None Lucy's warbler +Oreothlypis virginiae (Nesting) G5 S2 None None Virginia's warbler Setophaga occidentalis (Nesting) hermit warbler +Setophaga petechia (Nesting) yellow warbler +Setophaga petechia sonorana (Nesting) Sonoran yellow warbler EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) +Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps obscura Santa Cruz Island rufous -crowned sparrow +Ammodramus savannarum (Nesting) grasshopper sparrow +Artemisiospiza belfi belli Bell's sage sparrow +Artemisiospiza belli clementeae San Clemente sage sparrow +Chondestes grammacus (Nesting) lark sparrow G4G5 S4 None None G5 S3S4 None None G5T2T3 S2 None None IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC CDFW:WL IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:WL G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G5T2T4 S2? None None CDFW:WL USFWS:BCC G5T1Q S1 Threatened None CDFW:SSC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 620 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) +Junco hyemalis caniceps (Nesting) G5T5 S1 None None CDFW:WL gray -headed junco +Melospiza melodia G5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC song sparrow ("Modesto" population) +Melospiza melodia graminea G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Channel Island song sparrow USFWS:BCC +Melospiza melodia maxillaris G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Suisun song sparrow USFWS:BCC +Melospiza melodia pusillula G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC Alameda song sparrow USFWS:BCC +Melospiza melodia samuelis G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC San Pablo song sparrow USFWS:BCC Melozone aberti G3G4 S3 None None IUCN:LC Abert's towhee +Melozone crissalis eremophilus G4G5T2 S2 Threatened Endangered NABCI:RWL Yes Inyo California towhee Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Bryant's savannah sparrow +Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi G5T3 S3 None Endangered Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus (Wintering) G5T2T3 S2? None None CDFW:SSC large -billed savannah sparrow Pipilo maculatus clementae G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC San Clemente spotted towhee USFWS:BCC +Piranga flava (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL Yes hepatic tanager IUCN:LC +Piranga rubra (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yes summer tanager IUCN:LC Pooecetes gramineus affinis (Wintering) G5T3? S3? None None CDFW:SSC Oregon vesper sparrow NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC Spizella atrogularis (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black -chinned sparrow NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC +Spizella breweri (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC Brewer's sparrow USFWS:BCC Spizella passerina (Nesting) G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC chipping sparrow CARDINALIDAE (cardinals) +Cardinalis cardinalis G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL northern cardinal IUCN:LC ICTERIDAE (blackbirds) Agelaius phoeniceus aaculatus G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Kern red -winged blackbird +Agelaius tricolor (Nesting colony) G2G3 S1 S2 None None BLM:S Yes tricolored blackbird CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC yellow -headed blackbird IUCN:LC FRINGILLIDAE (finches and relatives) +Spinus lawrencei (Nesting) G3G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC Lawrence's goldfinch NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC 621 Species TALPIDAE (moles) +Scapanus latimanus insularis Angel Island mole +Scapanus latimanus parvus Alameda Island mole SORICIDAE (shrews) +Sorex lyelli Mount Lyell shrew +Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew Sorex ornatus salarius Monterey shrew +Sorex ornatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew +Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew +Sorex ornatus willetti Santa Catalina shrew +Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt -marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans paludivagus Monterey vagrant shrew PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf -nosed bats) +Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long -tongued bat +Leptonycteris yerbabuenae lesser long -nosed bat +Macrotus californicus California leaf -nosed bat VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) +Antrozous pallidus pallid bat +Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big -eared bat +Euderma maculatum spotted bat +Lasionycteris noctivagans silver -haired bat +Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat +Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat +Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T1 S1 None None G5T1Q S1 None None CDFW:SSC G3G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1? S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2QSIIS2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G4 S1 G4 S1 G4 S3 G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT WBWG:H Endangered None IUCN:VU WBWG:H None None BILKS CDFW:SSC None G3G4 S2 None G4 S3 None G5 S3S4 None G5 S3 None G5 S4 None G5 S3 None IUCN:LC WBWG:H None BILKS CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H Candidate BLM:S Threatened CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H None BILKS CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H None IUCN:LC WBWG:M None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H None IUCN:LC WBWG:M None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H Yes Yes Yes 622 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) +Myotis ciliolabrum G5 S3 None None BLM:S western small -footed myotis IUCN:LC WBWG:M +Myotis evotis G5 S3 None None BLM:S long-eared myotis IUCN:LC WBWG:M Myotis lucifugus (San Bernardino Mts G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:LC little brown bat population) WBWG:M +Myotis occultus G4 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Arizona Myotis IUCN:LC WBWG:M +Myotis thysanodes G4 S3 None None BILKS fringed myotis IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H +Myotis velifer G5 S1 None None BLM:S cave myotis CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M +Myotis volans G5 S3 None None IUCN:LC long-legged myotis WBWG:H +Myotis yumanensis G5 S4 None None BLM:S Yuma myotis IUCN:LC WBWG:LM MOLOSSIDAE (free -tailed bats) +Eumops perotis californicus G5T4 S3S4 None None BLM:S western mastiff bat CDFW:SSC WBWG:H +Nyctinomops femorosaccus G4 S3 None None CDFW:SSC pocketed free -tailed bat IUCN:LC WBWG:M +Nyctinomops macrotis G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC big free -tailed bat IUCN:LC WBWG:MH OCHOTONIDAE (plkas) +Ochotona princeps schisticeps G5T2T4 S2S4 None None IUCN:NT gray -headed pika LEPORIDAE (rabbits and hares) +Brachylagus idahoensis G4 S3 None None BLM:S pygmy rabbit CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S +Lepus americanus klamathensis G5T3T4Q S2? None None CDFW:SSC Oregon snowshoe hare +Lepus americanus tahoensis G5T3T4Q S2? None None CDFW:SSC Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare +Lepus californicus bennettii G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit +Lepus townsendii townsendii G5T5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC western white-tailed jackrabbit +Sylvilagus bachmani riparius G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered riparian brush rabbit APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) +Aplodontia rufa californica G5T3T4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Sierra Nevada mountain beaver IUCN:LC +Aplodontia rufa nigra G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC Point Arena mountain beaver IUCN:LC Yes Yes Yes 623 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) +Aplodontia rufa phaea G5T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Point Reyes mountain beaver IUCN:LC SCIURIDAE (squirrels and relatives) +Ammospermophilus nelsoni G2 S2 None Threatened BLM:S Nelson's antelope squirrel IUCN:EN Callospermophilus lateralis bernardinus G5T1 S1 None None San Bernardino golden -mantled ground squirrel +Glaucomys sabrinus californicus G5T1 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC San Bernardino flying squirrel USFS:S +Neotamias panamintinus acrus G4T1 T2 S1 S2 None None Kingston Mountain chipmunk +Neotamias speciosus callipeplus G4T1T2 S1S2 None None USFS:S Mount Pinos chipmunk +Neotamias speciosus speciosus G4T2T3 S2S3 None None lodgepole chipmunk +Xerospermophilus mohavensis G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened Mohave ground squirrel lUCBLMN: VU IUCN: +Xerospermophilus tereticaudus G5T2Q S1S2 None None BLM:S chlorus CDFW:SSC Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel GEOMYIDAE (pocket gophers) Thomomys bottae operarius G5T1? S1? None None Owens Lake pocket gopher HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) +Chaetodipus californicus femoralis G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Dulzura pocket mouse +Chaetodipus fallax fallax G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Yes northwestern San Diego pocket mouse +Chaetodipus fallax pallidus G5T34 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Yes pallid San Diego pocket mouse +Dipodomys californicus eximius G4T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Marysville California kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis G3G4T1 S1 None None Berkeley kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni dixoni G3G4T2T3 S2S3 None None Merced kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni morroensis G3G4TH SH Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Morro Bay kangaroo rat +Dipodomys ingens GiG2 SiS2 Endangered Endangered IUCN:EN giant kangaroo rat +Dipodomys merriami collinus G5TiT2 S1S2 None None Earthquake Merriam's kangaroo rat +Dipodomys merriami parvus G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC San Bernardino kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus G3T1T2 S1S2 None None BLM:S short -nosed kangaroo rat CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU +Dipodomys nitratoides exilis G3TH SH Endangered Endangered IUCN:VU Fresno kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides G3T1T2 SIIS2 Endangered Endangered IUCN:VU Tipton kangaroo rat +Dipodomys panamintinus argusensis G5T1T3 SIIS3 None None Argus Mountains kangaroo rat +Dipodomys panamintinus G5T3 S3 None None panamintinus Panamint kangaroo rat 624 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) +Dipodomys stephensi G2 S2 Endangered Threatened IUCN:EN Stephens' kangaroo rat +Dipodomys venustus elephantinus G4T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC big -eared kangaroo rat +Dipodomys venustus venustus G4T1 S1 None None Santa Cruz kangaroo rat +Perognathus alticolus alticolus G1G2TH SH None None BLM:S Yes white -eared pocket mouse CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S +Perognathus alticolus inexpectatus G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Tehachapi pocket mouse IUCN:EN USFS:S +Perognathus inornatus G2G3 S2S3 None None BLM:S Yes San Joaquin Pocket Mouse +Perognathus inornatus psammophilus G4T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC Salinas pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris bangsi G5T2T3 S2S3 None None BLM:S Palm Springs pocket mouse CDFW:SSC +Perognathus longimembris brevinasus G5T1 T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Los Angeles pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris G5T2T3 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC internationalis Jacumba pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris pacificus G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris salinensis G5T1 S1 None None Saline Valley pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris tularensis G5T1 S1 None None Tulare pocket mouse +Perognathus parvus xanthonotus G5T2T3 S1S2 None None BLM:S yellow -eared pocket mouse MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) +Arborimus albipes G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC white-footed vole IUCN:LC +Arborimus pomo G3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Sonoma tree vole IUCN:NT Microtus californicus halophilus G5T1 S1 None None Monterey vole +Microtus californicus mohavensis G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Mohave river vole +Microtus californicus sanpabloensis G5T1T2 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC San Pablo vole +Microtus californicus scirpensis G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered Amargosa vole +Microtus californicus stephensi G5T1T2 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC south coast marsh vole +Microtus californicus vallicola G5T3 S3 None None BLM:S Owens Valley vole CDFW:SSC +Neotoma albigula venusta G5T3T4 S1 S2 None None Colorado Valley woodrat +Neotoma fuscipes annectens G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat +Neotoma fuscipes riparia G5T1 Q S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC Yes riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat +Neotoma lepida intermedia G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC San Diego desert woodrat 625 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) +Neotoma macrotis luciana Monterey dusky -footed woodrat +Onychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse +Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse +Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae Anacapa Island deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus clementis San Clemente deer mouse +Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis Salinas harvest mouse +Reithrodontomys megalotis santacruzae Santa Cruz harvest mouse +Reithrodontomys raviventris salt -marsh harvest mouse +Sigmodon arizonae plenus Colorado River cotton rat +Sigmodon hispidus eremicus Yuma hispid cotton rat DIPODIDAE Qumping mice) +Zapus trinotatus orarius Point Reyes jumping mouse CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) +Canis lupus gray wolf Urocyon littoralis island fox +Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox +Urocyon littoralis clementae San Clemente Island fox +Urocyon littoralis dickeyi San Nicolas Island fox +Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox +Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Santa Cruz Island fox +Urocyon littoralis santarosae Santa Rosa Island fox +Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox +Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada red fox MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) +Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter +Gulo gulo California wolverine +Lontra canadensis sonora southwestern river otter +Martes caurina Pacific marten +Martes caurina humboldtensis Humboldt marten CESA Other Status Notes G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:DD G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 SiS2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G5T1Q S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G5T2T3 SH None None CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T3Q S1 S3 None None CDFW SSC G4 S1 (Mapped by subspecies) G1 S1 G1T1 S1 G1T1 S1 G1T1 S1 G1T1 S1 G1T1 S1 G1T1 S1 G4T2 S2 G5T1T2 S1 Endangered Endangered IUCN:LC None Threatened IUCN:CR Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR None Threatened IUCN:CR None Threatened IUCN:CR Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Endangered Threatened None Threatened USFS:S G4T2 S2 Threatened None CDFW:FP IUCN:EN MMC:SSC G4 S1 None Threatened CDFW:FP IUCN:NT USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5 S3 None None IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WM Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) +Martes caurina sierrae G5T3 S3 None None USFS:S Sierra marten +Pekania pennanti G5T2T3Q S2S3 Proposed Candidate BILKS fisher - West Coast DPS Threatened Threatened CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Taxidea taxus G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC American badger IUCN:LC MEPHITIDAE (skunks) +Spilogale gracilis amphiala G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Channel Islands spotted skunk FELIDAE (cats and relatives) Lynx rufus pallescens G5T3? S3? None None pallid bobcat +Puma concolor browni G5T1T2QS1 None None CDFW:SSC Yuma mountain lion OTARIIDAE (sea lions and fur seals) +Arctocephalus townsendi G1 S1 Threatened Threatened CDFW:FP Guadalupe fur -seal IUCN:NT +Callorhinus ursinus G3 S1 None None IUCN:VU northern fur -seal +Eumetopias jubatus G3 S2 Delisted None IUCN:EN Steller (=northern) sea -lion MMC:SSC BOVIDAE (sheep and relatives) +Ovis canadensis nelsoni G4T4 S3 None None BILKS desert bighorn sheep CDFW:FP USFS:S +Ovis canadensis nelson pop. 2 G4T3Q S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:FP Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS +Ovis canadensis sierrae G4T2 S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Yes Yes Yes 627 Special Animals List - December 2015 End Notes Invertebrates GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) Prophysaon coeruleum Blue -gray taildropper slug 1) May be a species complex. ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) Hubbardia shoshonensis Shoshone Cave whip -scorpion 1) BLM Sensitive Species list has this species as Trithyreus shoshonensis. CRUSTACEA, Order Amphlpods (amphlpods) Hyalella muerta Texas Spring amphipod 1) First North American hypogean hyalellid. Hyalella sandra Death Valley amphipod 1) Population in Texas Springs is an accidental introduction. Population in Nevares Springs may be a new species. INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) Trigonoscuta sp. Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil 1) Sometimes referred to as "Trigonoscuta doyeni" which is an unpublished manuscript name. INSECTA, Order Lepldoptera (butterflies & moths) Callophrys thornei Thorne's hairstreak 1) Formerly Mitoura thornei; changed to Callophrys thornei. Euproserpinus euterpe Kern primrose sphinx moth 1) Known from 2 sites at the south end of California's Central Valley. Until its rediscovery in Kern Co in 1974, this moth had been thought to be extinct. A 2nd population was recently found in SLO (Xerces Society 2005). Speyeria zerene myrtleae Myrtle's silverspot butterfly 1) The USFWS and others have not yet determined if the taxonomic expansion by Emmel and Emmel (1998) into S. z. myrtleae and S. z. puntareyes Is warranted. The Speyereia zerene along coast of Marin and Sonoma Counties are Federally Endangered under the subspecies concept In the 1992 listing. Fishes ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeon) Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon 1) Federal listing includes all spawning populations south of the Eel River. 2) The NMFS "Special Concern" designation refers to the northern DPS which includes spawning populations north of the Eel River (inclusive). SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central California coast ESU 1) The federal listing is limited to naturally spawning populations in streams between Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz Co. 2) The state listing is limited to Coho south of Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU 1) Federal listing refers to populations between Cape Blanco, Oregon & Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. California. 2) State listing refers to populations between the Oregon border & Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. California. 628 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Russian River in Sonoma County, south to Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County, inclusive. It includes the San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins, but excludes the Sacramento -San Joaquin River basins. steelhead - Central Valley DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in the Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. steelhead - Klamath Mountains Province DPS 1) This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations residing in streams between the Elk River in Oregon and the Klamath River in California, inclusive. 2) The SSC designation refers only to the California portion of the ESU and refers only to the summer -run. steelhead - northern California DPS 1) The federal designation refers to naturally spawned populations residing below impassable barriers in coastal basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt Co. to, and including, the Gualala River in Mendocino Co. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the summer -run. steelhead - south-central California coast DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Pajaro River south to, but not including, the Santa Maria River. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to southern steelhead trout. steelhead - southern California DPS 1) The federal designation refers to fish in the coastal basins from the Santa Maria River (inclusive), south to the U.S. - Mexico Border. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to southern steelhead trout. summer -run steelhead trout 1) Summer -run steelhead are part of both the Klamath Mountains Province DPS and the Northern California DPS. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - California coastal ESU 1) Originally proposed as part of a larger Southern Oregon & California Coastal ESU. This new ESU was revised to include only naturally spawned coastal spring & fall -run chinook salmon between Redwood Creek in Humboldt Cc & the Russian River in Sonoma Co. chinook salmon - Central Valley fall / late fall -run ESU 1) The Central Valley fall/late fall -run ESU refers to populations spawning in the Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the fall -run. chinook salmon - Central Valley spring -run ESU 1) Federal listing refers to the Central Valley Spring -run ESU. It includes populations spawning in the Sacramento River & its tributaries. OSMERIDAE (smelt) Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt 1) AFS Threatened designation take from: Musick, J.T. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. 2) Federal Candidate status is for the San Francisco Bay -Delta DPS of the longfin smelt. CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1 San Joaquin roach 1) Current taxonomy considers this taxon to be a population of Lavinia symmetricus symmetricus, the Sacramento -San Joaquin roach. Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 Amargosa Canyon speckled dace 1) Current taxonomy considers this taxon to be a distinct population of Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis. Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 2 Owens speckled dace 1) Current taxonomy includes the Benton Valley speckled dace (formerly ssp 4) with the Owens speckled dace. 629 Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks) Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus resident threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers to the full species. Gasterosteus aculeatus santaannae Santa Ana (=Shay Creek) threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers to the full species. Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni unarmored threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refer to the full species. POLYPRIONIDAE (wreckflshes) Stereolepis gigas giant sea bass 1) AFS Vulnerable designation taken from: Musick, J.T. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. Amphibians AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders) Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander 1) Central Valley DIPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara & Sonoma counties DIPS federally listed as endangered. PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) Batrachoseps relictus relictual slender salamander 1) Taxonomy follows Jockusch, Martinez-solano, Hansen, Wake (2012. Morphological and molecular diversification of slender salamanders (Caudate: Plethodontidae: Batrachoseps) in the southern Sierra Nevada of California with descriptions of two new species. Zootaxa 3190:130), which synonymized Batrachoseps Sp. 1, Breckenridge Mountain slender salamander, with B. relictus. Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander 1) Newly described species from what was part of the range of Plethodon stormi (Mead et al. 2005). 2) Since this newly described species was formerly considered to be a subpopulation of Plethodon stormi, and since Plethodon stormi is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Plethodon asupak retains the designation as a Threatened species under CESA (Calif. Regulatory Notice Register, No. 21-Z, p.916, 25 May 2007). BUFONIDAE (true toads) Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad 1) Formerly Bufo microscaphus californicus, now considered a full species. 2) At the time of listing, arroyo toad was known as Bufo microscaphus californicus, a subspecies of southwestern toad. In 2001 it was determined to be its own species, Bufo californicus. Since then, many species in the genus Bufo were changed to the genus Anaxyrus, and now arroyo toad is known as Anaxyrus californicus (Frost et al. 2006). Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad 1) Formerly Bufo canorus; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sd, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Anaxyrus (1-schudi, 1845). The standard common name remains Yosemite toad. 2) The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the Yosemite toad as Threatened. The effective date for this rule is June 30, 2014. Anaxyrus exsul black toad 1) Formerly Bufo exsul; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De SA, Channing, Wilkinson. Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Anaxyrus (Tschudi, 1845). The standard common name remains black toad. 630 Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians BUFONIDAE (true toads) Incilius alvarius Sonoran desert toad 1) Formerly Bufo alvarius. Between 2006 & 2009 the scientific name has been changed to Cranopsis alvaria, to 011otis alvaria, to Incilius alvarius, back to 011otis alvarius and then back to Incilius alvarius. The common name has changed from Colorado River toad to Sonoran desert toad. RANIDAE Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog 1) Formerly Rana pipiens; Frost, Grant, Folvovich. Bain, Haas, Haddad, De SA, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Lithobates (Fitzinger, 1843). The standard common name remains northern leopard frog. Lithobates yavapaiensis lowland leopard frog 1) Formerly Rana yavapaiensis; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De SA, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Lithobates (Fitzinger, 1843). The standard common name remains lowland leopard frog. Rana aurora northern red -legged frog 1) A recent mtDNA study consludes that Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii should be recongnized as separate species with a narrow zone of overlap. Rana draytonii California red -legged frog 1) A recent mtDNA study concludes that Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii should be recongnized as separate species with a narrow zone of overlap, and that the range of draytonii extends about 100 km further north in coastal California than previously thought. Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow -legged frog 1) Federal listing refers to populations in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto & San Bernardino Mountains (southern DPS). Federal Proposed status refers to all populations that occur north of the Tehachapi Mountains in the Sierra Nevada (northern DPS). The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the northern DPS of Rana mucosa as Endangered.This rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. Rana muscosa has been split into Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog, found in the northern and central Sierra Nevada and Rana muscosa, the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, found in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog 1) Formerly Rana muscosa. Rana muscosa has been split into Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog, found in the northern and central Sierra Nevada and Rana muscosa, the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, found in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. 2) Rana sierrae is a federally proposed endangered species (Apr 2013). 3) The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog as Endangered.This rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. Reptiles EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles) Emys marmorata western pond turtle 1) The paper: Spinks, Phillip Q. & H. Bradley Shaffer. 2005. Range -wide molecular analysis of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata): cryptic variation, isolation by distance, and their conservation implications. Molecular Ecology (2005) 14, 2047-2064. determined that the current subspecies split was not warranted. Therefore, we are now tracking the western pond turtle only at the full species level. 2) The paper: Spinks, Phillip Q., & H. Bradley Shaffer. 9009, Conflicting Mitochondrial and Nuclear Phylogenies for the Widely Disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) Species Complex, and What They Tell Us about Biogeography and Hybridization. Systematic Biology. 58(1): pp. 1-20 determined that the correct genus name is Emys. 631 Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles HELODERMATIDAE (venomous lizards) Heloderma suspectum cinctum banded gila monster 1) The BLM "Sensitive Species" designation refers to the full species. BOIDAE (boas) Charina trivirgata rosy boa 1) The Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers only to the subspecies roseofusca. 2) The taxonomy of this species is in flux. The name Lichanura trivirgata is a synonym. Some sources list several subspecies while others don't recognize any subspecies. Birds PHASIANIDAE (grouse and ptarmigan) Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage -grouse 1) As of Oct 2013, the Bi-State DPS of greater sage -grouse (Mono Basin; Mono, Alpine, & Inyo Co.) have a federal status of Proposed Threatened; the remaining populations of the species are Candidate. Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi Mount Pinos sooty grouse 1) Formerly merged with D. obscurus as blue grouse, but separated on the basis of genetic evidence and differences in voice, behavior, & plumage. 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. RALLIDAE (rails, coots, and galllnules) Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of "Near Threatened" refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris levipes light-footed clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris yumanensis Yuma clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and relatives) Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover 1) Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population 2) DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to both the coastal & interior populations. 3) USFWS - Birds of Conservation Concern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations of Threatened or Endangered species. Charadrius montanus mountain plover 1) The 5 Dec 2002 proposal to list the mountain plover as a threatened species was withdrawn by the FWS as of 12 May 2011. LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Gelochelidon nilotica gull -billed tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna nilotica 632 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna caspia Sternula antillarum brown California least tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna antillarum browni. 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Thalasseus elegans elegant tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna elegans ALCIDAE (auklets, puffins, and relatives) Synthliboramphus scrippsi Scripps's murrelet 1) Formerly included in Xantus's murrelelt as Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi, now considered a full species STRIGIDAE (owls) Athene cunicularia burrowing owl 1) A burrow site = an observation of one or more owls at a burrow or evidence of recent occupation such as whitewash and feathers. Winter observations at a burrow are mapped. Winter observations with or without a burrow in San Francisco, Ventura, Sonoma, Marin, Napa & Santa Cruz Counties are mapped. Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl 1) There are no northern spotted owl EOs in the CNDDB. All northern spotted owl location information is maintained in a separate data layer. This layer is packaged with the CNDDB layer in BIOS. All RareFind subscribers have access to this information through BIOS (http:BIOS.dfg.ca.gov) 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) USFWS: Birds of Conservation Conern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations of Threatened or Endangered species. Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 3) USFWS - Birds of Conservation Concern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations for Threatened or Endangered species. Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 633 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds LANIIDAE (shrikes) Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi San Clemente loggerhead shrike 1) Subspecific identity of shrikes currently on San Clemente is uncertain. Mundy et al. (1997a, b) provided evidence L. I. mearnsi is genetically distinct from L. I. gambeli and L. I. anthonyi, whereas Patten and Campbell (2000) concluded, based on morphology, that the birds now on San Clemente are intergrades between L. I. mearnsi and L. I. anthonyi. VIREONIDAE (vlreos) Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona bell's vireo 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of 'Near Threatened" refers to the full species. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of "Near Threatened" refers to the full species. TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis coastal cactus wren 1) Nomenclature follows the draft DFG Bird Species of Special Concern report. SYLVIIDAE (gnatcatchers) Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher 1) AKA Alta California gnatcatcher 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers) Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte's thrasher 1) The BLM "Sensitive Species" designation refers to the subspecies Toxostoma lecontei macmillanorum. 2) DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the San Joaquin population, AKA T. I. macmillanorum. PARULIDAE (wood -warblers) Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 1) AKA San Francisco common yellowthroat Setophaga petechia yellow warbler 1) This element includes the subspecies S. p. morcormi & S. p. brewsteri, which are tracked under the full species, S. petechia due to difficulty distinguishing them. S. p. sonorana, which nests in California only along the Colorado River is tracked separately. Setophaga petechia sonorana Sonoran yellow warbler 1) Nests in California only along the Colorado River. Observations of yellow warblers from other regions are tracked as the full species, S. petechia. EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell's sage sparrow 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Artemisiospiza belli clementeae San Clemente sage sparrow 1) Subspecific validity uncertain. Recognized by AOU (1957), but not by Patten and Unitt (2002). 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 634 Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) Melospiza melodia graminea Channel Island song sparrow 1) Subspecilic valldily is uncertain. This subspecies when referred to as Santa Barbara song sparrow is extinct. However, the subspecies was merged by Patten (2001) with the San Miguel (M. m. micronyx), and San Clemente (M. m. clementae) song sparrows as the Channel Island song sparrow with the subspecific name M. m. graminea. Melozone crissalis eremophilus Inyo California towhee 1) Previously was in the genus Pipilo. Piranga flava hepatic tanager 1) According to The A.O.U. Check -list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition, this species is probably misplaced in the current phylogenetic listing but for which data indicating proper placement are not yet available. Piranga rubra summer tanager 1) According to The A.O.U. Check -list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition, this species is probably misplaced in the current phylogenetic listing but for which data indicating proper placement are not yet available. ICTERIDAE (blackbirds) Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird 1) Emergency protection under CESA granted on December 3rd 2014 by the California Fish and Game Commission. Mammals PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf -nosed bats) Leptonycteris yerbabuenae lesser long -nosed bat 1) Listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae. VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation is based on the draft updated Mammalian Species of Special Concern report. Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation is based on the draft updated Mammalian Species of Special Concern report. OCHOTONIDAE (pikes) Ochotona princeps schisticeps gray -headed pika 1) All of the subspecies of pika in California have been synonymized under Ochotona princeps schisticeps. APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) Aplodontia rufa californica Sierra Nevada mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species Aplodontia rufa phaea Point Reyes mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. 635 Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" desgination refers to the full species. Chaetodipus fallax pallidus pallid San Diego pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to the full species. Perognathus alticolus alticolus white -eared pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" and the BLM "Sensitive Species" designations refer to the full species. 2) The IUCN "Endangered' designation is at the species level. Perognathus alticolus inexpectatus Tehachapi pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN "Endangered' designation is at the species level. Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse 1) This element includes the subspecies P. i. inornatus & P. i. neglectus, which are tracked under the full species, P. inornatus due to difficulty distinguishing them. P. i. inornatus generally occurs on the eastern side of San Joaquin Valley, while P. i. neglectus generally occurs on the western side. P. i. psammophilus, which occurs only in the Salinas Valley, is tracked separately. MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat 1) This species is currently undergoing taxonomic revision Reithrodontomys megalotis santacruzae Santa Cruz harvest mouse 1) Synonomous with Reithrodontomys megalotus longicaudus, Santa Cruz Island Population. CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) Urocyon littoralis island fox 1) State listing is at the full species level and includes all subspecies on all islands. Federal listing does not include San Nicolas & San Clemente island subspecies. Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered' designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis clementae San Clemente Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered' designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis dickeyi San Nicolas Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered' designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered' designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Santa Cruz Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered' designation refers to the full species. Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) Urocyon littoralis santarosae Santa Rosa Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endanagered" designation refers to the full species. MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter 1) The IUCN "Endangered' designation refers to the full species. Lontra canadensis sonora southwestern river otter 1) SSC status refers only to the supspecies L. canadensis sonora, which is known in California only from the Colorado River. Pekania pennanti fisher - West Coast DPS 1) The subspecies M. p. pacifica is no longer considered a valid subspecies. The west coast population of the fisher is now considered to be a distinct population segment (DPS). 2) Federal candidate status refers to the distinct population segment (DPS) in Washington, Oregon & California. 3) The Fish and Game Commission Notice of Findings stated that the Pacific fisher was a candidate for listing as either an Endangered or Threatened species. At the 23 Jun 2010 meeting the FGC determined that the listing was not warranted. An 11 Mar 2013 Notice of Findings stated that pursuant to court order, the FGC set aside its 15 Sep 2010 findings rejecting the petition to list, and the Pacific fisher is a candidate species for the purposes of CESA. BOVIDAE (sheep and relatives) Ovis canadensis nelsoni desert bighorn sheep 1) Desert bighorn sheep (O. c. nelsoni) in the Peninsular Ranges are tracked as a metapopulation of the subspecies, Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS (O. c. nelsoni pop. 2) Ovis canadensis nelsoni pop. 2 Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS 1) The subspecies peninsular bighorn sheep (O. c. cremnobates) has been synonymized with O. c. nelsoni (Wehausen & Ramey 1993). Peninsular bighorn sheep are now considered to be a metapopulation and are recognized has a federal Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 637 ATTACHMENT 3 638 [SWAPE Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment January 20, 2016 Amy Minteer Chatten-Brown & Carstens 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Matt Hagemann Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhasemann@swape.com Subject: Comments on the Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates Dear Ms. Minteer: We have reviewed the Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates ("Project"). The primary objective of this WQMP is to ensure that the land use approval and permitting process of each local land use authority will prevent or minimize the impact of urban runoff on receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.' In order to meet this primary objective, a number of conditions need to be met. Our review concludes that the Project's WQMP does not comply with requirements set forth by the City of La Quinta (City) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-152. Until the WQMP is prepared in accordance with the Whitewater River Region's preliminary project -specific WQMP guidelines, and all of the required conditions are met, the Project should not be approved. Failure to Satisfy Section IV, Hydrologic Conditions of Concern, Condition "C" Under Section IV of the project -specific WQMP, "Hydrologic Conditions of Concern," the Project must comply with "Condition C" by demonstrating that the runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post -development condition do not exceed the pre -development condition for the 2-year, 24-hour and 10-year 24-hour rainfall events (WQMP, p. 1-8). To attempt to satisfy this condition, the WQMP provides plans and runoff calculations for an underground retention system (a 39 foot -long, 48 inch - diameter pipe) to capture the excess stormwater runoff generated by the Project site, post - development. This system will not satisfy the requirements of Section IV, Condition "C." The ' Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan Guidance Document, January 2015, available at: httn I/rcflood.orxldowrsloads NPDESIDocumentsLWW_ SWMP WQMP/WWR WQMP Guidirm_! Jan15 0 5,pdf, P. 1 639 underground retention system will be inundated by Project flows that combine with offsite stormwater runoff before being routed to the underground pipe. The hydrologic modeling calculations that attempt to demonstrate compliance with Condition "C" are included in the Hydrology Report for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 (Appendix F). The calculations in Appendix F show that runoff from just 0.6 acres of the Project site, constituted by 0.5 acres of paving/hardscape and 0.1 acres of landscaping (pp. 208 of 305), are to be routed to the underground retention system. This approach is incorrect because the area that will contribute flow to the proposed retention system is much greater than just the 0.6-acre portion that will be developed. The general topography of the site, as detailed in the WQMP Site plan, shows that runoff from both the undeveloped portion and the developed portion of the site would flow into and be captured by this basin. According to Appendix F, `Based on the existing topography, the site is naturally divided into three tributary areas: "A", "B" and "C" as noted on the hydrology map" (pp. 206 of 305). i 4 # » t A 1 1 2 it Ara B2 —20,ac Legend Qarsnemwmy�, _ • � EM Project Sao i I Inch = 500 feet Appendix F of the WQMP continues on to explain that while stormwater runoff from Tributary Areas A and C will flow directly off -site, runoff from Tributary Area B will flow into the proposed retention basin. Appendix F states, "Tributary Flows — offsite flow from Area B1 and a portion of storm runoff from Area B2 is tributary to the proposed access road. To protect the road, a brow ditch is proposed above the road with a connection to a storm drain inlet and pipe, which will convey the flow directly to an underground retention system. Minor runoff will sheet flow down the access road. Some of the flow may percolate through the pavers. The remainder will be intercepted by a catch basin and piped to the underground retention system" (pp. 207 of 305). N 640 The portion that will be developed is located within Area B2. Therefore, 0.6 acres of the 2-acre area would be developed, with approximately 1.4 acres remaining undeveloped. Additionally, all 1.7-acres of Area B1 will remain undeveloped. As stated in the WQMP, runoff from Areas B1 and B2 will flow into the proposed retention basin. Therefore, by designing the retention basin to capture the runoff from just the developed portion of Tributary Area B, runoff from approximately 3.1 acres of undeveloped land is unaccounted for in the design (see figure below). Stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas within Tributary Area B was not considered in calculating the volume requirements of the retention system. As a result, the retention system, as designed, would be inundated during the design storms, overwhelming the ability of the system to infiltrate, and thereby treat, Project stormwater runoff. To effectively retain, and thereby treat, all Project flows that comingle with offsite runoff before being routed to the retention system, additional onsite retention capacity should be implemented prior to Project approval. To show the impact that runoff from Areas B1 and B2 would have on the proposed retention system, we conducted our own analysis using the same methods utilized in the WQMP and Hydrology Report (Appendix F). Our calculations, attached, demonstrate that the undeveloped areas within Tributary Area 3 641 B could contribute as much as 10,723 cubic feet of runoff during a 2-year, 24-hour rain event, and could contribute as much as 22,784 cubic feet of runoff during a 10-year, 24-hour rain event (see table below).Z Stormwater Volume from Undeveloped Area SWAPE Model Discharge (cfs) 2 Year, 24 Hour 10 Year, 24 Hour 0.49 0.98 Velocity (fps) N/A Required Storage (cubic feet) 10,723 Flood Volume (cubic feet) 10,813 Duration (minutes) 1,440 N/A 22,784 22,974 1,440 Our calculations demonstrate that the contribution from the undeveloped areas of Areas 131 and B2 would be significant. The retention system, -as planned with a proposed capacity of 490 cubic feet, will be overwhelmed by stormwater runoff from these areas that will exceed the capacity of the system by more than 20 times for the 2-year storm and by more than 45 times for the 10-year storm. Failure to retain the combined flow volume, to include Project flow and the flow from undeveloped areas of B1 and B2, means that treatment though infiltration will not be effectual. Instead, Project flows, combined with B1 and B2 flows, will be routed untreated to the flood control channel at the base of the slope as described in the Hydrology Report: "Should the proposed underground retention system capacity be exceeded, emergency overflow is conveyed out of the grated inlet via a rock -lined swale and into the adjacent flood control channel, following the existing drainage pattern" (pp. 208 of 305). Our calculations show that the capacity for the retention system will be greatly exceeded for the design storms used in the WQMP. Untreated Project runoff will therefore flow to the flood control channel as described above, causing water quality degradation. Therefore, the goal of the WQMP plan — "to prevent or minimize the impact of urban runoff on receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable" — will not be met. A revised WQMP must be prepared to include additional on -site retention capacity, capable of treating all flow from design storms, including from Areas 61 and B2, that combines with flow from the developed 0.6-acre portion of the Project. Alternatively, offsite flow from Areas 131 and B2 could be routed away from the planned retention structure so that offsite flows do not comingle with Project flows and inundate the capacity of the system. Any diversion that is considered would need to incorporate measures to prevent erosion of the ground surface where offsite flows are routed. z Calculation details included as attachment to this letter for reference. 4 642 Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Jessie Jaeger 643 RAwFu1WLTR f1!_4LOUQtf FAECZtE±*rAJ¢S :O L (]].�1RA'YIOIFie-OUP.4 i4 I}2 FA1%T RA1!FaNC?43 fP�tr f•S. 3.a_ fi3j M MA.-AME3 z-1 FVm StIll, llNRT DURATION.: MURS =4 EF:Ei'11VE ItA1N {.n7 -... '-d' FLOOD VOLUME 1->-? o.s3 RE. ICO ztOR,60E .:u Cl 2115.5E fiY2{l.fln`f0 S70RAGEirEnx•tQ U:33 :,CV71dt.i '� 10-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B _ AcAwm L= RATE SOIL GROUP [Plate C-lj LAND USE RI NUMBER IP1etm E•6,11 PERVIOUS AREA INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) LPlafe E-6.21 DECIMAL PERCENT OF AREA IMPERVIOUS [Plate E-6.31 ADJUSTED NFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) AREA laves] AVERAGE ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE lin/hr) A COMMEPCJAL 32 C.0 909E D-14 .0 0 A PAVINry(1ARD5,.APE '.i2 0,74 1 = 0.07 0 SF- 1 ACRE 32 u,71 20% C1.61 6 0 --1/2.ALFE 32 0.74 40% 0,47 0 _ 0 SF • 21`b ACNE 11 0.74 50.e. 0.4E 0 D A MF- CONDOMINIUMS 32 0.74 95% 0.31 0 C 74f-ApA"tNT5 32 0,74 C21, U C A MOBILE HOME PARKS 3D O.7b 75k'4 _ 124 0 0 A LANDSCAPING 32 0.74 09t G- 0 0 A RETBiTspN 6AS1R6 32 0.7b C°.e 074 0 0 A GOLF COURSE 32 0:74 M 0.74 0 0 II MOVNTA] U5 1 9; I Q.^.2 sum "3 3,1 DA37i Gumn _ [FFtt�tOrE lbtik [A1TUlA'MpN F+7ele DRNNA-'-AREA-ACRES 3 1 UXF:1100:•MINUTES 15 LY6TIME-MINUTES 1..14 UNIT -TIME• PERCENT OF LAG 131%8% TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES 2.42 O'A'161ANT'055iRATE-Irfhr N/A WAAMELOSS RATE -in/hr 00171 MINIMUM LOSS RATE -in/hr 0009 :C;W LStrSR'AriE- DECIMAL 0 C 000016 PERLMATION RATE (091 0 Unit Time Period Pattern Percent Storm Rdn iM/he{ I-: Rote ihrfHs} EfteRlve Rain (in/hr) F14ad H7vlruyrePi� Fur. {ds( Regvind Stora`e la. ftl 1A. law 15 0,2E 1 0.2 O4119 1190 DID 0.019 0.06 5446 30 ge�q Da QA'9 Q;Q30 am 0.029 009 81.70 45 0.75 M;3 D= 1Q.D79 0.d7 0.029 0.04 �L74 4 SO 1,00 O4 0229 Q1729 0.00 0.010 003 27.40 5. 75 115 0.i. 0.018 0.025 000 0.029 0.09 9170 5 9C 1.50 03 '=29 QD:d 6.03 0➢Q3 0_ZO 2iD 105 1.7E 03 Dim 2038 0DO 3.00i C00 305 It Sal - a= 14. 0.069 RL'-A 000 0.0a1 003 - __ Y 185 225 0.4 04N D.0:7 am '0.011 004 3217 iQ ISO 2.50 CI 01re.19 D+-_7 am 0,012 0.D4 3311 11 165 7-n 05 Q.QLa 0i517 0.00 0,022 0A7 -..27 1;. 180 300 05 DIKB 0&26 0.90 .pGp2 047 s.19 IS 195 325 ti VJ943 QLr°6 0,00 0.477 R07 93.11 14 110 aw 0.5 Mm 0A0 G.023 0,07 64.02 s 715 3.7E G, am Q_B3 0100 0+'== 007 64.93 15 !4C 4= amn a= 0.02E am 0033 0.5O 93J04 17 155 425 - CA OArA 0075 acaa 0033 030 93.96 13 :70 450 0.7 O0sS GLOW 0,00 0.043 014 122.08 1- i35 4.7E 0.7- O.D66 =4 000 0.044 C1b ,*p 301 50D DID V_on 0614 Lin Q054 017 151,06 315 5,25 49 ozw a 02 3 am 0035 0,11 91,47 330 550 47 Mow ai n-. 040 0144E 014 125.56 23 345 5,r� 0.6 0.077 93S$a. 00 0455 117 153.65 24 360 6D0 D.a 0077 01173 am QA55 0..17 15450 "3 37, 615 03 O.WT QA27 0.00 DIM 070 13?-57 23 39D 63Q. Q.5 0.037 MIDI C.102 0.065 0,20 _ _ 18341 27 405. 5,7E 1,0 D;A47 0=2 am 0,075 a23 21147 ;$ 4U 7.00 1.A CM Dd7.1 6.00 0.075 GZ4 312-20 39 435 715 1.0 D.1Y31. D,075 O-W OATS IMA 2L31 30 450 - 7-50 1.1 ]-1Ce nrl+. 0,00 am Qw 24116 CGS 7,75 1-1 - 0.020 0,00 0.096 130 26919 a; qp am -SA _- 0=0 'MD0 0..106 0.33 297-22 33 b9g 8.25 fS 01 0.00 0.125 Mali 352.47 Ba AID 9So 1.5 0= 0.00 0.126 0.39 35326 a5 A23 CPU041P 0136 0.42 391.26 33 MCI9.00 - �- 0.4F1B 000 014E 4.45. 40337 37 3S' 925 11019 COD 0.165 052 464.49 SM 930 2Q3 0.01-3 OLD 0.175 055 49248 39 5E5 975 - llnrc 0.00 O.IHS 038 5704E 40 am 10,00 - G-3 Qzz 0.00 0.195 0.61 54843 41 6is 143E 0,34E _ 3,145 QO38 D.CQ 0.127 040 35854 42 630 10,50 =7 0,00 ails Q.ki 35927 43 6-5 10,75 _ 2.0 029: 0.017 000 0.176 055 496.15 44 660 11ID 0=7 0= 0177 0.55 49686 b6 6E 11.25 1.9 01l4 0=7 P-M 0.167 0.52 470.33 46 650 11.50 1-9 0134 (JL1v V-03 0}67 0.52 471.02 47 705 xT 2.7 ELM 0.016 OAQ 014E 0,A6 41715 •a 77D 1200 1-L _ 0.174 0.016 ODD: 0153 A43 44-16. bg. 735 1225 QIb3 15411E 0Lp 027e 0.71 63646 51 7w n'F s 2.6 01Y57 41215 am 0236 A74 5£R36 Si 1 713 S175 7.3 0.2T3 Gals Q Q) - W."A 4Ap 720.46 644 SO -Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B 55 'J 795 8U1 1325 13.50 3-: 3,4 0.329 0.313 G=5 C,v,?. 0D:5 am 4.00 0.00 0.7E6 0314 0315 _@83 0.A G98 741S 3511E 884.80 55 57 r qg So 62 63 54 53 � g7 53 70 71 :i 73 74 75 i5 7]- 78' m -_-EL 82 a3 84 35 e] g4p am 885 900 835 930 A4i gp] 975 4'JO 1p05 1035 30W WES 1080 1i55 1310 1iP5 3iir3 2255 nm .rat 12W ntS 1230 i 1245. 13a'1 127S 1290 130s 1325 14.OD 1Q25 16Si 14.75 15,00 1535 15.50 1575 1FiS. i6.^S 26.50 15.75 17.25 17.50 17,79 18A17 EAZ4 78.50 1875 Ism 1975 13.50 13,7E MW 7i6a, 40:A 2075 M7 -1 Iq 2130 71.7i 23 23 2.7' 7_5 6 5 21f ?.5 1.9 15 0.4 04 05 OS 0-5 fly QR O.4 OA {F3 1 C7 a3 0.4 0.3 A' 13 09 03 w 05 a3 03 Q'sE3 n?-n 0261 0+5T O-M 0.242. 0.233 HT Oa84 O.S&t OD3s 005 G029 L'C?9 O,0G8 G.G48 Cox 0SII4 OMSi O.R9 o.Q19 O.OJ 0.03 0939 A011 Q023 O.ai9 O.YR9 0019 4:025 0❑19 0.029 0.014 0.014 0014 0014 0.014 0.013 0.033 0.013 0013- 0013 0.012 0,012 D= 0.0L' 091: 0011 0.0M O.On mi O.OIl atrt, 0.0-0 0010 0131R 01710 nm.0 001fl Olr1a OLIO 0.045 0009 09Oi OSJlN Q� 0,40 0.00 0.00 Om GOO ow O1a2 @00 0-00 Ofl0 O.W '.�ldf 0.0L am 000 0,40 am am am Om0=9 0.00 aQ0 O.o6 q. m 0.00 000 0� 0,00 c1fl0 0.00 0.00 0-00 0206 n=E 03:7 0238 0238 U35 02.15 E110 0.271 0471 ELMO,Oi R;C47 =17 OF1L7 =7 OA37 (1337 RlDA OM I 0-OLB Rmt 002e 0019. mom _ a1A9 0019 41R0 a= 0.£40 amo O.RFO 0.65 0.55 1..77 O74 C74 7.7. 0-65 G.55 0.54 OOi 0713 Qffi am 01P 0-12 am OM OM7862 4L4i 0113 0.ff 0.09 6-06 fl,D3 On 006 �'06 01 0.06 000 OIiB :87 585.45 696.02 55R39 559.96 64333 615.E7 481,63 46163 7433 74.76 4904 48.55 103.51 iO4,00 104,49 77.72 78.17 Si82 SI 52i6. 80.N 53 45 ]555 5419 54.54 54.1� 27.97 28,57 2857 5608 8B y5. 94 51 ys _ 'LM 1335 1350 _ 1385 2200 2225 77-Sir 27,75 23,00 Oa O,3 �' 02 al 0.019 0,029 0tl� 0019 0.019 0019 0009 0.>E: QC� 113FK Q1w3 owOA30 :,00 0:01 0.00 000 I R.W L 0020 01311 0,3.T_ 0.012 0A71 CSE am 0D9 LID OA3 29.11 5658 29.58 29.75 2997 34 14M 23.50 01 0019 OL09 0.00 oII11 am 3036 95 95 1425 law 23.75 2490 0. 02 0.019 0�1.9 0009 0.A-3 0,00 0.R0 0-0, 99I G03 am 5035 30J@ 645 III] CONCENTRATION POINT I 1 I KIMMILWIL 5OURr,t 3` aaRATICk-!'OURS=wv,�B POihTPAlE9-0NI2:E5 RWIM E1098:91d4GRRY DO7LiR➢TFHDUAS 14 EFF2{'Tly[ P.AIx l'K`S a-9G 13aODVUL77h5'c icw!9! //163271 9ADD vOWM2 faco-*v OSS FleDu1R1O 57GRAL>.c?.cu-irl ]o7F3-?S -.n�.astolucEle��}I a.25 PEAK ROW (chl 1iA9 2-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B AP�:1'n 1069MR. __ SOIL GROUP [Plate C-1] LAND USE RI NUMBER (Plate E-6.11 PERVIOUS AREA INFILTRATION RATE Iin/hr)[PI-Eti-2] DECIMAL PERCENT OF AREA IMPERVIOUS [Plate E-6.31 ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE Iin/hrl AREA �9alLI AVERAGEADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE Iin/hrl A - 'M%UP ADUa. A 9D% 014 G G PAMNaiiARp5CAPE -3 '74 IOC% 007 a 0' A sm -1 AGC 32 C3i 20% D.52 A' 0 A 5P21ACNE 4% 0.47 a a A SF-L14-ACRE 33 0,74 30% A MF-CDNDOMIMIUr 32 0,74 LTA% 031 a D A ALF-APARTMENT;i 32 0-74 BD% D31 0 a A mowL1 HOW PA4s 1 11 0-74 75% P]i 0 0 A J.4N65CAPING 32 Q14 oA �.74 :a D A A4--.PrJYT1oN P.4913 3�s G.7i O1. :.7a o D A G�LF�aRSE � cL74 as [ to D a a 87GWN7giNC41i 9e OA9 90% _�]^ SUM E-1 3s 0LY77 GA87Y EHIG70111.11A 1CAL11"7)CK 7pReA DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 3.1 (UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15 CAGTIME-MINUTES 1.14 UNIT TIME-PERCENTOF LAG '319.8% L11W TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES 126 CJrN3TRNTL RATE -Jnfbr l+I= VAA641U L055 RATE -in/hr 0.0171 MLtifAUM LOSS RATE-in/hr 0009 L= RATE- DECI MAL 0 C 00o016 R6AC311A71i7N 467E a UnR Time Perbd Time AM1SINPmr Pattern PeroeM 5[orm Reln (in/hr) Io>m R.1+{in(hr1 EHec[ive Rain (in/hr) Food HydroenPh Flow � Repaired Ift) (�^ k MR leW 1 IS p=g f1.7 O;G13 9,03a am 0010 0p3 2836 2 - 10 015 OSLiD QDg 0.015 0-OS 4254 3 i1 aT5 63 D.015 QA`e9 DAD 0A35 0.05 -_14 4 FiQ IAO ap Tom-OOM9 DDa I D-927 0-(* 56.7: - 75 i75 - 11,0E 11.D'e9 OAO 3a15 0.a5 A23? 6 EC- 5.50 0A DALS 0e8 9 0.015 0.05 4g34 7 IDS 1-73 03 nuns Dn-a 01)0 U15 CG5 42-54 A LA 2.D�" DA I aim DINS a= 005 3572 9 115 2.25 0.4 ®ffi0 aD2F QAD GA2a a.05 10 im 230 i%d mug daP7 (iAO 0,020 5rE 5G.7R u Sb3 .75 a5 - a= CeO27 0Aa a025 70A9 22 1!G am 03 0-7]3 DJ726 04a ams 0.08 7p$i 13 19S .3.7:3 a5 0=5 OA25 DS4 D-0,:= OA4 70.99 yt - 212 a G3 DOLTS 0D25 OAP ao25 flUm 7Dm 3-76. O F 0.025 om 0.W 0.025 D.w OM 240 400 Ii5 4aX1 QA,S 0.00 0+a75 002 14.74 17 -Lr5 4 COS 0-m 04n O,aP 0-076 a0i 1563 29 220 4-w ai 0-M affix OAD 01a1 D:'_]* 90.7G 19 3G5 isi A7 D915 0=4 a,aa 0.011 9.04 3i5E 22 300 :-0I1 CA a,D[o 11 - 4 oze a017 Cm se. 31 345. 5.25 i 0o GAaD - 0o23 TIM 0=7 0.02 19-I5 22 339 3-SO 07 G= 0J= obG OATS 0.04 3s.15 21 145 5.75 Ds mom Ooa aD0 G1w 4S,12 24 310 640 03 o-= Cm 3 000 13za 0.06 1=7 375 CA DZA5 0.071 ODO I O.a21 a.+i.` 651a3 D6 B9D 65.: 0.9 0.O45 mAZ2 GPO Dim0.37 535/ 27 475 6.75 1.0 D.AMO R^ CAI) ISdH 0.03 6DA4 }p 410 7D0 1A CA50 oA11 VDQ aA29 0.99 3T1.)G 25 95S 735 la -- 21155 2-0J- O.GO Lum ao9 �+38 34 450 750 Ll o.a55 0=1 II.GO OD35 011 27.57 }1 465 7.7a. 12 4Dw 02<"t0 a.CC 0.74D a13 112-5= 31 450 EAa l.d 0.O4fi aa2Q 0A0 GA45 { P.l:_ _ !1?.32 B3 4)5 y.25 L5' a.076 09)G 000 GJIM 35€b7 34 SIO B-% 13 0= aAX1 DAO 0.056 1 017 WAS 35 S26 875 "..6 D=, 9A1.9 OAO 04r, 1119 177,41 �. Spa - 9D0 17 C.PBn 0.019 GAG am 071 18736 17 553 9-25 0:G95 M19 O.d1 mjp 7 4U 73640 m 570 9.50 eo 0n-= 0.010 13.00 0,D22 G-1{ Z 141 a9 595 4]5 23 0.106 0.011 040 man 027 40 FAD 1040 -- a111 GD1L a.Oa 12M M-79 25L26 41 GIS i mus twm 001e 0.00 b.0 0.28 16-74 41 'S3a 24.54 O,aFo GA17 0.120 0411 DSB a3 545 10.75 20 D101 S[017 0.00 CA84 03E 235;08 44 - '!2 20 0.iG1 aD:7 om 0:>84 a.26 235.79 S5 575 11:3 1-9 PJ a037 'au a DA71 1125 22Lk 45 G?] IS.SC 49 0.096 -I GOO CAB 0,25 :2'JJl 47 7VS 11:5 1.7 GDP OZ16 I mob O.DS 0.32 I 34 a 71D iid7a `d 0.D91 0D16 OAO arcs D,i1 23'r3A 45 735 1235 Z5 O� 0416 0A0 olio OZ4 SLIM S7 7m 2250 14 a,33i Ome 0110 C-1. 0:sS 324-97 S1 765 12.75 2A a1.3 0015 GAG a12d =0 24 Dim 25 0CQ 01n VA.. 3611&1 53 705 1125 0 10i71 O.a15 o.co 0S57 10.45 9Aa3S 646 2-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B 54 910 1 35.50 3.< 0.x71 ¢015 0.00 Gy^ ❑,L5 440.95 55 an 1335 23 O+ce ¢4!a Iw 0}C:. 03.2 23554 S4 fsa 14im 23 91% 001} om ¢SD;•' 266.25 57 955 147.5 17 ].'. S QM ¢.¢¢ OS22 _ ¢33 i4AL5 9" i4m D5 --- 0431 ODS4 am 0-117 0.32 3aapo. g 14.75 '2.0 Oak O0I4 G40 gala 03' 330;59 60 is a= can am 415E 035 52a9B 61 315 353E 2.4 a:123 0.0_ 'am 0103 a34 30a-39- 6"' sae 1550 3,a aS3S G. "G✓' Ow 0 3 0= M.7'F 63 - 4Ss 7Sis SS aim (L.o�i7 a4a3 G.26 :3383 5S %3 1§.W L5 aim .04a o.ass am 25�16 65 375 - - Iv`.Y dA D= O= 0-00 'a.4tis Dim i:.,GI Fm 9w x6.5a 0A O.OSC 0.612 040 020 am 22.54 67 lam Z623 03 03]Li CIA:7 0D¢ DIM 0.01 S::3 EM 1740 0.3 0.03 0D32 13N 09C3 CR lM 17,33 05 Aam 0432 am 19p14 0.09 M 1042 ;; 0.S OG05 ann am CLO14 0.49 3673 71 740E 37.76 '03 P-v25 0411 D-00 a4x4 0GS 1423 72 LIM 1a4¢ 44 0= ¢011 aw Cum 0¢3. TS.W n 1L 3 x33S 0.a 0A30 01M aka 0,0M .^-Q1 Fv3G 74 =D is3C OA ¢A'{. ` 0011 0m 0G09 R¢3 26A5 - 76 11 M75 03 =5 CIM OD0 0 5 G-ax i27 76 ;1?a 13.0a a3. a,= 4.['Te a4M D.03 23.3E' 77 - 3133 3!25 a.3 0.025 OX-1a 040 -aoGs 04Y 13 W 78 YxhT 39S0 OF 1 °uCb1 O.R"0 8h0 SG a 003 zam 76 �a5 MM _ 03 0035 0D38 04a om5 a^3 i4.3i' OA40 a41a 0m a4xa ¢A3 Zs36._ C 13� 4`3 a13 441E 01130 ODD 0.00E Qa2 15.0E Iz 11M V-,p 09 041E m= QDG Dim V-a2 Y530 03 124E M15 03 am I Q434 000 MATE 040 13'-ri Mum - zI.00 a3 0AM 0D04- G1t7 ©A¢I w am LK is U75 7L:5 ¢3 a.ffi 1ff4a5 am "M a1Q Y63d S x26a 1150 C2 A4M 0.00a aa0 ].4vi kI4 2.4E 130i #-75 0.3 Ow d4 04oE 0.G7 ;&3x se z i -wo mom. ¢.aaa coo D.tw- am aa¢ ea - 1335 I 25 09 0.015 0Do9 0 a4a6 0.M 17.42 so II a' ' n3a a3 Q4xo 04M am aaal aao 347 gl Y!6 uT- I a2 0AM OAfB DA0 a9¢S' 0.00 303 %, S3$'P 23 Ra1G 0404 ¢M ¢0.'1 0.u] am is 349E - 73.7F, a2 04xa 029 am 0.9a1 ow _.U-M 4.a2 34 _510 ^3ttl... C: aIC9 aim MSG ¢DWG %.Ss Ti tazs 5.7E G2 O.Q+,O oWS am, % 141a ci.a0 0.020 aix7F ¢iA ta002 aa0 S3a 647 swap Tom; °En,°W Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@,swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2104; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); 648 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litiga#iron Sunnnrt Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. PQ 649 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 650 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydr geology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 651 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy -making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 652 Geology. With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teachin& From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony Reports Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 653 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 654 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 655 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. AM JESSIE MARIE JAEGER Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and 1SWA P Litigation Support for the Environment SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (530) 867-6202 Office: (310) 452-SSSS Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: jessieftswapQ,coni EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOSANGELES B.S. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY& ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JUNE2014 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Calculated roadway, stationary source, and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions released during construction and operational activities of proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod and EMFAC2011 emission factors. • Utilized AERSCREEN, a screening dispersion model, to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables comparing results of particulate matter analyses to CEQA thresholds. • Prepared reports that discuss results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. SENIOR ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Quantified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a "business as usual" scenario for proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod. • Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan for each land use sector, and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in California. • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. PROJECT MANAGER: OFF -GASSING OF FORMALDEHYDE FROM FLOORING PRODUCTS • Determined the appropriate standard test methods to effectively measure formaldehyde emissions from flooring products. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data. Produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) and to CARB's Phase 2 Standard. • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. • Participated in meetings with clients to discuss project strategy and identify solutions to achieve short and long term goals. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINANTS EMITTED BY INCINERATOR • Reviewed and organized sampling data, and determined the maximum levels of arsenic, dioxin, and lead in soil samples. • Determined cumulative and hourly particulate deposition of incinerator and modeled particle dispersion locations using GIS and AERMOD. • Conducted risk assessment using guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). • Utilized LeadSpread8 to evaluate exposure, and the potential adverse health effects from exposure, to lead in the environment. • Compared final results of assessment to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Recipient, Bruins Advantage Scholarship, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2010-JUNE2014 • Academic Honoree, Dean's List, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT2013-JUNE2014 • Academic Wellness Director, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2013 -JUNE 2014 • Student Groups Support Committee Member, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2012 - JUNE2013 657 Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 February 5, 2016 Les Johnson Community Development Director City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Swenson Project CUP Application NO.2013-152 Dear Les: It is my understanding that the Swenson project CUP Application NO.2013-152 may be scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on either the 2nd or 4th Tuesday in March, 2016. In this connection we hereby request the hearing not be scheduled until story poles are installed on the site to assist commission members, as decision makers, and the public in the review of this one of a kind project in the City of La Quinta. The purpose of this letter is to set forth reasons why the City should require installation of story poles for the benefit of everyone. The story pole presentation will provide the necessary visual aids and will assist in making findings regarding appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and impacts on important public scenic view. The accuracy, readability and articulation of story poles are important to fully understand the proposed project. In consideration of the sensitive nature of the area of the Swenson property (the "Site") and the structures proposed to be built on the hillside it is imperative from the perspective of adjacent homeowners, the entire Mountain Estates and Santa Rosa Cove communities that residents have the best opportunity available to visualize elements of the proposed development. This mountain/hillside site, together with the contiguous mountain area serve as a scenic backdrop for the level area of the Mountain Estates community. The Site is 3.16 acres of an unspoiled expanse of mountain ridgelines and hillside containing large boulders and rock formations. The placement of huge, man-made structures on this vacant, unspoiled hillside will undoubtedly have major visual impacts 658 (including aesthetic quality of ridgelines) on not only adjacent residences but the entire community. For this reason, among others, residents and City officials should be able to have the capability to have a physical graphic illustration of the elements of the improvements proposed to be built at an elevation forty (40) feet above the street level of the rest of the community. This is the one and only proposed development in our community that has such a significant impact on the topography of the unspoiled mountain areas. Without story poles how else can we be able to comprehend privacy matters, visual impacts, etc.? The parcel has never been developed and the project, because of its physical location and the proposed structures will be significantly different than adjacent neighboring residential areas. There is no question this project is "different". Consider the following statement regarding the project from the HOA architect, Brad Hammerstrom, Diehl Group Architects, (Report dated May 16, 2014 to Mountain Estates HOA ...) • It should be noted that the proposed project has unique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the community. • The lot is undeveloped, yet ap rtially disturbed, and not fine -graded, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape, unlilce any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The -lot is the only lot in the Mountain Estates located on the "far_side" ofthe storm channel. • The proposed home is elevated roughly two stories above all other homes. • The lot does not have the typical front yard, side yards, rear ,yard setup like all other homes. • The proposed home faces the rear vards of six homes. like no other home in he Mountain E Two previous story pole presentations by the Applicant for the benefit of neighbors were totally inadequate. There were a few vertical pipes placed on the proposed building site and a few pipes nearby the building site. There was no typical pole construction to give a perspective of height, bulk and mass for the proposed residence. There was no physical depiction at all of the structures for several hundred feet of rock fall walls and the 500-600 feet of retaining walls. Therefore it was not possible to visibly understand the mass of these structures on the hillside and effect on the ridgelines. Photo simulations are inadequate and misleading. Residents have been provided with many of these simulations in the last two (2) years. They have been 659 inappropriate for the intended purpose because of their inaccuracies. They do not give proper perspective from all angles and consequently are ineffective. Story poles installed properly provide a perspective for everyone to understand height, mass and aesthetics for the entire project. In order to fully serve the purpose of a visual aid to assist all interested persons in the review process and to determine consistency with the General Plan Land Use and Conservation elements it is essential that the story pole installation is accomplished in an appropriate and typical manner. If the City agrees to install story poles I would like to see a presentation that is in accordance with the specifications required in many communities in California, such as Rancho Santa Fe, Los Gatos, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Santa Barbara, Half Moon Bay and Solana Beach to name a few. In this connection I have prepared and enclosed (Attachment 1) specifications which are a composite of the story pole specifications of the aforementioned communities. Attachment 2 has photos which illustrate a typical set of story poles. There are a number of contractors in California who specialize in story pole installation. See Attachment 3 identifying a website as an example of such a contractor. The Contractor's web site also mentions that the installation can be completed in three (3) days. Structural elements (non -residence) involved for this project are the 355 lineal foot driveway on the hillside, the rock fall walls on each side of the driveway and the retaining walls up to a height of a minimum of twenty (20) feet in one location (See May 7, 2015 letter report from Earth Systems) with a total of more than five hundred (500) lineal feet in the entire project. These hillside structures are why the project is significantly different and unusual compared to adjacent communities. Presentation of relevant physical visualization depicting the walls will assist in making findings regarding appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility and visualization of view corridors and public scenic views. For example, in the location of the 20 foot high wall there should be material (such as canvas) attached to posts so the effect of such a wall can be seen. All of this is extremely important to fully understand the installation and presence of over eight hundred (800) lineal feet of walls on the hillside and mountainside for this proposed project. As mentioned above, the primary purpose of story poles is to allow visualization of the bulk, mass and height of the structures on the Site and their related impacts. I suppose people in the architectural and engineering professions can easily visualize proposed structures, etc. However, for those of us who don't have those skills or experience we have more difficulty with these situations. The residents who are adjacent to the Swenson property need to have a visual tool so they can determine what they are going to see looking upwards from their backyards, patios and windows facing the hillside. They also want to see what the people on the Swenson site are going to be able to see looking down from the Swenson home site. This is essentially what we want to visualize, not only for the location of the proposed residence, but perhaps more importantly the other structures such as the rock fall walls, retaining walls and the gate structure to be installed for access to the storm channel. In conclusion, the use of the physical story poles will be an extremely valuable tool for the community and the Planning Commission in their evaluation of the project. Please let me know whether or not you will be able to grant us our request. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph McVeigh Cc: Nicole Sauviat Criste 661 Height Pole and Netting Instructions Netting at least two feet (2') wide and made of woven plastic snow fencing must be erected to represent the roofline of the proposed structure/addition. Netting must be supported by height poles strong enough to accurately maintain the outline and height as shown below (plastic piping is not acceptable): Roof Plan St le Post locations C. height2' netting to cover proposed The height of story poles should indicate the final height of the building (grading should be accounted for in the height of the poles). temple of story pole plan • Sty pole 1NM1A Pbft 1 aft 663 i 3/17/2016 Palm Springs Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days - California Story Pole Contractor I Coastline Construction OASTLINE STORY POLES M1 FORMA CA License #993041 (800) 470-5142 Homepage Locations Recent Projects Contact Us coastlinestorypoles@gmail.com http://californiastorypolecontractor.com/palm-springs/ 666 1/4 3/17/2016 Palm Springs Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days - California Story Pole Contractor I Coastline Construction Palm Springs Story Pole Installation and Removal Serving Palm Springs and Surrounding Communities COASTLINE Story Poles will professionally handle all phases of your building project from story pole plan preparation, installation, and removal. Your project will be completed accurately and on time. We are licensed, bonded, and insured. No job is too big or too small. We will beat any written bid. Once the story poles have been installed, COASTLINE Story Poles will make sure that everything remains in good condition until they are removed. We stand behind everything that we do and guarantee that we will provide experienced and skilled craftsmanship. We want our clients to be happy and satisfied and will make sure that your hard earned money is well spent. WE WILL BEAT ANY WRITTEN BID Story -poles are installed on the project site to approximate the size and scale of the proposed structure to follow. The silhouette provided by the story poles helps to assess potential visual impact and neighborhood compatibility. If there are concerns or objections to the building outline, adjustments and modifications to the story poles may be necessary. The story poles are removed upon review and approval of the planning commission. Request A Quote Comments or questions are welcome. * indicates required field Name:* Email:* Subject:* Message:* htlp://califbrniastorypolecontractor.com/palm-springs/ 667 214 3/17/2016 Palm Springs Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days - California Story Pole Contractor I Coastline Construction 6'^ CAPTCHA Code:* Submit California State Site Map License #993041 Coastline is a "Class A" licensed general engineering contractor. We provide fast, professional, and accurate Story Pole service throughout Southern California including story pole site plan preparation, installation, and removal. We handle any size job from small home additions to multi - structure estates. Homepage Locations Los Angeles Malibu San Diego Recent Projects Contact Us coastlinestorypoles@gmai I.com Estimates Are Free Your project will be completed accurately and on time. We are licensed, bonded, and insured. No job is too big or too small. We will beat any written bid. Copyright © 2015 Designed by: okventura.org Home Milpitas San Diego Los Angeles Contact Us Recent Projects Sitemap hftp://californiastorypolecontractor.com/paim-springs/ Contact Information Coastline Story Poles Tel: (800) 470-5142 coastlinestorypoles@gmai Isom California branch locations: Los Angeles Milpitas San Diego 668 3/4 3/17/2016 Palm Springs Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days - California Story Pole Contractor I Coastline Construction Berkeley Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Portola Valley Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Beverly Hills Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Burlingame Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Calabasas Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Commercial Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Corte Madera Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Cupertino Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Dana Point Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Glendale Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Half Moon Bay Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Huntington Beach Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Hillsborough Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days La Habra Heights Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days La Canada Flintridge Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Lafayette Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Laguna Beach Story Pale Installation Within 3 Days Larkspur Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Long Beach Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Los Altos Hills Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Manhattan Beach Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Marin County Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Mission Viejo Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Mill Valley Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Monte Sereno Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Montecito Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Oceanside Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Morro Bay Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Monterey Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Moraga Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Newport Beach Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Oceano Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Menlo Park Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Orange County Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Palm Desert Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Pacific Grove Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Playa del Rey Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Ventura County Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days San Clemente Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Rancho Estates Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Pleasanton Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Piedmont Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Seaside Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Palm Springs Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Santa Fe Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Tiburon Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days San Jose Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Rancho Santa Fe Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Solana Beach Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Pacific Palisades Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days San Diego Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Orinda Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Sausalito Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Palo Alto Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days San Marino Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Rancho Palos Verdes Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Saratoga Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Richmond Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Sari Francisco Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Santa Barbara Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Hermosa Beach Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Del Mar Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Encinitas Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Costa Mesa Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Pasadena Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Los Gatos Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days La Jolla Story Pole Installation Within 3 Days Authentification google94b9c464542b4a51.html http://californiastorypolecontractor.com/palm-springs/ 669 4/4 Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 March 8, 2016 Planning Commission Members c/o Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Conditional Use Application 2013-152 3.16 Acres - Tract No. 28335-R Dear Commissioners: This letter concerns Conditional Use Application 2013-152 ("CUP"), also known as the Swenson Application ("Applicant"). The Applicant has submitted an application for approval to develop a 3.16 acre parcel ("the Parcel") with construction of a 5,929 foot house, pool, spa, patio area, retreat area and multiple rock fall walls and retaining walls. The current land use is designated under La Quinta General Plan as Open Space - Natural. The underlying zoning designation is Open Space (OS) with a Hillside Conservation Overlay (HC). The property is within Residential Land Use of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan (SP. 121-E Amendments) Within the Open Space zone, "single family residential" is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit. Within the Hillside Conservation Overlay, "single family residential" is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit, allowed only if permitted in the underlying base district, and only if the additional requirements of LQMC 9.140.040 are met. The site for the proposed development is a large expanse of hillside outcroppings and mountain ridges that overlook the 54 homesite Enclave Mountain Estates community ("Estates"). The mountainous area of the Parcel is a part of the continuous section of the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. Our home at 77220 Loma Vista is adjacent to and contiguous to the 3.16 Acre Parcel. 1 670 We oppose the development primarily (a) because the City of La Quinta general plan, ordinances and specific plan provisions place restraints on this type of development (b) the proposed development is oversized for the developable land, necessitating significant cuts and fills to generate lot space and access, (c) the construction of driveway, fire apparatus turnaround, over 800 lineal feet of walls and removal of mountain all of which result in permanent scarring and damage to the Santa Rosa Mountain and (d) project is detrimental to and not in character with property in the neighborhood. Development of the Parcel will create a situation whereby the proposed facilities look down on and interfere with the privacy of the homes below the mountainous area. It will impose noise. It will put lights on the hillside that is now dark and tranquil. Huge walls up to 20 feet high and over 800 feet in total length will be installed on the hillside after removal of sections of the mountain. A 355 lineal foot driveway is proposed. The parcel currently has a wealth of wildlife that lives on it, traverses it, and hunts on it, all precisely because it is a large open space, which provides a critical habitat for nature to thrive, particularly the endangered Peninsular Bighorn sheep. Details of reasons for our opposition and relevant references are set forth in this letter, exhibits and attachments. La Quinta General Plan - Open Space General Plan and La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) Policies The Application is in conflict and not compatible with numerous policies and goals of the City's General Plan and LQMC. The language contained in these policies is crucial because it describes, in clear terms, the fundamental values of the City of La Quinta which have been endorsed in many publications of the City and on its website. The relevant City documents are as follows: • General Plan • LQMC 9.110.050 • LQMC 9.110.070 • LQMC 9.140.040 • LQMC 9.110.070 (B) Some examples of the policy and goal conflicts are set forth below. These are only a representative few of the many policies and goals where there are conflicts. Please refer to the above mentioned documents for a complete list of the policy provisions. 2 671 General Plan Goals - OS-3 Goals OS-3 Preservation of scenic resources of vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. Policy OS-3.1 To the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. Program OS-3.1.a: Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance. 9.110.050 OS open space district. A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the protection and preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as areas with significant cultural resources, threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species habitat, scenic resources and significant topographical constraints. 9.110.070 HC hillside conservation overlay district A. Purpose and Intent 2. For those hillside areas which are developable, to ensure the safety of the public, and to ensure that the placement, density and type of all hillside development within the city is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain, that proposed developments will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitat, and that the natural hillside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable; S. To maximize the retention of the city's natural topographic features, including, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridgecrests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent vegetation, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas through the careful limitation and selection of building sites and building pads on said topographic features, thereby enhancing the beauty of the city's landscape; 6. To assure that developmental use of said topographic features will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design and location of the developmental use; Planning Commission 9.210.020 Conditional use permits and minor use permits 3 672 In addition to our references to policy and goal conflicts and inconsistencies related to the project and CUP approval request we include below reference to the review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of either a conditional use permit or a minor use permit; 1. Consistency with General Plan. The land use is consistent with the general plan. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The use is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. DRIVEWAY The proposed 355 foot long driveway will require a significant cut in the hillside as it traverses the slope from the Loma Vista curbside to its termination forty (40) feet above street level. There will be an approximately 1,900 square foot hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles, including fire aparatus at the termination point of the driveway. The driveway and turnaround area will be visible to homes adjacent to the parcel and other Mountain Estates residents. The mass and height of planned wall structures on both sides of the driveway will severely scar the hillside for a distance of 355 feet. The driveway traverses natural sloping terrain and walls will become more visible as they increase in height at a higher elevation. This area has never had an approved, engineered grading plan. Any proposed installation will require major earth movement, excavation, cut and fill to prepare the ground for the driveway per City requirements. It will be necessary for the driveway to be designed to withstand the weight of 60 thousand pounds over 2 axels. The placement and construction of the motor court area will require the use of a D-9 or D-10 tractor to split the boulders and rip mountain rocks in the process of digging twenty (20) to forty (40) feet into the mountainside. The proposed driveway will create a permanent major scar on the hillside and the landscape. 4 673 WALLS - The rockfall and retaining walls proposed to be placed throughout the hillside and mountain will be a substantially incongruous feature and a major visual blight to many in the nearby communities. Rock Fall/ Retaining Walls The Application includes rock fall walls along much of the length of the driveway. Lineal Feet a) North Driveway Wall Adjacent to Mountain 190 b) South Driveway Wall (includes retaining wall 240 section adjacent to proposed house) Subtotal 430 These walls range in height from three (3) feet to eight (8) feet. Retaining Walls Lineal Feet a) Rear of Garage and Turnaround 100 b) Tranformer Area 40 c) South Area - adjacent to Boulder wall 40 d) South East Area of House 70 e) Pool/Patio area 40 Subtotal 390 Total lineal feet - Walls 820 These walls range in height from three (3) feet to a minimum of twenty (20) feet. The 100 foot long wall to the rear of the garage is eighteen (18) feet high plus a minimum free board of two (2) feet for a total of a minimum twenty (20) feet high. Boulder Walls 5 674 Installation of boulders (wall) along the southeast of house four (4) to five (5) feet high and one hundred sixty feet (160) feet in total length. It is unclear what the intent of these boulder piles would be, but their stability is clearly marginal in any, even moderate seismic shaking scenario. We don't know where these "natural boulders" will come from. If they are generated by excavations as proposed they will have a totally different color profile than the otherwise weathered and desert varnished boulders that comprise the area. The northeastern wall of the proposed house is twelve (12) to thirteen (13) feet lower than the ridgelines, necessitating another vertical cut and retaining wall. In addition to the walls mentioned above there are walls lower in height and guard rails around the pool area. There are no similar structures such as described above in any area of the Mountain Estates. It is one concept to have party walls at street level of the 54 lot estates community. It is a totally different concept to create over 800 feet of walls on the hillside and Santa Rosa Mountains at an elevation of up to 40 to 50 feet above street level. The result of such proposed walls would be an unalterable visual blight to surrounding communities. Cuts into the mountainside will be extremely visible and their grey color will contrast sharply with the natural varnished patina of the current exposures. Many of these natural outcrops and boulders display a varnish that is thousands, if not tens of thousands of years old. The 1:1 cut slope and upper brow ditch along the entry road would be particular offenders of this scarring. Cast stone or any other faux rock placed on the proposed walls can not possibly be integrated with a mountain side that has been in existence for thousands of years. The walls have not been engineered as of this date. The following quote is from the Applicant's Architect related to the proposed Precise Grading Plan: ROCKFALL HAZARDS NOTE "The actual rockfall hazard mitigation has not been formally designed. Preliminary designs include a structural barrier wall or a standard retaining wall with sloping backfill towards the ascending slope. Issues with a barrier wall are impact loads and associated structural design, the expense to construct, and need for repair after a rockfall event. Issues with a standard retaining wall with sloping backfill is the need for additional space either offsite or within the current easement. The sloping backfill is intended to cushion the wall and absorb the impact shock. The rockfall hazard mitigation needs to be evaluated from costs, space and aesthetics standpoint. This work will be performed during final design." 6 675 The mountain adjacent to the proposed driveway has been here for thousands of years and except for some human minor disturbance there has not been any significant movement from the mountain. There is no specific evidence related to this parcel that there is a hazard to the adjacent homeowners based on the current condition of the mountain/hillside. The only reason for a rock fall wall is the proposed driveway with the resulting excavation, earthwork, fill import and paver installation. There is no advantage to the homeowner from all the related construction and installation of walls. No development - no need for rock fall walls. Drainage The following are some, but not all of the major considerations related to the drainage situation. We have been informed by City staff that the 100 year flood standard was used for evaluation of drainage conditions for this project. The Applicant's engineers have provided design plans for drainage and water flow in connection with all the proposed construction on the hillside. Drainage plans are based on the 100 year storm standard. The Applicant and staff have not addressed circumstances as to what would happen in the event of another major storm (greater than 100 year standard) similar to the 2013 and 2014 events. As all of us are aware there were two major storms in August, 2013 and September, 2014 that resulted in several million dollars of damage to Mountain Estate homeowners. Because of this damage the Mountain Estates HOA and affected homeowners brought a lawsuit against Waldorf-Astoria Management, LLC., et al ("the Hotel") Case NO. PSC. 1402611, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. As an indication of the effects of another major storm comments by the Hotel's expert related to the mountainside in the Mountain Estates are relevant: "...The runoff from the mountainside adjacent in the 2014 Storm was thus so great, that it necessarily caused an overflow of water from the EME Channel, even considering any extra capacity found in the EME Channel beyond the 100 year water surface elevation..." "The rainfall that occurred at the Mountain Estates during the 2014 storm was 52 to 69 percent greater in quantity than would be expected to occur at the Mountain Estates, according to NO AA Atlas 14 statistics as applied to the Lower Bear Creek ALERT rain gage (296) data." (Page 6 'Declaration of Theodore V. Hromaka II, Case No. PSC 1402611, Superior Court of Los Angeles) 7 676 Drainage from the mountain presents a major problem. Impact from activities and construction on the hillside would exacerbate impacts on the storm channel. Additionally, our Hydrology expert does not agree with the conclusions of the Applicant's Hydrology Engineer. Please refer to report dated January 20, 2016 by Matt Hagemann, P.G.C.Hg (McVeigh Expert), included as part of January 20, 2016 letter to City of La Quinta from Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP Re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Swenson Project, 77210 Loma Vista, La Quinta. Mr. Hageman's review concludes that the Project's WQMP does not comply with requirements set forth by the City of La Quinta (City) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013- 152. The WQMP is not prepared in accordance with the White water River Region's Preliminary Project -Specific WQMP Guidelines. We just learned the Applicant's Hydrology expert has acknowledged that Mr. Hageman's conclusion is accurate and the Applicant's Hydrology expert's report was in error. Therefore any decision involving this CUP request should be delayed until Mr. Hagemen can review a revised drainage evaluation as prepared by the Applicant's expert. This is an example of the complexities involved with the drainage situation on the mountainside. These complexities should be seriously considered by the Planning Commission in its evaluation of the CUP. We believe the CUP should be denied because of the drainage situation, among other reasons. As an adjacent homeowner, our family has many serious concerns with the drainage situations related to the CUP Application. • The Applicant and City Planning Staff did not take into consideration the effects (past and future) of the 2013 and 2014 storm events. • Earth movement, excavation and grading adjacent to the Estates Mountain Estates storm channel constitute potential damage to the integrity of the channel and the existing culvert pipe. • Proposed retention system poses potential damage to Estates Mountain Estates existing storm channel. • Proposed depressed planter area near our property poses potential damage to culvert pipes in storm channel. • Together with the HOA, our family, as an owner in the Estates has easement rights to the storm channel. The proposed gate for access channel will interfere with our easement rights as dominant tenant. The gate is not required by CVWD as we were informed by Nicole Criste. The proposed gate should not be approved and included in the CUP. • As of this date Applicant has not complied with its obligations to HOA regarding drainage requirements. 8 677 Habitat - Wild Life Any and all construction and development activities will have adverse impacts on the habitat of wildlife, including threatened or endangered species which live in the 3.16 acre parcel. a) Endangered Peninsular Bighorn sheep b) Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, Iguana, lizards and quail, falcons and road runners. Photo Simulations and Story Poles The Planning staff wrote that Story Poles were not necessary because the Applicant had provided photo simulations which showed what the project would look like regarding views and screening. Staff report also wrote that photo simulations were done at the request of Homeowners. This is not so. Photo simulations were initiated by the Swenson project team and from the outset homeowners pointed out the misrepresentations of the photo simulations. I am not aware of any homeowner who requested a photo simulation. Because of the complexities involved with the Swenson hillside project the photo simulations do not accurately describe existing conditions. These are the mass, bulk, height and scale of the project. In a large way the photo simulations are misleading, and create a false impression and scenario. The Swenson hillside project has complex geology (statements by Earth Sciences and County geologist). The project has multiple unusual aspects because of its location, topography, proposed structures, etc. Photo simulations do not work for this project based on our experience in the last 2 years. The "Story Poles" presented by the Swenson team on a previous occasion were not what a story pole presentation is. There were some pipes placed in the area of the proposed house and the scenario was totally inadequate. There was nothing presented to show the physical aspects of the structures and the visual impression of the project. The story pole presentation specifications that I submitted to the City would show the appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility and/or the effect of the degree (or not) of important public scenic views. The accuracy, readability and articulation of story poles are important to fully understand the proposed project. In this situation they are an essential tool to assist the decision makers and the public in the review of the project. 9 678 View All Estates homeowners have routine everyday opportunities to view the Santa Rosa Mountains that are the scenic backdrop for the Mountain Estates. One can view the mountains from the La Quinta Resort Hotel area and driving into and around the Estates property. As many residents walk the Estates property, the mountains add to their walking enjoyment or exercise, as the case may be. There are several homeowners whose homes are contiguous to the mountain area and its ridgelines. These owners typically have an undisturbed view from the rear of their homes. The particular view and quality of view of the mountain is dependent on the location of the home, the rock formations and the ridgelines visible from the home. The structures proposed to be built for the project would have a significant negative impact on the view of owners whose homes are contiguous to the affected hillside. Other neighbors would also be affected. Owners views should be protected because of the selected orientation of their house toward the mountains and rock outcrops. This also applies to the orientation of room and window locations in the homes as they relate to the open space of the Santa Rosa Mountain area. These owners are harmed because they are deprived of a valuable amenity contemplated by them when they purchased and/or built their home. Diminution of Value The proposed project, if completed, will cause a view impairment for a number of residents, especially for those contiguous to the Parcel. This in turn will result in a diminution of value after completion and a real economic loss to affected homeowners. The value effect would vary with each house, depending on location and degree of view amenity. The economic harm could be as high as several hundred thousand dollars and/or higher to an individual homeowner. See Exhibit A for my hypothesis and reasoning for diminution of value. Excavation The proposed project does not have an existing building pad. Any assertion that part of the Parcel (site) has been "previously graded" is a misnomer. Any movement of dirt was simply a function of pushing aside existing rocks and other surface material. This work was done without permission from the City or the HOA (perhaps an illegal event?) No grading permit for Tract 28335- or Tract 26251 is on 10 679 file with the City of La Quinta (March 10, 2014 E-mail to Joe McVeigh from Teresa Thompson, Deputy City Clerk) On page 22 of staff report, Staff response 5 states: "Whether the grading was done with or without permits is irrelevant to the description of the current conditions on the site." The aforementioned statement conflicts with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code as set forth below: La Quinta Municipal Code Title 9 ZONING Chapter 9.140 SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL PURPOSE REGULATIONS 9.140.040 HC hillside conservation regulations 1. Grading, Grubbing and Scarring Control. 3. Any person who fails to protect the natural terrain, defaces, grades, grubs, scars or otherwise disrupts the natural terrain in the HC district without prior city approval of plans for such work subject to this section shall have created a public nuisance which shall be abated. Abatement may include the property owner undertaking the restoration (under city supervision and monitoring), or that failing, city -contracted restoration of the disrupted area. The property owner may be charged the cost of the restoration together with the direct costs of supevision and monitoring of the restoration. If the property owner fails to reimburse the city for the costs incurred, a lien against the property for payment may be instituted. 4. Any plans which are considered by the city for development shall, at the time of discovery of the creation of the public nuisance, be denied by the decision -making authority. After such time as the public nuisance has been completely abated, the plans may be resubmitted upon payment of all fees. 5. The provisions of this section shall be in addition to other municipal code titles and regulations applicable to grading activities within the city. No grading shall be conducted, nor shall any grading permit be issued forgrading in the HC district until grading plans and special drawings showing grading and topography as viewed from critical locations within the neighborhood or community have been approved by the planning commission. The development is proposed to cover about 13,000 square feet of area of the hillside parcel. This will require substantial excavation and grading of this area including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. The excavation and grading process will be massive. There will be extensive and extreme jackhammering to prepare the rocky, mountainous earth necessary for the footings for over 800 feet of walls. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which 11 680 have never before been disturbed. This process will have a significant adverse effect on the environment for this area of the Santa Rosa Mountain rang Mountain Removal At the termination of the driveway approximately 3,000 square feet of original, natural mountain rock outcrop and up to 16.5 feet high of mountain ridge will be removed (on a permanent basis) related to the construction of a turnaround area for fire department apparatus and the outlook/retreat area. Seismic Issues - General Please refer to March 31, 2013, geotechnical engineering report authored by Earth Systems Southwest for a description and analysis of rock and soil conditions and seismic hazards. The engineering report recommends procedures to mitigate the risks involved resulting from future earthquakes. However these mitigation efforts would not be necessary if there were no property related substantial earth movement and disturbance of the mountainside. The risks are always there in the future, despite the engineer's recommendations. Any potential damage from seismic activity will involve existing residences. Cut & Fill - Seismic Issue The Applicant's architect has informed us that the geotechnical engineer estimates that about 1/3 of the cut material from cutting into the bedrock may be used for engineered fill. Approximately 2500 cubic yards of cut and 1600 cubic yards of fill are required for the grading and pad preparation. Approximately 1100 cubic yards of fill must be imported. Per the Architect, "field conditions during construction will determine the actual import/export quantities." Thus it is not known before construction starts what the final quantities of fill import/export are that will be required. The magnitude of the construction work planned for this hillside results in substantial environmental effects related to the extensive excavations, cut and fill, removal of part of the mountain and ridge line, all of which have severe damaging effects to the earth's crust of the hillside. The human induced seismicity will be a major contributing factor for the damaging effects on this hillside and nearby residences from potential future earthquakes in the region. The proposed development also poses conditions which could result in landslides that can occur in the future related to hillside development with proposed substantial earth movement activities. There have been such major landslides in recent year at locations adjacent to Highway 5 and in Carlsbad, CA (The City of 12 681 Carlsbad and its co—defendants agreed to pay approximately $12.5 million in damages). Our concern relates to INDUCED SEISMICITY involved with the proposed development including, but not limited to, a) Removal of 2,700 square feet of mountain about 40 (more or less) feet above street level b) Hundreds of hours of jack hammering on the hillside and mountains for footings for walls that have not yet been engineered c) D-9's working on the hillside for days and months in excavating areas of thousands of square feet on the hillside and d) cut and fill throughout the hillside. This is substantial human activity in moving the earth, rocks and mountain and will have a lasting effect on the condition of the earth's crust on the mountainside. With regard to the rock fall walls we don't agree with the architect's assertion that the conditions as they affect our property will be safer after development than under present conditions, especially with all the proposed construction, etc. Of all the issues involved with this proposed project a major concern is the potential damage from earthquakes because of increased risks attributable to the substantial human activity planned in any permitted construction on the hillside. I assume other adjacent homeowners have a similar concern. Pool and Patio Area The area for the proposed pool and patio area requires substantial earth moving and import of fill material. A pool containing approximately 20,000 gallons of water at an elevation of forty (40) feet above street level presents a hazardous seismic situation which could result in substantial consequences to public health and safety. Engineers have determined that structures built on man made fill areas have been observed to be more prone to distress from earthquakes than structures built on cut areas. The pool proposed for this project is to be located in an area where imported fill is required. Fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Construction on sites with a varying depth of fill are subject to differential settlement as the amount of settlement tends to increase with greater depth of fill. Construction of the pool will involve substantial work. Compressible sediments will need to be removed from under pool and supporting slope areas. The depth of this removal is unstated but will presumably be quite deep to get through the old cut spoil fill, plus the alluvial and colluvial deposits in the swale and along the channel. With all this work dangerously close to the channel there is possibility of damage to the Channel especially with large equipment. This potential must be prohibited. 13 682 Water trucks will probably not be able to access this area so watering will probably have to be done with hoses. The work proposed in this lower area presents a very real possibility for excess dust, causing damage to existing adjacent homes. If the depths are 10+ feet, which is possible this will be a difficult area within which to work. Also it should be considered that all of the removed material will need to be stored on site for possible later re -use and compaction to make the structural fill and retaining wall footings necessary to support the pool. If the soil needs to be exported truck access will be very difficult. All of this construction will be slow and difficult with substantial dust. This will not bode well for adjacent homes and neighbors. Privac The house and pool site involved in the project are proposed to be built on an unspoiled expanse of the hillside that would not only look down on the private spaces of homes adjacent to the mountain lot but would also be visible to residents of the fifty four (54) homesite nearby community. Where the view looks down it will interfere with the privacy of owners of homes nearest to the mountain. Noise There will also be noise emanating from the hillside as compared to the existing situation where peace and serenity are the amenities enjoyed by owners. A major source of noise from the hillside site that doesn't happen now will be from outdoor television and speakers and cars on the driveway, especially in early morning and at night. Invasion of privacy and noise impact are detrimental to Estates residents. Li htin If the project is approved it will be necessary to have lighting inside and outside the house and on the driveway. At present, the mountain area is dark at night which offers the community a peaceful, tranquil setting. Notwithstanding that the driveway lighting may be faced downward and designed to lessen glare, the lights from the house and its exterior patio, pool area and the driveway will be visible to the entire neighborhood. Instead of a peaceful setting the neighborhood would be subjected to a visible variety of lights on the mountainside. Landscaping The Applicant's plans include planting of a substantial number of trees and other plants on the Mountainside. This will result in an appearance substantially different from the rest of the Santa Rosa Mountainside. This is contrary to the look 14 683 contemplated in City of La Quinta hillside ordinances which emphasize preservation of the natural appearance of the mountain. Compatibility and Harmony The proposed project is not compatible and is not in harmony with the fifty-four homesite Mountain Estate community ("Estates"). All fifty-four homesites (custom homes and vacant lots) have a finished grade at street level. See Exhibit D for a comparative chart of the elements of the proposed hillside application and the fifty- four homesite estates. Also, consider the following comments by Bradley Hammerstrom, AIA, consulting architect for the Mountain Estates Homeowners Association in his May 16, 2014 report to the HOA. • It should be noted that the proposed project has unique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the community. • The lot is undeveloped, yet partially disturbed, and not fine -graded, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot is the only lot in the Mountain Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. • The proposed home is elevated roughly two stories above all other homes. • The lot does not have the typical front yard, side yards, rear yard setup like all other homes. • The proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes, like no other home in the Mountain Estates. Outlook/ Retreat Area Construction for this use will involve an operation similar to wall construction. Part of the lower mountain rock outcrop going into about forty (40) feet of the mountain will have to be removed for access and use of the Retreat location. This use is not mentioned in the permitted uses of the relevant zoning section, especially because of removal of such a great quantity of rock outcrop. Destroying the natural environment of rock outcrop so that someone can gain a view of distant mountains and at the same time deprive existing residents of their view, all in the name of an individual project, defies logic. 15 684 Construction Period The earthwork proposed for this project will have a huge impact on adjacent homes. See Applicant's geotechnical and grading reports for description of the earth moving work. The driveway construction will necessitate extensive excavation, earth movement and movement of natural hillside rocks. The earth material of the existing surface and below surface in the location of the proposed driveway and other areas is soft dirt and find sand. Windy conditions in this area can be severe and will cause the loose dirt and sand to blow over and into nearby homes in this neighborhood. Water trucks used during the day may allow some mitigation in daylight hours but this area has frequent wind storms and windy conditions from 6 pm to 7 am. Obviously, there are no water trucks operating during nighttime hours. The sand, dust and dirt can blow over into all areas of homes. The only preventative method is to cover the entire area of the homes. This scenario would result in owners being deprived of the use of their homes for an undetermined number of months (perhaps 12-24) thereby causing homeowners economic loss and significant loss of enjoyment of their property. Conservation I have seen a number of articles in recent months regarding intense efforts by various individuals and groups to preserve open space land, particularly desert and desert mountains. The purpose is two -fold: (1) to set aside land for Habitat Conservation and (2) preservation of open space and mountains. Examples: • Caltrans has proposed (January 2016) to commit $7,000,00 over time to preserve the desert's natural environment and protect animal species including Bighorn sheep. • Senator Dianne Feinstein's efforts for legislation for desert protection and the establishment of national monuments to protect the desert mountains and animal species. • US Fish and Wildlife Service made a $2,000,000 grant in 2015 to buy undeveloped desert land to preserve the threatened species including Peninsular Bighorn sheep. • The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) has been awarded grants in 2015 to be used to protect desert land (mountain areas) and threatened species. • Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument is a non-profit agency with a goal of preserving desert mountains as open space. 16 685 • Friends of Palm Springs Mountains is a non-profit agency whose mission is to preserve and protect the habitat, scenic vista, alluvial fans of Palm Springs for the enduring benefit of people and wildlife. My question is: In addition to other reasons for denial shouldn't the Planning Commission deny the CUP so the City of La Quinta complies with its expressed policies and goals for conservation, preservation of its natural mountain area and protection of wildlife habitat as the above mentioned groups are doing? Hardship If this matter arises City Officials should give consideration to all aspects involved with the purchase and the Applicant's professional real estate background. Our take on this issue is as follows: Any consideration for a hardship factor for the Applicant should not be recognized. Any suggested hardship is self-imposed and for this reason any claim for hardship is not valid. The Applicant has over twenty-five (25) years in real estate development, building construction and other real estate activities. Case Swenson is president of Barry Swenson Builder (the "Company"). The Company's website states, "Barry Swenson Builder has been one of the top real estate development and construction firms in Northern California for over 100 years." Based on his occupational background as a real estate and construction professional he had knowledge or should have had knowledge when he purchased the property of the risks involved in the development of the Parcel. He also had knowledge of restraints related to zoning conditions and requirements of the City's General Plan. The Applicant closed escrow for purchase of the Parcel on February 1, 2013. On February 15, 2013, fourteen (14) days after close of escrow Applicant submitted preliminary review and plans to the City of La Quinta planning staff. On March 14, 2013 Jay Wuu, Associate Planner for the City, provided the Applicant with a letter with preliminary comments and review of the Applicant's submittal. This letter included Application requirements, including those associated with the Conditional Use Permit and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processes. The Applicant was aware from the outset, of the processing issues involved with this one of a kind project. In a May 27, 2014 letter to Mountain Estates membership, Case and Lisa Swenson stated, "...at the outset, we knew that the unique aspect of our elevated lot meant that we would need to listen carefully to everyone's input and be open to redesigning our plans..." 17 686 Jay Wuu's letter stated in part, "...Within the Open Space zone, "single family residential "is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit, allowed only if permitted in the underlying base district, and only if the additional requirements of LQMC Section 9.140.040 are met (Attachment 1)..." The Applicant's purchase of the Parcel and proposed development was their personal choice. They chose to take the risk they could proceed to apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit notwithstanding the proposed construction of walls, structures, removal of sections of mountain and other development activities on the hillside that contradict and violate the City's General Plan and conflict with other City ordinances and regulations. It is not as if there was no other opportunities to locate a property (either existing house or developable lot) in the Mountain Estates community where such issues were not present. There have been vacant buildable final graded lots in the Mountain Estates available for years. Currently, in the Mountain Estates there are seven (7) custom homes and six (6) buildable, final graded, finished lots for sale. Any perceived hardship associated with ownership of the 3.16 acre parcel was self created by Applicant. CONCLUSION We hereby request the Planning Commission to deny Applicant's request to adopt resolution to approve a conditional use permit for a 5,929 square foot single family home on a 3.16 acre parcel of land - Tract NO. 28335-R in the City of La Quinta. A summary of the reasons for denial is set forth below: 1. Consistency with the City of La Quinta General Plan Policies and Goals Goal OS-3 - Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. Policy OS - 3.1 To the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. Program OS-3.1.a: Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance 2. The Applicant's plans for the drainage situation for the mountainside are flawed and incomplete. The drainage related consequences from allowing the CUP would be detrimental to the health and safety of residents in adjacent properties. The problems related to drainage are sufficient enough reason to deny the CUP request. 18 687 3. The project is not consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. Additionally, the Application is in conflict in numerous instances with the policies of the LQMC Hillside Regulations. 4. The mass on the hillside created by all proposed structures is too large for the proposed building area. 5. Construction and installation of proposed structures will not be in character with surrounding communities. The hillside and mountainside will be permanently scarred if this project is allowed to proceed. 6. Interests of many residents of the Mountain Estates and other nearby neighbors should not be compromised for the benefit of a one of a kind project which is objectionable and incompatible with the character of surrounding communities and the entire City of La Quinta. 7. This project would be the most broadly visible development in La Quinta. Beauty aspects inherent in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the peaceful, wholesome ambiance of the community will be negatively impacted on a permanent basis. 8. Photo simulations for this project are entirely inadequate and misleading. Staff has rejected our request for a story pole installation presentation. In order to properly depict all aspects of the proposed project, Story Poles should be installed for the benefit of residents, the public and city officials. This proposed project reflects significant disrespect and insult to the Santa Rosa Mountain, a prominent scenic feature of the City of La Quinta, Gem of the Desert. Sincerely, Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta CA 92253 19 688 EXHIBIT A Diminution of Value Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 The hypothesis for diminution of value is as follows: It is generally accepted in the world of real estate that the "View Attribute", where applicable, is an essential component of value for a property. I am submitting the following comments to illustrate that "view" impact and related effect on value should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the Application for the proposed project. The reason is that if there is consensus that there is a loss and/or impairment of view for owners of homes adjacent to the Parcel it follows then that there is depreciation in the value of these homes. In the real estate development industry, when a developer has a subdivision which includes home sites (vacant lots) with and without a view, the developer assigns a price to each lot based on lot size, subdivision location and view. The view lots, whether mountain, ocean, lake, golf course fairway, will command a price that is a premium over the non -view lots. The premium for the higher value lots carries over to the entire home after completion. Subsequent to completion and occupancy if for any reason the view is impaired or obstructed the view premium (higher value) will be diluted and the value of the home is diminished. To significantly obstruct or remove homeowners view of the Santa Rosa Mountains, including certain boulder formations and ridgelines is to depreciate their property's economic worth as well as dramatically reduce the enjoyment of their home they bought to reside in. Homeowners will have been severely harmed by the view impairment/obstruction based on economic loss incurred and loss of enjoyment of the current natural state of the mountains is detrimental to surrounding homeowners. Example of Diminution of Value Assume the seven (7) homes adjacent to and closest to the Parcel are impacted by the loss and/or impairment of their view. Some homes are more impacted than others but we will assume equal impact for this example. 20 689 Average current value $2,000,000 Per home Economic result of impact % of Value Loss 5% 20% Amount of Impact $100,000 $400,000 Loss per home # of owners x7 x7 Total Impact $700,000 $2,800,000 Loss Appraiser Perspective of View Component in Value The view is one of the elements considered by an appraiser in appraising residential property. There is a separate line for view on Page 2 of Freddie Mac Form 70, for the purpose of an adjustment (up or down) in the appraisal procedure regarding comparable sales. Set forth below are several brief quotes about the value of a view as written by appraisal specialists. These quotes refer to a "value" involved with a view and are taken from an article by Patrick Brown, MAI, MBA, RPA and Beverly McCabe, RPA. The purpose of my reciting these quotes is to illustrate the value of the view component from the Appraiser's perspective. Definition of a "View": • the scene visible from a specific location, which may affect the value of the site or property." (Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th Edition (Chicago, Illinois, Appraisal Institute, 2010), 207,) "Market Studies furthermore support the premise, with one study concluding that - as at its Lake Erie submarket - "In addition to square footage and lot size, view is the most significant determinant of home value." (Michael T. Bond, Vicky L. Seiler and Michael J. Seiler, "Residential Real Estate Prices: A Room with a View," Journal of Real Estate Research, 2002, 23:1/2,129-137) • "The amenity afforded by a view is not only characterized in terms of the vista's object (lake, building, bridge) but also by how well the object is seen. A panoramic view (breadth and/or dQpth in aspect) tends to command the 21 690 ultimate premium. In some contradiction, a near view of a prized view object is preferred over a far view, while the ability to see a far distance is prized over a vista that is foreshortened." • A damaged view (a mountain view marred by overhead power lines or a junkyard in the foreground) will likely invoke a lesser premium." "View orientation can influence value. It is said that the view from the "back" of a residence_ (where family rooms and patios are often located) is significant, while the view from the front door is less significant." "Numerous studies have shown that qualification of view attributes improves market analysis. Hierarchical view rankings might consider: the market importance of the view object (water body, Capital dome, golf course, CBD skyline, hill country landscape), how well it can be seen (panorama, proximity, partial view), and the constancy/permanence of the view. A study of "Earl D. Benson, Julia L. Hansen, and Arthur L. Schwartz, Jr., "Water Views and Residential Property Values, " The Appraisal Journal, July 2000: 260- 271." of 1984-1993 data from Bellingham, Washington, found that a view tended to add a 25.9% premium to home value. When the views were differentiated, however, the study finders were more informative: poor partial ocean views (8% premium), good partial ocean views (29% premium), unobstructed ocean view (59% premium), and lake frontage (127% premium)." 22 691 EXH I BIT B Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS GOAL OS-i Preservation, conservation and management of the City's open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental and economic purposes. ❖ Policy OS-1.1 Identify and map lands suitable for preservation as passive and active open space. Eprogram OS-i.i.a: Identify lands suitable for preservation as natural open space on the General Plan Land Use map. Eprogram OS-1.tb: Confer with adjoining communities and other responsible agencies to periodically review and update information on regional open space, and to coordinate preservation efforts. ❖ Policy OS-1.2 Continue to develop a comprehensive multi -purpose trails network to link open space areas. Program OS-1.2.0: Coordinate with, and obtain approval from, local utility providers, including the Coachella Valley Water District, to use flood control and utility easements as a trails network which links open space and recreation areas. Program 05-1.2.b: Continue to coordinate with neighboring communities and other appropriate agencies in developing local and regional trail connections across open space lands. Program OS-1.2.c: Explore opportunities for additional trails connectivity adjacent to and along watercourses, irrigation canals, and flood control improvements ❖ Policy OS-1-3 The City shall encourage community involvement and volunteerism in open space maintenance and improvement as a means to leverage local funds, improve open space, and increase public awareness of the City's Open Space areas. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION III-72 23 692 GOAL OS-2 Good stewardship of natural open space and preservation of open space areas. ❖ Policy OS-2.1 Unique and valuable biological resources should be preserved as open space, to the greatest extent practical. Eprogram OS-2.1.a: Continue to implement the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. ❑grogram OS-2.i.b: In conjunction with the entitlement process, the City shall require the preparation of a biological resource survey by a qualified biologist for all development proposed within designated open space land. •'• Policy OS-2.2 Where appropriate, geological hazard zones, including but not limited to earthquake fault lines, areas susceptible to liquefaction, floodways, and unstable slopes should be preserved as open space. ❖ Policy OS-2.3 Encourage the preservation of open space in privately owned development projects. Program OS-2.3.a: Utilize flexible development standards, density incentives, and/or other means to encourage the provision of open space in new planned developments. GOAL OS-3 Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. •:' Policy OS-3-1 To the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. Program OS-3.1.a: Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION III-73 Program OS-3.1.b: Minimize the loss of open space resources. 24 693 POlicy OS-3.2 Any development that is permitted within areas designated as Open Space should minimize grading for structures and access and should be visually subordinate to and compatible with surrounding landscape features. ❖ POlicy OS-3-3 Explore and utilize a variety of measures to preserve privately owned properties within hillside and alluvial fan areas, including private covenants, deed restrictions, and land transfers. Program OS-3.3.a: Identify agencies and property owners which hold fee simple title to properties located in hillside and alluvial fan areas, and encourage agreements which assure that such lands remain undeveloped in perpetuity. RELATED GOALS As described above, this Element relates to others in this General Plan. The following goals and their associated policies and programs are closely related to those of this Element. GOAL PR-t: A comprehensive system of parks, and recreation facilities and services that meet the active and passive needs of all residents and visitors. GOAL SC-i: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL FH-u Protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community from flooding and hydrological hazards. 25 694 EXHIBIT C Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT V REQUIREMENTS Section 2 PLANS, PROGRAMS AND GUIDELINES Section 2.61 CONSERVATION Topography/Hillside Areas Approximately 211 acres or 30 percent of the Specific Plan area is comprised of the undeveloped Santa Rosa Mountains, which are located in the south and western central region of the plan area. These mountains contribute to the city's visual, wildlife and archeological resources. The mountains provide a dramatic framing element for the La Quinta resort as a result of their close proximity, steep topography and varied vegetation. 2.8.1 GENERAL ARCHITECTURE AND SITING GUIDELINES 2.41 Building Massing and Scale: The general character of residential Planning areas shall reflect a neighborhood scale in which the building massing does not overwhelm the street scene. 2.84 RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANNING CRITERIA 2.84 Single Family Detached: ■ The street layouts within residential neighborhood shall provide view corridors t the Open Space and other special community features and landmarks, where feasible. ■ Residential dwelling units shall be sited to maximize view opportunities of the mountains in the La Quinta region where feasible. SECTION 4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 4.1 LAND USE ELEMENT 26 695 • Page 4.1 The City enjoys a reputation as a desirable local. The City's unique and attractive character stems from a combination of its environmental setting near the mountains (and) its resort image. • Page 4.2 Development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the scenic resources of the City. • Page 4.2 Open space areas should be inclusive of hillside areas, watercourses, golf courses anc improved and natural park areas. 4.3 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Development on Hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the scenic, topographical and cultural resources of the City. Open space shall be defined to included hillside areas/alluvial fans, water courses, golf course and natural park areas. Natural, improved and unimproved types of open space should be included within the definition 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT Development on Hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the scenic, topographical and cultural resources of the City. Scenic corridors, vistas and view sheds of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef mountains, as well as view towards the San Gorgonio pass, should be preserved and enhanced. The City should be protected form the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT • The standards for development should be carefully regulated to minimize structural damage and loss of life (from earthquakes) even though the City is located in a low intensity ground - shaking zone. • The future development on hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the loss of life and minimize damage to property resulting from geologic instability during seismic events. • The development of areas located within 100 - year flood plane boundaries and not protected by existing storm water facilities should be addressed. • Noise mitigation should be considered with all development near our arterial streets. 27 696 EXHIBIT D Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Comparison of Elements Element 3.16 Acre Parcel — Proposed Project 54 Homesite Community Pad Elevation 37feet Street Level Pad and House Elevation Total 59 feet 22 feet Pad status Unfinished —no approval Finished pads approved by City Driveway Length 355 feet Average -- approximately 30 feet Driveway Grade 15% Street level Jackhammer Turnaround 1860 square feet None Rock Fall Wall (West Side of Driveway) -- Length 165 linear feet None Rock Fall Wall (West Side of Driveway) - Height 4 ft. to 7 ft. None Retaining Walls (Approximate Total) -- Length 575 linear feet None Retaining Walls -- Height Up to 16.5 feet None Mountain Removal —Height 2 feet to 16.5 feet None Mountain Removal -- Area 2700 square feet None Excavation and Grading -- Overall Site Disturbance 26,000 square feet None Fill Import Up to 1600 cubic yards None allowed Storm Drain Pipes -- Lot Site 225 linear feet None Storm Drain Pipe Size 12 inch to 48 inch diameter None Walls — Cast Stone Facing on site Approximately 800 linear feet None Walls -- Cast Stone Facing - Bordering Mountains Surrounding Estate Community Approximately 800 linear feet None Elevated Driveway Lights Dusk to 9:30 PM None 28 697 EXHIBIT F-1 Prest-Vuksic April 18, 2014 letter to HOA 1. Existing Flat Area 2. Proposed pad height 3. Removal of Mountain 4. Length Driveway 5. Rock fall wall - west side (mtn. side) 6. Minimum depth of footing for walls 7. Rock fall walls 8. Distance from rockfall wall to our property (Lot 21) 9. Lineal feet retaining walls approx. 10. Garage and electrical transformer 11. Pool Size 12. Proposed area of excavation 13. Proposed overall site disturbance 14. Rock quantity to be excavated raw cut raw fill 91 feet 87 feet 2 ft. to 16.5 ft. 390 ft. 165 ft in length 18" below surface 5 feet to 7 feet above grade 29ft. to60ft. 562 lineal feet 128 lineal feet 20,000 gallons 4,300 square feet 26,000 square feet 2500 cubic yards 1600 cubic yards 30 698 EXHIBIT F-2 Prest-Vuksic May 7. 2014 letter to HOA 1. Area of building pad, pool, patio 2. Vertical driveway Loma Vista street to proposed building pad 3. Removal of mountain behind proposed garage 4. Cut area into mountain behind garage S. Import fill required 6. Rock fall wall 5 ft to 7 ft high 7. Drainage Pipe 8. Horizontal distance - North edge of proposed building pad to Lookout/Retreat 12,700 square feet 30.4 feet 16.5 feet of mountain height 2700 square feet 1067 cubic yards 48 inch diameter pipe 39 feet long 43 feet 31 699 ATTACHMENT 10 gUlnn eliienum vial lawyers I les angeles 865 South Figueroa Street, loth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 I TEL (2,13) 443-3000 FAX (Z13) 443-3100 Via Federal Ex a ess January 19, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Conditional Permit Use Application No. 2013-152 Dear Members of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission: WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL No. (202)538-8168 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS bil lurquhart@quinnem anueLcom RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2016 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I represent my wife Mary Urquhart and myself. We own a home at 48705 Via Sierra in the Mountain Estates development in the La Quinta resort, in connection with Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2013-152 for Proposed Project at 77-720 Loma Vista (City of La Quinta Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Home at 77-210 Loma Vista). I also represent: Sean McVeigh Joe McVeigh, 77-220 Loma Vista Beverly Hovorka, 77-490 Loma Vista Michael & Patti Mergener, 48-685 Via Sierra Mariane & Tom Nolan, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga John and Shannon Quinn, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga Eugene & Shirley Albertini, 77-270 Loma Vista Stuart McKinney and Nick Karapetian, 48-670 Via Sierra John and Diane Mullins, 49-230 Vista Ventura, 77-298 Vista Flora, 77-420 Vista Rosa I have previously written in opposition to the Swensons' Conditional Use Permit Application 2013-152 and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment 2013- 630 permits in a letter to Ms. Criste, Consulting Planner for the City of La Quinta, on March 4, 2014. We have been informed that The Planning Department intends to conduct a de novo review of a new set of building plans that have been submitted in support of these permit won emanuel urauhart a sullluan, up LOS ANGELES I NEW YORK I SAN FRANCISCO I SILICON VALLEY I CHICAGO I WASHINGTON, DC I HOUSTON I SEATTLE LONDON ITOKYO I MANNHEIM I MOSCOW I HAMBURG I PARIS I MUNICH I SYDNEY I HONG KONG I BRUSSELS 700 applications. I write in further the opposition to the approval of these permits and to explain more fully how these applications are inconsistent with controlling La Quinta zoning ordinances. Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart have previously explained in detail how the Swensons' proposed six thousand square foot house, three car garage, swimming pool, and sports court at 77-210 Loma Vista on the hillside overlooking their property, the properties of their neighbors, and (indeed) the entire City of La Quinta would conflict with the purpose of existing zoning requirements and the peaceful beauty of the community. The proposed development would also violate the express terms of La Quinta's contemporary zoning rules; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Both the City and my clients agree, the proposed development is located in a hillside "open space" area that is governed by Sections 9.110.050 ("OS Open Space District") and 9.110.070 ("HC Hillside Conservation Regulations"). See also "Notice of intent adopt a Mitigated Negative Delartio, Section 1X (b) at p. 32." Those provisions expressly impose certain delineated requirements upon proposed developments in this region. Further, beyond those regulations articulated in Section 9.110.070 itself, Section 9.110.070(B) ("Development Standards") states that applicants must "[r]efer to Section 9.140.040 for additional details regarding development standards ... and other requirements of the HC [Hillside Conservation] District." Section 9.140.040 in turn establishes a plethora of restrictions on proposed hillside developments, and there can be no serious argument that the current permit application for 77-210 Loma Vista satisfies these articulated — and deliberately stringent — limitations on hillside developments. To put it simply, what the Swensons' plans are not a series of minor departures from the regulatory scheme governing hillside developments. Approval of the current permit applications would be radically and demonstrably inconsistent with not only the purpose and intent of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, but also its express terms. The Purpose and Intent of The Restrictions Purpose of the open space restrictions is as follows: • "To maximize the City's natural topographical features including mountain sides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines.... • "To assure that the development ...will not be obtrusive because of the design and location of the development." • "To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and fill slopes...." "To maximize the retention of vistas and natural topographical features including mountain sides, ridge lines.... • The building should not be "visible above the ridgeline profile from the valley floor." We also understand the statutes bars the construction of roads that are visible from the valley floor. As will be demonstrated below, the Swenson Project flaunts both the letter and spirit of the 2 701 hillside conservation and open space ordinances. The planned home will be obtrusive looming over 80 feet above the valley floor —visible from miles away. It will also block the mountain views of numerous residents who live nearby. As will be demonstrated below, it will include major excavation of the mountainside, the creation of huge retaining walls, the use of thousands of tons of land fill, the building of a road wide enough for a truck, and much more. The Huge Scale of the Swenson Project In order to put what follows in context is important to understand that the Swenson Project is a huge undertaking. The term buildable lot is used loosely when describing this project. It is important to note the Swenson property is not buildable in its current state. The City would have to make major departures from its zoning requirements to allow the Swensons to cut into the side of the mountain, build huge retaining walls that replace the natural ridge lines with concrete walls covered by faux rock and deposit hundreds of tons of fill to make it buildable. The current lot consists of a narrow dirt road leading to a flat surface toward the northern part of the property. It is not big enough to build a 1500 square foot house let alone a 6,000 spare foot house, a swimming pool, three car garage and a sports court. The lot is at a substantially higher elevation than all of the homes in Santa Rosa Cove. In fact, is nearly 60 feet higher than any of the hundreds of other home in the La Quinta resort. Because of the high elevations of the Swenson property, there are direct sight lines into the most private parts of neighbor's homes: their living rooms, their bedrooms, their pools and their backyards. To make the existing site "buildable" the Swenson project will require: • The removal of at least 12 feet of the existing mountain face to accommodate the proposed Project (home). • The construction of a "driveway" that is over 400 feet long and 18 feet wide (wide enough to accommodate a large fire engine and sturdy enough to bear the weight) bordered on both sides with retaining walls extending up to six feet high. • The excavation of 10 feet of existing mountain face to widen the road to 18 feet and the replacement of that mountain face with a six foot high retaining rock fall protection wall. The existing natural rock will be replaced by faux rock. i Expansion of the building pad southward over 300 feet toward the property of existing homes. In all the existing building pad will be expanded by 75 per cent or over 18 thousand square feet. ■ The expansion of the pad will require the use of hundreds of tons of land fill and carving into the existing mountain side. * The roofline of the proposed home will peak at 18 feet. It will be at the southern end of the property and will destroy the views of many residents of both Mountain Estates and the Enclave. 702 The Swenson's Property Is not "grandfathered in" The use of faux rock in gaps of the existing ridgeline to accommodate a retaining wall that is hundreds of feet long and faces the homes of many neighbors in the Mountain Estates and destroys their views of the untouched ancient ridgelines. It could perhaps be argued that the current development application might not have been categorically impermissible prior to the enactment of the existing Hillside Conservation zoning requirements in La Quinta. (Of course, the City could nonetheless still have permissibly refused to approve the CUP even in the "old days" before the City decided to expressly regulate hillside development, and, indeed, would rightly have done so.) But the fact that the lots existed even before the enactment of existing zoning regulations is of absolutely no moment. Zoning regulations are, by their nature, constantly in a state of change, and permissibly so, and rightly adapt both to ongoing developments as well as changing mores. The HC regulations currently articulated in the La Quinta Municipal Code undeniably govern the existing permit applications; indeed, Section 9.140.040(C)(2) expressly exempts from its reach only those "tracts and specific plans already approved," and there is no dispute that the existing application was not previously approved by the City prior to the passage of this statute. Further, even beyond this express textual mandate, zoning regulations inherently look to the future and regulate future use. Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County (1954) 34 Cal. 2d 121, 127. Even if an existing application had already been approved, the enactment of the La Quinta HC ordinances could still permissibly regulate the future use of this property. Id. And in the present case, there has not even been approval, much less has the proposed home already been built. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the existing provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, including the contemporary Hillside Conservation zoning requirements, apply. See also Petit v, City of Fresno (1973) 343 Cal.App.3d 813, 815-24 (currently existing zoning requirements apply even when owner previously expended $21,000 on alterations authorized by prior building permit); Consaul v. City of San Diego (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1781, 1785-1801 (development previously permitted by then -existing zoning requirements was properly denied based upon subsequent passage of municipal ordinance). Specific Damage to the Urquharts Invasion of orivacv: The proposed Swenson residence will have direct sight lines into the Urquhart's (a) back yard, (b) pool area, (c) master bedroom, (d) the kitchen and (e) the family room from both the deck of the Swenson's pool and the "lookout" they propose to build. There will also be direct views into the back yards of at least eight other homes. I should note that the Swenson Property also provides direct sight lines into the Urquharts' neighbors to the right and left thus invading their privacy as well. Both have objected to the project. 0 703 Reduction of the value of their home The Urquhart home is about 100 feet from the border of the Swenson property. One of the primary reasons the Urquharts purchased their home was the completely unobstructed views of the ridge line, the rock formations and the mountain above them. If the Swenson home is built the views from the Urquhart's home will be substantially compromised. Perhaps the most glaring example are the retaining walls that are necessary to support hundreds of tons of rock the Swenson's must construct the Swenson's substantially expanded building pad. Attached as Exhibit B are photos showing the views from the Urquhart property now and an artist rendition of how it will look after the construction. Note the faux rock walls that will be between the natural rock outcropping. The Swensons should be required to erect story poles before the project is approved. Finally, we request that the City order the Swensons install "story poles" so that the city officials can fully appreciate the extent to which the proposed Swenson residence will destroy the views of many of their neighbors. Conclusion The current applications should be denied. The proposed development is simply inconsistent with the purpose of land use in La Quinta and the reasonable expectations of those who have built and own homes in the sightlines of this proposed hillside development. The applications at issue are also governed by, and inconsistent with, the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040. These ordinances properly and validly constrain the proposed project, and represent the will and wisdom of the representatives of the voters of La Quinta. The applications at issue should thus be denied. Very truly ; otjrs, ,�,� A. William Urquhart AWU:wpc 99998-0005 7/759 8002.2 cc: Frank J. Spevacek, La Quinta City Manager 5 704 Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 February 5, 2016 Les Johnson Community Development Director City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 FEB 0 8 2016 CITY OF LA QUINI A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Swenson Project CUP Application NO. 2013-152 Dear Les: It is my understanding that the Swenson project CUP Application NO. 2013-152 may be scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on either the 2°d or 4th Tuesday in March, 2016. In this connection we hereby request the hearing not be scheduled until story poles are installed on the site to assist commission members, as decision makers, and the public in the review of this one of a kind project in the City of La Quinta. The purpose of this letter is to set forth reasons why the City should require installation of story poles for the benefit of everyone. The story pole presentation will provide the necessary visual aids and will assist in making findings regarding appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and impacts on important public scenic view. The accuracy, readability and articulation of story poles are important to fully understand the proposed project. In consideration of the sensitive nature of the area of the Swenson property (the "Site") and the structures proposed to be built on the hillside it is imperative from the perspective of adjacent homeowners, the entire Mountain Estates and Santa Rosa Cove communities that residents have the best opportunity available to visualize elements of the proposed development. This mountain/hillside site, together with the contiguous mountain area serve as a scenic backdrop for the level area of the Mountain Estates community. The Site is 3.16 acres of an unspoiled expanse of mountain ridgelines and hillside containing large boulders and rock formations. The placement of huge, man-made structures on this vacant, unspoiled hillside will undoubtedly have major visual impacts 705 (including aesthetic quality of ridgelines) on not only adjacent residences but the entire community. For this reason, among others, residents and City officials should be able to have the capability to have a physical graphic illustration of the elements of the improvements proposed to be built at an elevation forty (40) feet above the street level of the rest of the community. This is the one and only proposed development in our community that has such a significant impact on the topography of the unspoiled mountain areas. Without story poles how else can we be able to comprehend privacy matters, visual impacts, etc.? The parcel has never been developed and the project, because of its physical location and the proposed structures will be significantly different than adjacent neighboring residential areas. There is no question this project is "different". Consider the following statement regarding the project from the HOA architect, Brad Hammerstrom, Diehl Group Architects, (Report dated May 16, 2014 to Mountain Estates HOA ...) • It should be noted that the proposed project has utlique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the communi . • The lot is undeveloped, yet partially disturbed and not fine -graded. unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates • 'The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape,. unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot is the only lot in the Mountain_ Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. • The proposed home is elevated rou hl two stories above all other homes. • The lot does not have the Typical front yard, side yards, rear yard setup like all other homes. • The proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes like no other home in the Mountain Estates. Two previous story pole presentations by the Applicant for the benefit of neighbors were totally inadequate. There were a few vertical pipes placed on the proposed building site and a few pipes nearby the building site. There was no typical pole construction to give a perspective of height, bulk and mass for the proposed residence. There was no physical depiction at all of the structures for several hundred feet of rock fall walls and the 500-600 feet of retaining walls. Therefore it was not possible to visibly understand the mass of these structures on the hillside and effect on the ridgelines. Photo simulations are inadequate and misleading. Residents have been provided with many of these simulations in the last two (2) years. They have been M. inappropriate for the intended purpose because of their inaccuracies. They do not give proper perspective from all angles and consequently are ineffective. Story poles installed properly provide a perspective for everyone to understand height, mass and aesthetics for the entire project. In order to fully serve the purpose of a visual aid to assist all interested persons in the review process and to determine consistency with the General Plan Land Use and Conservation elements it is essential that the story pole installation is accomplished in an appropriate and typical manner. If the City agrees to install story poles I would like to see a presentation that is in accordance with the specifications required in many communities in California, such as Rancho Santa Fe, Los Gatos, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Santa Barbara, Half Moon Bay and Solana Beach to name a few. In this connection I have prepared and enclosed (Attachment 1) specifications which are a composite of the story pole specifications of the aforementioned communities. Attachment 2 has photos which illustrate a typical set of story poles. There are a number of contractors in California who specialize in story pole installation. See Attachment 3 identifying a website as an example of such a contractor. The Contractor's web site also mentions that the installation can be completed in three (3) days. Structural elements (non -residence) involved for this project are the 355 lineal foot driveway on the hillside, the rock fall walls on each side of the driveway and the retaining walls up to a height of a minimum of twenty (20) feet in one location (See May 7, 2015 letter report from Earth Systems) with a total of more than five hundred (500) lineal feet in the entire project. These hillside structures are why the project is significantly different and unusual compared to adjacent communities. Presentation of relevant physical visualization depicting the walls will assist in making findings regarding appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility and visualization of view corridors and public scenic views. For example, in the location of the 20 foot high wall there should be material (such as canvas) attached to posts so the effect of such a wall can be seen. All of this is extremely important to fully understand the installation and presence of over eight hundred (800) lineal feet of walls on the hillside and mountainside for this proposed project. As mentioned above, the primary purpose of story poles is to allow visualization of the bulk, mass and height of the structures on the Site and their related impacts. I suppose people in the architectural and engineering professions can easily visualize proposed structures, etc. However, for those of us who don't have those skills or experience we have more difficulty with these situations. The residents 707 who are adjacent to the Swenson property need to have a visual tool so they can determine what they are going to see looking upwards from their backyards, patios and windows facing the hillside. They also want to see what the people on the Swenson site are going to be able to see looking down from the Swenson home site. This is essentially what we want to visualize, not only for the location of the proposed residence, but perhaps more importantly the other structures such as the rock fall walls, retaining walls and the gate structure to be installed for access to the storm channel. In conclusion, the use of the physical story poles will be an extremely valuable tool for the community and the Planning Commission in their evaluation of the project. Please let me know whether or not you will be able to grant us our request. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, os ph cVeigh Cc: Nicole Sauviat Criste 708 ATTACHMENT I 709 STORY POLE PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS SUGGESTED FOR PROPOSED SWENSON PROJECT — 3.16 ACRE PARCEL Stoll pole plan: The plan should be an 8.5"x 11"copy of the roof plan located on the site plan (or a portion of the site plan). The locations and heights above existing grade of the proposed poles must be clearly indicated. Ridges and perimeters that will be represented with netting should also be shown on the plan. (This includes other structures, walls, etc.) Do not use color, as the plans will be reproduced in black and white for the ARC members and homeowners. See attached example. Sto1y poles shad be installed as follows: 1. The portions of the proposed building shall be staked with poles that reach from the foundation to the roof at an adequate number of locations to be able to determine the bulk and mass of the building. It may be necessary to stake more than just the four corners of the building. Additionally, story poles are to be erected at key roof peak ridge locations (including the highest), to visually demonstrate the different roof heights, and the maximum roof heights. 2. For other structures (walls, etc.) the same construction requirements for story poles apply as set forth in number 1 above. 3. All story poles shall represent the final height of the building and other structures, with grading accounted for in the height of the poles. 4. All story poles shall be painted with 12" high stripes, alternately black and white, to assist with the visual verification of indicated heights above grade. 5. Netting at least two feet (2') wide of woven plastic fencing, or another equally suited material (in "international orange", yellow, red, or other contrasting color), shall be assembled to represent the proposed structure. Netting must be supported by height poles that are strong enough to accurately outline and maintain the building mass and height. (See attached diagram and samples below.) 6. All story poles and netting shall be installed so as to withstand weather (and remain standing and correctly reflective of the plans) until removal. 7. For driveway location, it shall be outlined at accepted intervals with white stakes (minimum 3 feet in height) and ribbon at ground level adjacent to the mountain and on the non -mountain side, including the turnaround at terminus of driveway. 8. The location of the swimming pool shall be outlined with white stakes (minimum 3 feet in height) and ribbon at ground level. 9. The location of the "Lookout/Retreat" shall be outlined with white stakes (minimum 3 feet high) and ribbon at ground level. 10. For all buildings and all retaining walls and rock fall wall structures, wooden 710 posts are to be erected at all corners of proposed structures. Their purpose is to show the structures' outline. Orange/red ribbon is then strung between these posts to indicate location and heights and to facilitate accurate viewing of the proposed building and structures. Story poles must show the building and structures as they will appear from proposed grade. Blue tape must be used to show the pad height on the story poles. 11.One of the height poles on each elevation must be clearly marked and labeled in 5 foot increments measured from existing or finished grade which ever creates a higher profile. The above specifications represent the minimum requirements for the story pole installation. A copy of the story pole plan and a reduced set of plans should be made available at the site to help those looking at the poles understand what they represent. Cef fication Required: By no later than ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant shall submit certification by an independent licensed surveyor or civil engineer that the poles have been installed as per the approved plan. Cost of surveyor/civil engineer to be paid for by Applicant. The approved plan (showing locations and heights of the poles) shall be attached to the certification. The certification shall bear the professional stamp and signature of the licensed professional. CERTIFICATION BY THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT/ENGINEER WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Failure to install and verify the story poles as required will necessitate a continuance of the Planning Commission meeting. 711 Height Pole and Netting Instructions Netting at least two feet (2') wide and made of woven plastic snow fencing must be erected to represent the roofline of the proposed structure/addition. Netting must be supported by height poles strong enough to accurately maintain the outline and height as shown below (plastic piping is not acceptable): Roof Plan Post locations Story Poles r" �r n• -to cover proposedi h- The height of story poles should indicate the final height of the building (grading should be acc-ounted for in the height of the poles). 712 Wimple. of story p6le plan • Pay. pale •A 713 ATTACHMENT 2 714 � it r s jif �~ fr ,rr s •"a 4" . 7 r.. �i — — -- � �M I"Air Il , A 717 COASTLINE STORY POLES OaF!PRWFORNIA CA License #993041 v (800) 470-5142 Recent Projects Contact Us coastlinestorypoles@gmail.com t CGASTL!'NE Stor w Poles r3 v '.;�_�_ and a.ccui- to story Pole service thrcu-i-lou4t sr,0. hff CC-Hor nia i# i>ck]-c- In— 1ff, _.-LIL. 'f •' 1. i ±;1 S 408-899-8519 WHY INSTALL STORY POLES? ice - OUR GOAL COASTLINE Story Pales will professionally handle all phases of your building project from story pole surveying, plan preparation, installation, removal, and certification. Your project will be completed accurately and on time. We are licensed, bonded, and insured. No job is too big or too small. We will beat any written 718 Story poles are typically required by Planning Departments to depict the elevations and silhouette of a proposed new structure, a second story addition to an existing building, or any addition which may cause concerns about inappropriate bulk and mass. They are intended to aid neighbors and members of the decision -making bodies in many California cities in regard to their evaluation of a building application. Story poles are required by planning departments in many coastal areas and locations within view corridors. Story -poles are installed on the project site to represent the size and scale of the proposed structure to follow. The silhouette provided bythe story poles helps to assess potential visual impact and neighborhood compatibility. If there are concerns or objections to the building outline, adjustments and modifications to the story poles may be necessary. The story poles are removed upon review and approval of the planning commission. Once the story poles have been installed, COASTLINE Story Poles will make sure that everything remains in good condition until they are removed. We stand behind everything that we do and guarantee that we will provide experienced and skilled craftsmanship. We want our clients to be happy and satisfied and will make sure that your hard earned money is well spent. "The most gratifying aspect of our business has been the repeat business and referrals that we receive from our existing clients." Dustin Rutherford -Owner WE WILL BEAT ANY WRITTEN BID SERVICES OFFERED Story Pole Installation Story Pole Surveys Story Pole Design Review Story Pole Plans Story Pole Adjustments e` City Planning Department Review Story Pole Maintenance Community Review Story Pale Removal View Corridors/Scenic Corridors Story Pole Certification Zip' Homeowner's Association Board of Architectural Review Board (ARB) 719 DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE" 2000 LOS ANGELES, GAI_IFORNIA 90017 JEFFREY Z. B. SPRINGER STEPHEN A. DEL GUERCIO MICHAEL A. FRANCIS BRIAN D. LANGA JENNIFER T. TAGGART LESLIE M. DEL GUERCIO TAMMY M. J. HONG Nicole Sauviat Criste (21 3) 624.8407 FAX (21 3) 624-01 74 WWW.DDSFFIRM.COM March 3, 2016 Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 CHRIS G. DEMETRIOU (1915- 1989) RONALD J. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED) RICHARD A. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED) SENDER'S EMAILADDRESS JSPRI NGE RODDSFFIRM.COM SENDER'S DIRECT LINE (21 3) 624.8407 ExT, 148 Re: Response to Comments on Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 77-210 Loma Vista, within The Enclave Mountain Estates Dear Ms. Criste: This letter is sent on behalf of Lisa and Case Swenson, the owners of the property located at 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California (the "Property") in partial response to comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("NOI"). On May 16, 2013, the Swensons applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") and submitted plans for the construction of a single-family residence. For the last several years, the Swensons have worked assiduously to respond to the comments of their neighbors and The Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowner Association ("HOA" ). The Swensons have provided construction details, design details, responded to comments, and made numerous changes. The City has followed a very conservative approach. The City could have processed the Swensons' application by way of a categorical exemption for a single-family residence. An almost identical fact pattern was the subject of Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 CalAth 1086 and Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, (2015) 241 Cal.AppAth 943. In these cases, the applicants proposed to build a large home on a large lot in the Berkeley Hills. The city concluded that notwithstanding the steep slope, a heavily wooded area, and plans to build a 6,478 square foot house with an attached 3,394 square foot garage, the categorical exemption for one single-family residence properly 720 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 2 applied and there were no "unusual circumstances." (60 CalAth at 1093 and 241 Cal.AppAth at 947-948) The City of La Quinta could have applied the same categorical exemption here. Instead, the City has proceeded by way of a mitigated negative declaration, an approach which is even more protective of the environment than could have been utilized. No EIR is equired. No EIR is required here because there is an absence of substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that any of the conditions cited by the opponents would result in a significant effect on the environment. Under the "fair argument" standard, "speculative possibilities" are not substantial evidence. (Citizens Committee to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.AppAth 1157, 1171.) Nor do clearly erroneous or incredible statements amount to substantial evidence. (San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.AppAth 606, 617.) I. Biological Impacts Based on the response of James Cornett, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be a significant impact on special status species or wildlife corridors after mitigation. 2. Aesthetic Impacts The circumstances here are similar to those present in Association for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.AppAth 720. There, an owner sought to build a single-family residence which was the last to be developed in a neighborhood of single-family residences. There, as here, the immediate neighbors objected and raised height, view, and privacy objections. The court held that, under CEQA, "the issue is not whether [the project] will adversely affect particular persons but whether [the project] will adversely affect the environment of persons in general ... The height, view and privacy objections ... impacted only a few of the neighbors and were properly considered by City in connection with its site development permit approval, along 721 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 3 with other aesthetic concerns. These concerns did not affect the environment of persons generally ..." (Id. at 734) Photographs of the existing community show that the Swenson's neighbors, and the community typically, have outdoor areas that may be viewed from other neighbors' outdoor areas. In other words, as one moves to the outside edge of one's outdoor area, a person becomes visible to his or her neighbors. Thus, there is no reasonable expectation of total privacy. The line of sight diagrams prepared by John Vuksic demonstrate that the residence has been thoughtfully designed to preclude viewing of the neighbors from secluded vantage points. The project opponents claim that the photo simulations are misleading. Yet, as fully documented by John Vuksic, story poles were installed on the property and the photo simulations were carefully matched to the story poles. These photo simulations convincingly demonstrate that the proposed Swenson residence has been designed to blend with the hillside environment much more carefully than any of its neighbors. 3. Air Quality Impacts As demonstrated by the NOI, and taking into account the mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project will result in significant air quality impacts. 4. Haul Trips As demonstrated by the NOI, and taking into account the mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project will result in significant traffic impacts. 5. Construction Noise and Vibration As demonstrated by the NOI, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse noise or vibration impacts after mitigation. 722 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 4 6. Operational Noise Impacts The existing homes and outdoor areas of the Swenson's neighbors all face one another a short distance away. By comparison, the proposed Swenson residence and outdoor area are located much further from the neighbors' homes and outdoor areas. Because noise attenuates with distance there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse noise impacts after mitigation. 7. Hydrological Impacts Project opponents have submitted a hydrological report authored by SWAPE. The project civil engineer has reviewed the report and agrees that a portion of the off - site storm flow and on -site undeveloped storm flow were inadvertently comingled with the on -site developed storm flow. A final hydrology report and water quality management plan will be prepared so that these flows are routed away from the proposed retention structure, allowing the proposed retention structure to function as designed and meeting the water quality management plan requirements. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be a significant adverse impact to hydrology or water quality after mitigation. 8. Geotechnical Impacts Although project opponents contend that the project will increase hazards to residents below the site after construction, this assertion is simply unsupported. The project's geotechnical expert has demonstrated that the driveway wall will actually reduce the potential for rockfall damage to the McVeigh residence. There is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse geotechnical impacts after mitigation. 9. Land Use Impacts As demonstrated by the Proposed Land Use Plan, Exhibit 10 to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, the driveway and building pad areas on the Swensons' property are actually located within Planning Area 111, and planned for low density residential use. This is confirmed by the text of the Specific Plan which notes that many homes remain to be built within The Enclave / Mountain Estates. The text also notes there are no changes in the home owner association open space common areas as a result of the 723 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 5 Specific Plan, and the existing sub -community of The Enclave Mountain Estates remains governed by the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse land use impacts after mitigation. 10. Cumulative Impacts Opponents claim that the project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and would open the door to more development. However, the project is actually allowed under the Specific Plan, does not change the Specific Plan, and merely involves the approval of a single-family residence. There are no other projects identified by project opponents which have cumulative impacts. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the project consists of construction on one of the existing residential lots in The Enclave Mountain Estates. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse cumulative impacts after mitigation. The Swensons have literally worked for years to respond to the comments and material concerns of their neighbors. Having received HOA approval, we now look forward to approval of this project by the City of La Quinta. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Tery truly you iI JZBS/lp 724 )AMES W. CORNETT - ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS March 2, 20161 Nicole Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Swenson Residence Project Site Biological issues raised by Amy Minteer of Chatten-Brown & Carstens, LLP Dear Ms. Criste: I have reviewed the comments regarding biological issues raised by Amy Minteer with respect to the Swenson Residence Project. Apparently, Ms. Minteer has no biological expertise, no knowledge of the biological resources on or near the site and only provides information provided by an opponent of the Swenson Residence Project. It appears she intends to intimidate officials by attaching long lists of irrelevant species to her letter in the hope that something sticks. With these facts in mind, the remainder of my written response focuses on those species mentioned in the Minteer letter. Peninsular Population of Bighorn Sheep As stated in my original biological assessment dated May 14, 2013, "the project area is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular population of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) and evidence of bighorn sheep was found within 200 yards of the project site."' However, I concluded the Swenson Residence would not have a significant impact on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep for the following reasons. (1) Extensive field surveys failed to yield any evidence of bighorn presence on or within 150 yards of the site. (2) There were no records of bighorn on or near the site in the California Natural Diversity Database program established by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. (3) The lack of bighorn presence on the project site as well as proximity to an existing residential area are two of the reasons the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and Coachella Valley Association of Governments purposely did not include the site in a Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. In short, the site was not considered significant to the survival and recovery of bighorn sheep. My findings are, therefore, in complete agreement with the Plan and there is no justification for a finding of significance. ' Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Swenson Residence located within the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, pages 3 and 17. 725 In spite of the fact that all knowledgeable parties agree the site does not have potential to reduce the number or restrict the range of bighorn sheep, measures were described in the report that provided additional safeguards for bighorn sheep. (1) A biological monitor must be onsite during earth disturbance activities to halt work immediately in the unlikely event that sheep wander near the site.2 (2) An extensive list of plants, such as oleander, that cannot be used in landscaping has been included in the biological assessment.3 Species of Special Concern Minteer's letter implies that the Rosy Boa is a state Species of Special Concern by listing it under that same heading in her letter.4 In fact, the Rosy Boa is a common and widespread snake whose capture or "take" is allowed under existing rules and regulations of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. It is not now, and never has been, a state Species of Special Concern. Minteer does correct herself a paragraph later by listing the Rosy Boa as a U.S. Forest Service sensitive species. However, Minteer apparently does not realize that Forest Service lands are nowhere near the project site which, by the way, is situated in a desert not a forest. Costa's Hummingbird was observed within the project site boundaries as restated in Minteer's letter. She writes that Costa's Hummingbird is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern. This is true. But Minteer then implies the State of California considers the hummingbird a sensitive species which is untrue. In spite of Minteer's confusion with agencies and terminology, Costa's Hummingbirds occur in the vicinity of the project site because of the presence of water and food resources provided by existing residential area. If mitigation for this species were required, which it is not, then the Swenson Residence and its landscaping may be considered mitigation. Minteer contends the biological assessment did not adequately address the bat issuea subject regularly brought up by persons opposed to a given project. For the record and as indicated in the biological assessment, no evidence of Pallid, Spotted or Hoary bats was found during night or day field surveys and no records exist on or near the site in the California Natural Diversity Database. There is no information in the literature to suggest that the project site is important or significant habitat for any of these three bat species. Therefore, I did not specifically address these species in my report and, correctly, did not propose mitigation. Extensive live trapping for small rodents, such as the Southern Grasshopper Mouse mentioned in Minteer's letter, was conducted. No Southern Grasshopper Mice were captured. This species is rarely taken in exceedingly and habitat such as the project site and is never associated with residential areas. As with most other sensitive species in the desert regions of California, it was not discussed because it was neither found nor expected on or near the project site. 2 Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Swenson Residence located within the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, pages 3 and 19. 3 Ibid., page 37. 4 Minteer letter, page 5. 726 Finally, Minteer contends that "wildlife movement will be restricted by the project." She asserts that "the installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail." Does Minteer really believe that a wall is a barrier to an eagle? The last time a salamander was found in the desert was almost a half century ago and chuckwallas regularly crawl over walls and vertical rocks. The project boundaries are a continuation of an existing residential development and neither the wall nor the project is a barrier to any species. Where is the bifurcation? I suggest Minteer confine her comments to those subjects in which she has expertise.. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information. Sincerely, �X r --- ZX4 4 James W. Cornett P.O. BOX 846 PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA 92263 727 ATTACHMENT 11 PR EST •VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S April 13, 2016 Nicole Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Appeal from Decision of the Planning Commission Proposed Swenson Residence, 77210 Loma Vista City Council Meeting April 19, 2016 Dear Ms. Criste: This letter and the accompanying exhibits are sent to provide evidence that an assertion of fact contained in Amy Minteer's letter dated January 20, 2016 is demonstrably incorrect. In her letter sent on behalf of Appellant, Joseph McVeigh, Ms. Minteer asserts that bighorn sheep have recently been observed on the Swenson property. Her letter cites to an "Attachment 1" which she represents "is a photo of bighorn sheep on Project site." The photograph, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit 1, shows two bighorn sheep in the "V" of a distant rocky ridge, with a bare -branched bush on the right hand ridgeline. As you are aware, I am a licensed architect and have many years of experience in taking and interpreting photographs which depict the natural setting in which improvements are proposed to be constructed. I recently went to the project site and attempted to recreate the ridgeline shape by photographing the Swenson property from the approximate vantage point of Mr. McVeigh's rear yard. (I stood in the storm channel immediately adjacent to his rear wall, and held my camera high.) When that failed to yield any similar ridgeline, I attempted to recreate the photo from the vantage points of the rear yards of the other neighbors. The Swenson property contains a flat, previously graded area, and has no "V" ridgeline behind it that is in any way similar to that shown in Attachment 1 to Ms. Minteer's letter. 44530 SAN PABLO AVE SUITE 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260 T . 760 779 5393 F ® 760 779 5395 728 I therefore tried other alternatives. I was finally able to find a matching ridgeline complete with a bush on the right hand ridge. Exhibit 2 is a copy of my photograph depicting the matching ridgeline. The rocky ridgeline in Exhibit 2 may be verified to be identical to that in Exhibit 1 (also Attachment 1 to Ms. Minteer's letter) by counting rocks, matching shapes and features of the terrain, and by the corresponding position of the bush on the right hand ridge. I took the Exhibit 2 photograph while I was standing on the Swenson property, in the location that is shown on Exhibit 3. The image that serves as the base for Exhibit 3 is from Google earth. The location of the ridgeline depicted in Exhibit 2 is also plotted on Exhibit 3. As shown, the ridgeline on which the bighorn sheep were standing is actually located nearly a'/4 mile to the east and north of the Swenson property. Ironically, to photograph the bighorn sheep from the perspective of that shown in "Attachment 1" to Ms. Minteer's letter, the photographer must have been standing on the back of the Swensons' property, immediately to the north of the proposed building pad. Accordingly, the bighorn sheep in "Attachment 1" to Ms. Minteer's letter were not standing on a ridgeline that is part of the project site, but on a ridge nearly a '/4 mile away. Please refer to the accompanying Exhibits that illustrate these facts, and let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any further information. Sincerely, John Vuksic Principal 729 EXHIBIT 1 - PHOTO FROM APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY LABELED: "PHOTO OF BIGHORN SHEEP ON PROJECT SITE" r --. 91 1 • 4%,* , � fit' ` '•. ` i .� NAL 14 6�r 1 ♦ 11 WO.A . * 1 M s 731 733 1p EXHIBIT 3 .� �.,�� v,I�'��►� `.' .>f• � hail •`�-C,, ♦ � ` � ._ .', � � '. � � �:•' �:� �.- - Ns V_ �•`` `�' � t1 �� �' �\` - w j� .. '�, r :� i, ,.� tom. ;i .�� i ' •�,; t`.'.• \ ....'•�;,♦ "fit -'. ,• t \ �' .'° " LOCATION OF t. , f� `1 "f� BIGHORN SHEEP •:; LOCATION WHERE a-;'e ♦.:'�'� ��`"� ,"to PHOTO WAS TAKEN PROJECT," + •� . c •� SITE • �� G 1 THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES '"i' \\ ,�'=�F .. 'L\�� .'�.' �►`� :i c; i}ti';p1•f S�Tr '�.fJ, 735 ATTACH M ENT 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page Iof9 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Conditional use Permit shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code §§ 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: Riverside County Fire Marshal La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) La Quinta Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sand Unified School District (DSUSD) Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) State Water Resources Control Board SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant, who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI") and Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 736 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 2 of 9 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permittee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. E. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. F. The applicant shall execute and record an agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction BMPs as required. 737 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 3 of 9 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, and common areas. 12. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of-way, or access easement, the approval of this conditional use permit is subject to the applicant providing an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties. 13. Written approval from IID and CVWD is required for the proposed rockfall protection wall which is within the CVWD and IID easement. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.100 (Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets. 738 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 4 of 9 15. The rockfall protection wall and retaining wall shall be designed in accordance with the Earth Systems Southwest recommendations. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 18. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Precise Grading Plan 1" = 30' Horizontal (20 scale optional) B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal (if disturbed area is greater than 1 acre) C. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All plans shall show existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. Grading plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 17. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la-guinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 739 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 5of9 18. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). 19. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. rRAniN(, 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 21. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control) if disturbed area is greater than 1 acre, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). E. A WQMP prepared by an authorized professional registered in the State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control provisions as 740 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 6of9 submitted with its application for a grading permit. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with PM 10 requirements as required by the City Engineer. 23. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures. 24. Building pad elevations on the grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the CUP exhibits, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer. 25. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (05) from the elevations shown on the approved CUP exhibits, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGF 27. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Swenson Residence CUP 2013-152, or as approved by the City Engineer 28. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 30. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 741 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 7of9 31. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 32. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 33. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 34. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 35. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7- 2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopment Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of Stormwater BMPs. UTILITIES 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 37. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above- ground utility structures including, but not limited to, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 742 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 8 of 9 38. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 40. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of landscaping, access driveway, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING 42. No lighting shall be permitted on the path to, or within and surrounding the retreat, to the west of the residence. 43. Replace the proposed swing doors for the utility closet within the garage to facilitate the full use of the parking space. 44. Use a cast of the existing on -site rocks in the design of the faux rock wall. 45. Keep overall site disturbance to a minimum including establishment of the overlook area. 46. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans) 47. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 48. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 6 inches. 49. All plants shall conform to the approved plant list of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for lands adjacent to conservation areas. 743 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 9 of 9 50. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape) 51. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Community Development Department as a minor final landscape plan, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Community Development Director approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Community Development Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Community Development Director and/or City Engineer. 52. Prior to final approval of the installation of landscaping, the Landscape Architect of record shall provide the Community Development Department a letter stating he/she has personally inspected the installation and that it conforms with the final landscaping plans as approved by the City. 53. If staff determines during final landscaping inspection that adjustments are required in order to meet the intent of the Planning Commission's approval, the Community Development Director shall review and approve any such revisions to the landscape plan. MISCELLANEOUS 54. The mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2013-630 shall be implemented for this project. 55. Should any excavation, grading, trenching or other ground disturbing activity result in the unearthing of a potentially historic or archaeological resource, the contractor shall cease all activity until a qualified archaeologist and Tribal member can determine the significance of the find. The City shall be notified immediately. If monitoring or resource recovery occurs, a final report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 744 745 DEPARTMENT REPORT ITEM NO. 1 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank J. Spevacek DATE: April 19, 2016 SUBJECT: REFINANCING OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY 2011 BONDS Recent bond market conditions have provided an opportunity to refinance 2011 Bonds that were issued as the Successor Agency's (Agency) last two financings prior to redevelopment dissolution; this would generate significant savings that could increase the former RDA General Fund loan repayment and property tax receipts for local taxing agencies. These bonds carry high interest rates ranging from 5.4% to 8.2% generating debt service over the remaining bond life (September 2039) of $64,911,410. This debt service represents both principal and interest payments over the bond life. Debt service for these bonds is a Recognized Obligation of Payment (ROP) approved by the Department of Finance (DOF) and included on annual ROP's schedules paid for with Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPPTF). Reducing debt service will generate additional residual property tax revenue of which up to 50% may be used to accelerate the payoff of the City's General Fund Loan with the remainder being disbursed to local taxing agencies. Refinancing Assumptions and Analysis: $34,850,000 of 2011 Bonds with a remaining principal balance of $33,075,000 to be refinanced $2,800,000 cash contribution of existing unspent 2011 Bond proceeds (These monies have been designated by DOF to be used for bond refinancing or defeasance) Interest Rates for a refunding ranging from 1.6% to 4.6% Maturity Date of a refunded bond issue stays the some (September 2039) 746 Refunding Analysis: 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Annual Debt Service r• W M 0 r4 ry m�t L+ 0 r. W M 0 -4 r�4 m -* In 0 r- W M r-I c-I c-I N N N N... N N N rQ FYI M M FYI M FYI M Fry fry 00000000000000000000000 IV N N N N N N N F'J N N N N N N N" IV " N N N IV ■ Savings ■ New Debt Service Annual debt service savings 2017 through 2035 approximately $614,000 Annual debt service savings 2036 through 2039 approximately $285,000 Debt Service and Savings over Bond Life Debt Service and Savings 12,82Z,705 New Debt Service ■ Savings 52,088,704 $64,911,410 Existing Debt Service over Bond Life (2011 Bonds) $52,088,704 Estimated Debt Service with refinancing (2016 Bonds) $12,822,705 Estimated Savings in Debt Service over Bond Life 747 Financing Team and Cost of Issuance: Rutan & Tucker, Bond Counsel $ 75,000.00 Strad Iing Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Disclosure Counsel Harrell & Company, Financial Advisor Standard & Poor's Ratings Group, Rating Services Grant Thornton, Verification Consultant US Bank National Association, Trustee and Escrow Bank Avia Communications, Financial Printing Miscellaneous Subtotal Costs of Issuance Underwriter's Discount Bond Insurance Provider Total Costs of Issuance 42, 000.00 40, 000.00 30, 000.00 2,500.00 4,500.00 2,500.00 3,500.00 $ 200,000.00 264, 600.00 171, 635.00 636, 235.00 Cost of issuance both as a percentage of Bond issuance and fixed fees as outlined above is consistent with industry standards for refunding programs Proposed Schedule: Successor Agency adopts Resolution approving Financing Documents Oversight Board adopts Resolution approving Financing Documents Submit Revised Oversight Board Resolution and Documents DOF Approval of Financing Submit Documents to Rating Agency/Insurer Receive Rating/Insurance Successor Agency Board adopts Resolution deeming Preliminary Official Statement Substantially Final Bond Sale - Successor Agency signs Purchase Contract Bond Closing May 3 May 4 July 5 July 6 July 27 August 2 August 24 September 14 748 Schedule to be updated based on DOF approval of actions and market conditions Conclusion: Current market conditions provide significant cost savings in debt service if 2011 Bonds are refinanced. As outlined above the cost savings over the life of the bonds is estimated to be $12,822,705. There is no way of knowing if the municipal market will maintain current interest rate yields long enough for the Successor Agency to complete the approval and DOF review process estimated to require 60 to 75 days. If the Successor Agency desires to move forward with a refinancing program, the Financing Team will return to the Successor Agency for approval of a substantially final Preliminary Official Statement and provide an update of refunding numbers and costs. 749 CITY COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT REPORT NO.3-A BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND OUTSIDE AGENCY MEETINGS MAY 2016—JULY 2016 Date MAY May 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 4 ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD May 9 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION May 10 PLANNING COMMISSION May 11 INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD May 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 19 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 24 PLANNING COMMISSION May 30 CITY HALL CLOSED —MEMORIAL DAY Date JUNE June 1 ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD June 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 8 INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD June 13 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION a June 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Z June 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING :3 June 28 PLANNING COMMISSION O' a Date JULY o � July 4 CITY HALL CLOSED —INDEPENDENCE DAY c� July 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 6 ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD July 11 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION July 12 PLANNING COMMISSION July 13 INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD July 13 HOUSING COMMISSION July 19 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26 PLANNING COMMISSION 750 OUTSIDE AGENCY UPCOMING MEETING DATES MAY 2016 Day Time LINDA EVANS, MAYOR 12 11:00 a.m. CVAG COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION 12 12:00 a.m. CVAG ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE No Meeting CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (next meeting —June 6) 20 8:00 a.m. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (CVB) No Meeting COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEE Day Time KRISTY FRANKLIN, COUNCILMEMBER 9 8:00 a.m. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY/BUS TOUR No Meeting JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY 25 11:00 a.m. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TBD COACHELLA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Franklin & Radi) Day Time LEE OSBORNE, COUNCILMEMBER 2 6:00 p.m. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE 9 9:00 a.m. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE 11 4:00 p.m. ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT -SUBCOMMITTEE (Osborne & Radi) TBD DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Osborne & Franklin) 18 8:00 a.m. EAST VALLEY COALITION Day Time JOHN PENA, COUNCILMEMBER 12 9:30 a.m. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION TBD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE 18 10:00 a.m. CVAG VALLEY -WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Day Time ROBERT RADI, COUNCILMEMBER 2 9:00 a.m. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 11 9:30 a.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) 11 4:00 p.m. ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT SUB -COMMITTEE TBD COACHELLA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Franklin & Radi) 751 OUTSIDE AGENCY UPCOMING MEETING DATES JUNE 2016 Day Time LINDA EVANS, MAYOR 9 11:00 a.m. CVAG COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION 9 12:00 p.m. CVAG ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 17 8:00 a.m. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU 27 4:30 p.m., CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE / GENERAL ASSEMBLY No Meeting COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEE Day Time KRISTY FRANKLIN, COUNCILMEMBER No Meeting COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY No Meeting JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY 22 11:00 a.m. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY No Meeting DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Osborne & Franklin) No Meeting COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ((Franklin & Radi) Day Time LEE OSBORNE, COUNCILMEMBER 6 6:00 p.m. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE 8 4:00 p.m. ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT SUB COMMITTEE 13 9:00 a.m. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE No Meeting DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Osborne & Franklin) TBD EAST VALLEY COALITION Day Time JOHN PENA, COUNCILMEMBER 15 Day No Meeting ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION No Meeting CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE 10:00 a.m. CVAG VALLEY -WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Time ROBERT RADI, COUNCILMEMBER 6 9:00 a.m. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 8 4:00 p.m. ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT SUB COMMITTEE 27 9:30 a.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) No Meeting COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ((Franklin & Radi) 752 OUTSIDE AGENCY UPCOMING MEETING DATES JULY 2016 Day Time LINDA EVANS, MAYOR No Meeting CVAG COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION No Meeting CVAG ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE No Meeting GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU No Meeting CVAG EXECUTIV E COMMITTEE No Meeting COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEE Day Time KRISTY FRANKLIN, COUNCILMEMBER 11 3:00 p.m. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY 20 3:00 p.m. JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY 27 10:00 a.m. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TBD COACHELLA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Franklin & Radi) TBD DESERT SANDS UNIFIED DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Franklin & Osborne) TBD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFO EXCHANGE Day Time LEE OSBORNE, COUNCILMEMBER 11 6:00 p.m. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE No Meeting CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE 13 4:00 p.m. ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT SUB -COMMITTEE 2:00 p.m. OVERSIGHT BOARD TBD EAST VALLEY COALITION TBD DESERT SAND UNIFIED DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Osborne & Franklin) Day Time JOHN PENA, COUNCILMEMBER 11 14 9:30 a.m. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION No Meeting CVAG VALLEY -WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Day Time IN ROBERT RADI, COUNCILMEMBER vwww���� No Meeting CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 13 9:30 a.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) 13 4:00 p.m. ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT SUB COMMITTEE TBD COACHELLA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Franklin & Radi) 753 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Susan Maysels, City Clerk DATE: April 19, 2016 SUBJECT: Status of Municipal Code Update Project DEPARTMENT REPORT ITEM NO. The project to update and streamline all Municipal Code Chapters began in 2015 and will continue into 2016/17. At the conclusion of the project, all 14 Titles will have undergone a comprehensive review for accuracy, relevance, streamlining, plain language and compliance with State law. The status of each Title is as follows: No. of Chapters Completion Date Title 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS 4 done Title 2 — ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL 18 done Title 3 — REVENUE AND FINANCE 18 done Title 5 — BUSINESS REGULATIONS 19 done Title 6 — HEALTH AND SANITATION 9 August 2016 Title 7 — HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 done Title 8 — BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION 19 September 2016 Title 9 — ZONING 31 December 2016 Title 10 — ANIMALS 7 done Title 11 — PEACE, MORALS, AND SAFETY 26 February 2017 Title 12 — VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC 16 March 2017 Title 13 — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 13 done Title 14 — STREETS AND SIDEWALKS 6 December 2016 Title 16 — COUNTY ORDINANCES ADOPTED 30 June 2017 The remaining Chapters will require a joint effort by nearly all City Divisions including staff in Planning, Engineering, Traffic, Building, Code Compliance, Police, City Attorney, and Clerk's Office. Completion dates take into account staffs existing commitments to routine operational demands and special projects underway or in the pipeline for the some period. 754 755 DEPARTMENT REPORT ITEM NO. 4 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Tustin K. Larson, Community Resources Manager Chris Escobedo, Director of Community Resources DATE: April 10, 2016 SUBJECT: QUARTERLY MARKETING REPORT Per the City's contract with JNS Media Specialists (JNS) and Graphtek Interactive (GI), the second Quarterly Marketing Report for 2015/16 is as follows: JNS - Traditional Marketing (Print/Television/Radio; Print Ads: Health and Wellness were the focus for January - March in Desert Health News. This publication featured ads inspiring the community to become more active outdoors with hiking and biking, as well as active indoors at the Wellness Center. Ads encouraged Wellness Center memberships and featured new photography showcasing use of the fitness center (Attachment 1). Event promotions were a large part of the third quarter print campaign highlighting everything from the CareerBuilder Challenge, Horseshows in the Sun (HITS), La Quinta Arts Festival, and 19th Hole Block Party. Ads placed in Palm Springs Life and The Desert Sun in January were golf driven with focused on the CareerBuilder Challenge, however still mentioned additional signature events. Ads in Palm Springs Life, TravelHost, and CV Weekly in February showcased the beautiful outdoor dining options in La Quinta. Ads encouraged readers to visit La Quinta and enjoy dining "Al Fresco" to experience breathtaking views of the mountain vistas and the beautiful atmosphere surrounding them (Attachment 2). The ads were the first in the series of ads to feature new photography and a new "Point of View" concept showcasing different experiences in La Quinta from a participant's perspective. The idea was to convey the diversity of entertainment opportunities one can experience in La Quinta with dining, hiking, biking, and shopping, for all ages. 19th Hole Block Party ads were featured in CV Weekly and The Desert Sun in January (Attachment 3). 756 The Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau and LOCALE Magazine released a "Guide to the Greater Palm Springs" immediately after the success of the "Guide to La Quinta". This was an opportunity for all Coachella Valley cities and businesses to participate and be recognized. The ad for City was a point of view ad from the La Quinta Brewing Company taproom featuring someone sitting at the bar and being served a drink. The message speaks to LOCALE's target demographic of Millennial's and Generation X by demonstrating a place to relax and enjoy a good time in La Quinta. Through the success of the guides from La Quinta and Greater Palm Springs, LOCALE has announced a regular print edition of the magazine for Desert Cities in May and November. They feel they need to show surrounding drive markets everything that the Coachella Valley has to offer their demographic. The City of La Quinta's Guide was the LOCALE readers' introduction to just how much there is to do and see here (Attachment 4). Local events were highlighted in The Desert Sun and CV Weekly during the month of March (Attachment 5) which highlighted Desert Youth Olympics (DYO) and the La Quinta Easter Egg Hunt. These ads invited residents to participate in both events while promoting fitness through DYO and family through the Easter Egg Hunt. The 2016 Eldorado Polo Program featured an ad by the City showcasing dining options just minutes from the polo grounds. The publication is distributed not only at the polo matches but also in the Embassy Suites La Quinta hitting 13,000 visitors directly coming to the desert. This magazine reaches a slightly more affluent demographic with over 15,000 issues distributed locally in print and digital distribution. Lastly, the City was part of the Daily Pairings Sheets in the 2016 BNP Paribas Open as well as the 2016 BNP Paribas Official Program. The daily pairings featured ads that included co-op partners Old Town La Quinta and Okura Sushi (Attachment 6). The ads featured the City's activities as well as the co-op partners' call to action. The official program included a full page ad using the "Dining Al Fresco" ad, which was used in other publications to encourage visitors to explore the dining options in La Quinta. All of these ads included the new photography with the "Point of View" concept. Television: The new "Point of View" television commercial was added to the rotation with existing Amenities and Outdoor spots. The commercial concept opens with someone on their laptop looking at the City's Facebook page, as the laptop closes the spot goes into the many different experiences of being in La Quinta from having coffee, hiking, jumping into a pool, golfing, and meeting at Old Town La Quinta. This spot is consistent with the photography to showcase the true experience of shopping, dining, golfing, hiking, and biking in La Quinta (Attachment 7). The television commercial is on Time Warner Cable locally and in the drive markets of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego Country attracting local visitors as well as potential visitors who are only a couple hours away. 757 Radio- Monthly live mentions by radio DJ's talking about events that are taking place in La Quinta such as CareerBuilder Challenge, La Quinta Arts Festival, HITS, Desert Youth Olympics, and Easter Egg Hunt. In addition to fulfill the active living mission, there are also mentions of the Wellness Center, Community Hikes, and Hikes with the Mayor. GI - Digital Marketing (Web/Social Media) Digital Content: Popular travel blogger Kelly Golightly, (kellygolightly.com), came to La Quinta recently and posted photos on her Instagram account. Each photo was "liked" by over 1,000 fans. She has agreed to write blogs and additional social media posts for La Quinta in April 2016 (Attachment 8). A series of time-lapse videos have been scheduled and recorded showcasing several locations around La Quinta. These locations include: Top of the Cove, La Quinta Resort, Old Town La Quinta, Point Happy (overlooking Highway 111), and SilverRock Resort. The videos show sunrise to sunset in the span of one minute. The videos will be edited together and will be used for promotional web content and on both the PlayInLaQuinta.com and La-Quinta.org websites. A new dedicated calendar style page was created for the Moonlight Movies series on the PlayInLaQuinta.com website. The page includes the location and time of the movie, a photo of the movie poster, rating, and small write-up about the movie, an "info for parents" link which provides detailed information about the movie, social media sharing links, and "What to bring." This page will be featured on social media networks promoting the spring/summer movie program. You can find the link under "Events" or "Things to Do" on the PlayInLaQuinta.com website (Attachment 9). Social Media: All social media has seen increased activity over the last quarter. Facebook is now over 51,400 page likes compared to 47,000 last quarter. More users are participating and interacting with many of the posts including: "liking" posts, "sharing" posts, and commenting. Instagram has seen an increase in followers from slightly above 500 at the beginning of the second quarter to over 700 this quarter. Twitter has seen a 3 percent "retweet" increase from 81,067 to 83,431. Re -tweets are when other twitter users share a "tweet" that has been authored by someone else. "Mentions", or anytime another twitter user includes @CityofLaQuinta in their tweet, have also increased 31 percent from 173 to 227 this quarter. 758 759 t a With 43 v Ade variety of health and wellrEess ooianst you can start (or continue) your wellness journa3ywith p*lrtol, inlallisciuoI, nuHtioml, cr tiA and s 4al wellness! G4o4it yotir -own pace or register for +raofithly classes today! Stop by end sign up 'for the fitr}e5s center (S50 for Lo Quin.ta re5ident5/ s 75 for non-resident5j orld ke-ap yourself ht-dlthy, inside and out! P6ayrnLaqunata.4cam yyy } {{' r MYWIthQuinto /a lr 'loom a 4@, +llr. • i • a • a'♦0 n i Do irpm%rc. Join us in OLd Town La Quinta for the 19thHoLe BLock Party Friday, January 22nd 4pm - sspm Stop by for a fun filled evening with 4 live music, dancing, food and drinks. We'll see you in Old Town La Quinta • ITWeLv! as we take over Main Street! PERFORMANCES BY; DJ Alf Alpha, Two Band, DJ Galactic Ray, DJ T-Rock, DJ Miguel Sil+vestra, R Buckle Road, Waxy, The Martini Kings & more! Check out the City of La auinta's Facebook page for details or visit: PlayinLaQuinta.com or OldTownLaQuinta,com • V. #VisitLaouinta PlaylnLaQuinta.com 1 Gu'rcrtiw. uut r 4, 1 CAREER 0 Sit Bach Relax & o En9*Y �j Ant LAking for something different? Come and experience La Oui n ta's many restaurants that. offer a little something for everyone. Whether you want to dine a[ fresco or check out the scene at our local taproom. La Ouinta has it alL Not a bad way to spend an evening or weekend surrounded by the beautiful mountain vistas and scenery. Come see what La. QuInta has to offer, I M I 14VQdA U V i P"-,,YInLaGL*nLa awn 4,f4tLaDWnLa ;ueser 'MOIc Saturday, Marti, 19, 9 a.m. at Colonel Mitche11 Paigo � Middle School $10 per child {plus tronwition €He Grob those sneeb-_: s orsd come join us for the 5th� Annual. Mert Youth Olympics. For more informationi-ui t to .0 www.la-quintaJa Registration Begins at 8 a.m. or online at wirrw.tlny.cvVesertYoAui lymp' ' Playlnl al]utnla.eonr _ _ .., urerxr f Match Done? 1 e e r1b I Hurst Sattlydoy, March 26,9 a.m. SHARP at Lo Quinto Park SAGO Eggs. 4 different age groups.. and Free to the public. Bring those baskets and hop an ovpi for family fun! Far more ` information gD to www.to-quinto.org 4�:lilLatitAintfl Continue the Fun! When you're not enjoying world -class Explore the fusion of Japanese and Cal€ Tennis, cxpLore La Ou6nta and aLL the ways. cuisine at Okura Robal Grill and Sus hi-d it ertcrt.ains. Just minutes away from the c . Join us for Happy Hour q:3C -6:3D t❑nnis play the vibrant community Of La Ouinta serves up extraordinary shops ` Enjoy exquisite entrees and sushi hours from 4e- ands '.and restaurants along with scenic hiking Enjoy and biking (rails all surrounded by , Signature Drinks: Geisha Girl & Lychee Martini atlptaking oun i ew ` unparaLteted Japanese cuisine J: i 'r. i i 201— aA Attachment 7: Attachment 8: —" kellygolightly FOLLOW F - , l r La Quinta, California -.r h �M-., ^�� Ir '..'= 1,6053ikes 't,;a A. '✓ 7n �� kellygolightly Pedaling around the dez ' ♦ j� y �y - - on dpedegolq electric bikes exploring the beautiful ticityoflaquintal .. .43, • ��'r #ExperienceLaQuinta dl :4ifredbaby13 4 0, �'.' i •:,•*;, 1, 24id€iketaknow.itwww.liketk.iv2hN48 ••" '''�-' rF #liketkit# lifewelitravelled ,�j/ y( ,. • ``\. view all 31 comments 1 � �'� arynschll[hting :dlindsWlB I thought this W - was you! 4e;'� lisabluesw!mus Love V ' - decolikes Colors welk j - kellygolightly ^susiebeidges Thanks, - Susie! Love me some ;alillypulitzen ) .. - kellygolightly zi real}essnichols Thank _ you so much! The desert light makes . ► _ r shooting photos fun. _ kellygolightly ;gvivianrcbinsdeslgn That 1 - ' L't► made me 1111a1 Thanks' r kellygolightlyQb17615Awthanks! } r r Log in to like or Comment ... �? 764 Attachment 9: UNIVERSITY 765 I)E-S IGR.-A440---DEVEL0PM ENT- DEPARTM+1T -,""--! MARCH 2O16 REPORT' 729 Total Customers Served 289 532 Total Applied Permits Total Issued Permits 59J t and Licenses Total eTRAKiT Permits J Planning Activity A Preliminary Review application was submitted proposing the construction of Desert Surf, located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. The proposed site will include two restaurants and an infinity pool. Administrative Permits Entitlement Permits Includes sign applications, temporary Includes site development permits, use permits, minor use permits, final conditional use permits, subdivision landscaping plans, etc. maps, etc. Building. Year 2016 2015 March 191 220 March 33 0 eTRAKiT Year To Date 580 519 Building. Year 2016 2015 March 160 177 March eTRAKiT 29 0 Year To Date 511 482 Building Activity Certificate of Occupancy's were issued to the following establishments: •F1 Signature at PGA West clubhouse in PGA West, located at the northwest corner of Madison St. and Avenue 58. .F1 ALDI Grocery adjacent to In-N-Out Burger in the La Quinta Square Development, located off of Highway 111 and Simon Drive. a ME DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMENT 767 Development Services Permits The Development Services Division provides engineering assistance with a variety of permits. During the month of March 2016, the following number of permits were issued: Engineering Services The Engineering Services Division provides engineering design and construction oversight on a variety of infrastructure projects that help keep La Quinta safe and beautiful. Highlighted below are some activities for March 2016: ♦ I Eisenhower Drive Pavement Stabilization 0— Bids due April 14 ♦ Miles Ave Median Landscape Improvements Oi Under design pending Council approval April 19 ♦ ❑La Quinta Park Restroom ♦ Madison Street Median Landscape Conversion ♦ Turf Conversion Projects: 0❑ Fritz Burns Park 0❑ Civic Center 0❑ Fire Station 70 ♦ Miscellaneous ADA Parks Improvements ♦ :Jefferson Roundabout Art Piece Pedestal ♦ Library Parking Lot ♦ 36 requests for service were completed (in GORequest) resulting in various maintenance work and equipment check/repair: 0❑ Communications equipment 0❑ Left turn lights at various intersections 0❑ Signal timing issues 0❑ Traffic street name signs 0❑ Advanced warning beacon system 0❑ Condition of lights a DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMENT 768 769 DEPARTMENT REPORT ITEM NO. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Howlett, Facilities Director DATE: April 16, 2016 SUBJECT: FACILITIES DEPARTMENT REPORT - March 2016 1. For the month of March, the total for all maintenance expenditures recorded in GORequest was $77,746 with street sweeping; debris removal/right-of-way maintenance; graffiti removal; irrigation/weeds/shrub/tree trimming; storm drain repair and maintenance being among the highest tasks in terms of cost. Public Works maintenance workers recorded nearly 1,378 task hours associated with this work. A detailed breakdown of tasks and associated costs is presented in the pie chart as Attachment 1. 2. Residents continue to submit customer satisfaction surveys through the GORequest system. The department received nine surveys in the month of March, with residents commenting on how staff handled reported issues. Employees were rated on their response time, effectiveness, and courtesy. A summary of responses is provided below and detailed surveys are provided as Attachment 2: 89 percent of respondents rated Response Times as "Superior" or "Good" 89 percent of respondents indicated their expectations were "Exceeded" or "Met" 78 percent of respondents rated Employee Effectiveness as "Superior" or "Good" 44 percent of respondents rated Employee Courtesy as "Superior" or "Met". Surveys also include positive feedback from residents such as: "I appreciate receiving the response and the problem seems to have been taken care of". "Very impressed with the speed in resolving the nasty pothole. Had no interaction with any employees but the issues is resolve - pothole is gone. YAY and Thank You for a super fast fix!!". Attachments: 1. Maintenance Expenditures by Task for March. 2. Customer Satisfaction Survey Details for March. 770 771 ATTACHMENT 1 Maintenance Expenditures by task for March 2016 Vehicle/Equipment Vandalism Repairs $1,490.96 Maint/Services $3,296.91 Traffic Controls $504.12 , Street Sweeping $12,070.90 Street Sign Repair/Maint $4,104.71 Storm Drain Repair and Maint $6,531.54 Total Maintenance Expendatures: $77,746 ■ Administration $3,335.60 ■ Flood Control $333.18 Removal/Right of . Maint $9,359.06 Graffiti $8,926.00 4 Gutter/Median Sand Removal $1,459.07 Inspection $5,525.15 Special Events $382.57 Irrigation/ Weeds/Shrub/Tree 1 Trimming $7,991.63 Sidewalk Repair/Concr to C&G $1,072.36 Pothole or Street Repair Maint Yard /Building Maint $1,968.84 in Pavement $2,885.57 Marking/Legends/Striping Parks Inspection Maintenance $4,623.20 $1,736.13 ■ Fred Wolff Sidewalk/Bike Path Cleaning $148.17 ■ Administration ■ Debris/Litter Removal/Right of Way Maint ■ Flood Control ■ Fred Wolff Sidewalk/Bike Path Cleaning ■ Graffiti ■ Gutter/Median Sand Removal ■ Inspection ■ Irrigation/ Weeds/Shrub/Tree Trimming Maint Yard /Building Maint ■ Parks Inspection Maintenance • Pavement Marking/Legends/Striping Pothole or Street Repair Sidewalk Repair/Concrete C&G Special Events Storm Drain Repair and Maint 772 773 ATTACHMENT 2 Customer Satisfaction Survey Details 03/01/2016 to 03/31/2016 Request: 18314 Employee: Steve Howlett Survey Entered: 03-07-2016 Request Entered: 02/05/2016 Closed: 02/29/2016 Days Open: 24 Topic: Park Maintenance Customer: Jim A contractor does the maintenance across from 51180 avenida carranza and when they blow the dirt (yes they blow Description: the dirt) as they are blowing the side walk the dust is amazing The dust comes in any house with windows open and covers all the cars out in the open Why do they have to blow the dirt It is really dusty why can't they rake (l know why but I don't care I and all the houses on carranza absorb this dust Attached is a pic but I am not sure it tells the whole story Reason Closed: City staff spoke to contracted landscapers about this issue. Landscapers agreed to be more attentive and respectful of people and houses while blowing. Employee Effectiveness: Superior Response Times: Good Employee Courtesy: N/A Expectations Met: Met Request: 18563 Survey Entered: 03-02-2016 Request Entered: 02/23/2016 Closed: 02/24/2016 Days Open: 1 Topic: Storm Drain Repair and Maint - 1023 Customer: Bill Bresnahan Employee: James Lindsey Description: Catch basin on Avenue 50 just west of Washington (at Montero Estates) is full of sand and debris and backs up at Montero Estates. crew removed all the mud they could from inside the outlet onto ove.50, we tried to call the rp (564- 1344 )but the number is no longer active. Reason Closed: completed.: crew removed all the mud they could from inside the outlet onto ave.50, we tried to call the rp (564-1344 )but the number is no longer active. Employee Effectiveness: Good Response Times: Superior Employee Courtesy: Superior Expectations Met: Below Comments: The system is not set up for what is needed during heavy rain. It dumps water from the street side back into Montero Estates and could be a Flooding problem. 774 Request: 18614 Survey Entered: 03-07-2016 Request Entered: 02/26/2016 Closed: 02/29/2016 Days Open: 3 Topic: Graffiti in Parks - 1030 Customer: Lauren Youngs Photo submitted removed graffiti NOSE. completed. Employee: James Lindsey Description: Reason Closed: Employee Effectiveness: Superior Response Times: Superior Employee Courtesy: Superior Expectations Met: Met Request: 18615 Survey Entered: 03-07-2016 Request Entered: 02/26/2016 Closed: 02/29/2016 Days Open: 3 Topic: Graffiti in Parks - 1030 Employee: James Lindsey Customer: Caryl Cummings Photo submitted removed lots of graffiti from NOSE, he is graffiti everywhere. completed Description: Reason Closed: Employee Effectiveness: N/A Response Times: Superior Employee Courtesy: N/A Expectations Met: Met Request: 18627 Survey Entered: 03-07-2016 Request Entered: 02/26/2016 Closed: 02/29/2016 Days Open: 3 Topic: Irrigation/ Weeds/Shrub/Tree Trimming -1040 Employee: James Lindsey Customer: Deb Description: Dead tree and debris need to be cleaned off of vacant lot at Calle Sonora and Avenida Carranza. Reason Closed: This request is being handle by Code Compliance. Code has posted an abatement notice at the site dated 2/10/16. The owner has 30 days to respond. Employee Effectiveness: Good Response Times: Good Employee Courtesy: Good Expectations Met: Met Comments: I appreciate receiving response and the problem seems to have been taken care of Expectations Met: Exceeded 775 Request: 18950 Survey Entered: 03-28-2016 Request Entered: 03/18/2016 Closed: 03/21/2016 Days Open: 3 Topic: Debris/Litter Removal/Right of Way Maint -1011 Employee: James Lindsey Customer: Marc Berger Request to move Trash Can & doggie bag post maybe 300-400 ft WEST in front of vacant lot ON NEXT BLOCK or at end Description: of Alvarado. I'm willing to Help pay cost. Too many flies, etc. etc. at our house. There must be a better spot. We are full time residents PLEASE HELP! removed trash con,dog bag box and installed west at nearest post. Reason Closed: completed.: moved Trash Can & doggie bag post maybe 300-400 ft WEST in front of vacant lot ON NEXT BLOCK or at end of Alvarado Employee Effectiveness: Superior Response Times: Superior Employee Courtesy: Superior Expectations Met: Met Request: 18951 Survey Entered: 03-28-2016 Request Entered: 03/18/2016 Closed: 03/21/2016 Days Open: 3 Topic: Irrigation/ Weeds/Shrub/Tree Trimming - 1040 Customer: Steve Klempa Broken sprinkler head. Employee: James Lindsey Description: Reason Closed: Work done.: installed new irrigation sprinkler Employee Effectiveness: Superior Response Times: No answer Employee Courtesy: No answer Expectations Met: Met Request: 18962 Survey Entered: 03-31-2016 Request Entered: 03/20/2016 Closed: 03/24/2016 Days Open: 4 Topic: Irrigation/ Weeds/Shrub/Tree Trimming - 1040 Employee: James Lindsey Customer: Constant water leak at curb washing dirt into gutter at 46415 Roudel Lane, La Quinta. Description: Reason Closed: I notified the resent of the leak. The resident did fix sprinkler that was leaking work done Employee Effectiveness: N/A Response Times: Superior Employee Courtesy: N/A Expectations Met: Met 776 Request: 18963 Survey Entered: 03-30-2016 Request Entered: 03/20/2016 Closed: 03/23/2016 Days Open: 3 Topic: Pothole or Street Repair -1001 Customer: Sally Youell Serious pothole on 48th when turning from Adams towards Eisenhower. Work done: filled potholes on Ave 48 at Adams Employee: James Lindsey Description: Reason Closed: Employee Effectiveness: Good Response Times: Superior Employee Courtesy: N/A Expectations Met: Exceeded Comments: Very impressed with the speed in resolving the nasty pothole. Had no interaction with any employees but the issue is resolved - pothole is gone. YAY and Thank You for a super fast fix!! 777 LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 2016 1st Quarter Report LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 778 INSIDETHISISSUE 1. Personnel Assignments 2. Response Reports 3. Truck Report 4. Significant Events 5. Training and Community Activity 6. Explorer Post LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 779 ADMINISTRATION 44-555 ADAMS STREET LA QUINTA, CA 92253 (760) 345-6932 1. Battalion Chief — David LaClair STATION 93 (NORTH LA QUINTA) 44-555 ADAMS STREET LA QUINTA, CA 92253 (760) 564-4351 Engine Company 93 1. Fire Captain — Eric Cisney 2. Fire Apparatus Engineer /Paramedic — Nicholas Groff 3. Fire Apparatus Engineer — Dustin Reed 4. Firefighter II/Paramedic — Mark Birchard 5. Firefighter II/Paramedic — Brian Steiger 6. Firefighter II — Noe Lerma 7. Firefighter II — Michael Prall STATION 32 (LA QUINTA) 78-111 AVENUE 52 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 (760) 564-4351 Engine Company 32 1. Fire Captain — Anthony Khatami 2. Fire Apparatus Engineer — Jason Lewandowski 3. Firefighter II/Paramedic — John Barton 4. Firefighter II/Paramedic — Albert Causey 5. Firefighter II/Paramedic — Michaee Bowman 6. Firefighter II — Seth Shively 7. Firefighter II — Sean Tauscher LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 780 STATION 70 (PGA WEST) 54001 MADISON STREET LA QUINTA, CA 92253 (760) 564-2122 Engine Company 70 1. Fire Captain — Gil Barrier 2. Fire Apparatus Engineer — Lawrence Johnson 3. Fire Apparatus Engineer/Paramedic — Tim Day 4. Firefighter II/Paramedic — Brandon Avner 5. Firefighter II/Paramedic — Corbin Reinhart 6. Firefighter II — Frank Nguyen 7. Firefighter II — Steven Stock TRUCK H6 46-990 JACKSON ST. INDIO, CA 92201 (760) 347-0726 Truck Company 86 1. Fire Captain — Brent Norwine 2. Fire Captain — Dave Hudson 3. Fire Captain — Darrel Anderson 4. Fire Apparatus Engineer — Brent Wright 5. Fire Apparatus Engineer — Greg Roberts 6. Fire Apparatus Engineer — Noah Dimuccio 7. Firefighter II — Chris Meneses 8. Firefighter II — Travis Ames 9. Firefighter II — Matt Adams 10. Firefighter II-P — Mark Margolin 11. Firefighter II-P —Sean McChesney 12. Firefighter II-P — Kyle Wilmore First QUARTER RESPONSE REPORT LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 781 January -March 2016 Response Activity ■ DY9 Fire 1 �1136 FaMAW'n 116 11.5% ■ -1 R+3 7 a 7% ■ K11-j al 699 G3% ■IrA-Fail DWaJlrg Fire 2 9.2% Ot,*r=Ire 6 0.6% ■�: er Fl �c 1 0.1% e�la SeMx,4sss5E 9s 92% ■ �ffi Fire 7 0.7% ■ te&.r 1 0.1% ■ $:£I(kYj 1i 1A% T Fell Co IIV5 0 6a 59% Hulk Rre 2 02% To13I, ON 100A% Incidents Reported for Date between 10/1/2015 and 12/31/2015 and La Quinta City Com Fire 1 False Alarm 85 Haz Mat 1 Medical 752 Multi-Fam Dwelling Fire 2 Other Fire 5 Other Misc 6 Public Service Assist 57 Res Fire 7 Rescue 3 Standby 14 Traffic Collision 52 Vehicle Fire 2 Wildland Fire 2 Ringing Alarm 1 Incident Total: 990 TRUCK REPORT Truck 86 recorded 22 responses into the City of La Quinta during the first quarter. LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 782 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The City of La Quinta has a new Fire Chief, David LaClair. David has been with the fire department for over 25 years and is a sworn Police Officer. His last assignment, for the past 9 years was to the Law Enforcement Prevention Bureau, where he was a trained arson investigator. Administrative Reports TRAINING & COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES The La Quinta firefighters participated in training for the quarter, covering new techniques for structure fires and beginning to prep for wildland fire season. All firefighters in La Quinta are now being trained and outfitted with the proper safety gear for tactical shooter response, to assist Law Enforcement with providing medical care for injured civilians in a timely manner. LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 783 March 28, 2016 The La Quinta Fire Explorer Post has been busy for the last three months prepping for the Mini Muster competition in Murrieta, to be held on April 24th. The Post has been working hard to bring home a trophy for the city of La Quinta. It is with a sad heart to report Fire Explorer Cory Rosenthal passed away after a long battle with cancer. Post leader, Firefighter Noe Lerma from station 93, participated at the Seattle Firefighter stair climb, representing Cory for the climb, conquer, and cure for Leukemia and Lymphoma. I Ir _ N W ff- I r LA QUINTA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 784 785 OxA`■/■ff ■ IF Nor 0 *91FF ApW Ro January - March 2016 This quarterly police report was prepared by the La Quinta Police for the Honorable Mayor, City Council and the Citizens of La Quinta. The report contains crime statistics and average response times along with La Quinta Special Teams summaries of activity for the quarter. WTI Honorable Mayor Council Members Citizens City of La Quinta Police Department I'm pleased to announce continued growth in our Citizens on Patrol and office volunteers this quarter. The police reception area within City Hall continues to take shape and is currently staffed with the help and support of our office volunteer program. I envision the completed reception area within the next quarter to be a welcoming atmosphere for our citizens to gain answers and quality service for their concerns. A wall inside the lobby is dedicated to providing a wealth of crime prevention tips, pamphlets, and displays to boost the idea that crime prevention is a collective effort. I'm excited to share a recent partnership with Palm Springs Police which offers our Citizens on Patrol volunteers access to a thirteen -week Citizens on Patrol Academy held at the Palm Springs Police Training Center. The intensive course spans a wide variety of topics and is geared toward the efficient and productive use of our police volunteers. We currently have seven volunteers attending the academy at no cost. The overwhelming support our police officers have received from each of the gated communities while implementing the requirements of the "Emergency Access to Gated Communities by Police" ordinance 531 shows a strong investment in maintaining a safe and vibrant lifestyle within our city. Currently, the ability of our police officers to access the motorized gates by using an individually assigned key during their emergency response to gated developments is rapidly becoming a reality. With every development making the necessary modification to their gates, we predict critical time will be saved as our officers quickly gain access to render protection or life-saving help. On behalf of the women and men of La Quinta Police, we extend our appreciation to these homeowner groups and associations for their great effort. In closing, this quarterly report indicates our response times to service calls has diminished slightly. This aspect of our job is one that I monitor closely to help determine our effectiveness in managing the needs of our community. The faster response times are encouraging and I will continue to monitor this issue going forward. Sincerely, David Walton. Assistant Police Chief 787 CD p-� m �� anrn r cD C�ce cc; Ln r- r� w LD LID w �T flo LSD QD r- cn L6 cl Lyj m lzr_ - N — CD N �;' Lp (D (14 r Lo cn CD 04 rn tl T Q0 0) CD m 4n -1 w co co " N (*J LC) L.L) m rti (D r- -zt LO CO M cn ri Ll J Lo r6 CV !mod ' rQ;) N LC) r-- N o0 t r 47 LD r LS) W r- - Liz CD C7 ®C i Lo CD ro m``a CD—t ry � ry r Qa — QP GD Ls, rl- N LQ M L.0 r rz fi'3 Lfl 'I CT IN co L`V °�° CD r-CD � OD M LPL 06 Ln L1 i N ry c4'1 C,j c? T1 T Cal W C+'S I� C,4 C6 (`*J `" CD LI) IN r-. M CV C'*1 Lm Ln Lf} to Lfj �t (N = T m N L N LO 'mot r-- r, T LO C'* LO CV C6 M. CA N CY) r- {D Li i to c;p M f W N W -zr r- r Li i W r Z i 3 cf Liz N Q LO CN 04 CN ��e {?s6. Lf) {1 � CO C%j CO Lra M CD L r) Ln r- LO rdl$ xMv I �. y m In Ln [ co LO Ci Li] LO N to cn. N r r M o '-t m cz) ai e r n d7 OC] C! N C_7D -Zr M—;T CI Op G7 V� LC] N 4) a? LC'a L6 N rz C`el rl) 0 $f QS q} co u� ur rr, rn C C C C O rj 0 0 G}5 0 Q 15 r� P; � U7 }�_ CL 0 L U� 0,f)h L 0 91 6 � .'l' LL rJ.l �-ay�) ,� C. U) pPQrR?1 4J: ,,..-ay/) ppIVp5 C. cf) r�'gJ!.44? V3 tl) U) Q) — L (1) L Q7 { 4+i 0 � 0 � W � ch w = 0 a) n} < < < •;fi LQ C6 Q Ir- CN >1 _ CL. CL. LPL L.L CL LL tm c� 788 CRIME— Jan AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS 2016 4 2015 3 BURGLARY 15 15 BURGLARY -VEHICLE 13 16 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 6 16 HOMICIDE 0 1 NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS 18 10 ROBBERY 2 2 ROBBERY CAR -JACKING 0 1 SEX CRIME FELONY 1 1 SEX CRIME MISD 2 1 SIMPLE ASSAULTS 6 10 THEFT 49 75 VEHICLE THEFT 1 7 CRIME— March AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS 2016 1 2015 2 BURGLARY 8 18 BURGLARY -VEHICLE 4 17 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 5 20 HOMICIDE 0 0 NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS 1 14 ROBBERY 0 3 ROBBERY CAR -JACKING 0 0 SEX CRIME FELONY 1 1 SEX CRIME MISD 2 1 SIMPLE ASSAULTS 1 10 THEFT VEHICLE THEFT 39 73 2 8 CRIME— Feb 2016 2015 AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS 1 6 BURGLARY 16 9 BURGLARY -VEHICLE 18 4 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE 9 21 0 0 NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS 8 10 ROBBERY 2 2 ROBBERY CAR -JACKING 0 1 SEX CRIME FELONY 2 1 SEX CRIME MISD 2 3 SIMPLE ASSAULTS 5 6 THEFT 48 77 VEHICLE THEFT 4 7 AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BURGLARY I 6 11 39 42 BURGLARY -VEHICLE 35 37 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 20 57 HOMICIDE 0 1 NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS 27 34 ROBBERY 4 7 ROBBERY CAR -JACKING 0 2 SEX CRIME FELONY 4 3 SEX CRIME MISD 6 5 SIMPLE ASSAULTS 12 26 THEFT 136 225 VEHICLE THEFT 7 22 789 Quarterly Statistics for Jan -March Type of Activity Vehicle Stops Number of Incidents 53 Pedestrian Checks 64 Citations 8 Search Warrants 9 Probation /Parole Search 8 Arrest - Felony 9 Arrest - Misdemeanor 8 Property Value Recovered $5,200.00 790 Significant Activity for January, February & March 2016 On January 12, 2016, La Quinta SET Officers arrested a suspect in front of his residence, in the 51500 block Ave. Herrera for three misdemeanor domestic violence warrants. During the contact, officers found a stolen motorcycle in the driveway, with false plates. The suspect was arrest for Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. On January 14, 2016, La Quinta SET Officers conducted a follow up to a residential burglary, originally reported 06-28-15. The suspect was identified during a search warrant on 2nd Street in Coachella, the suspect was arrested. Officers arrested a second subject at the location for a felony assault warrant. During the week of January 18, 2016, La Quinta SET and BDU Officers worked security at the Career Builder Golf Challenge at PGA West. During the week of January 20, 2016, La Quinta SET Officers conducted follow up on three fraud cases, and submitted them for filing on three different suspects. All three cases involved the service of search warrants for bank records. During the month of February, 2016, La Quinta SET and BDU Officers conducted training with SWAT regarding building searches, door breaching, and live firearms training. From February 14 — 16, 2016, La Quinta SET and BDU deployed for Mobile Field Force at Palm Desert Station for the President of the United States / ASEAN Summit event. On February 25, 2016, La Quinta SET Officers participated in the service of multiple search warrants and probation / parole searches related to the Coachella Gang Injunction service. 791 Quarterly Statistics for January -March Type of Activity Programs Number of Incidents 1 Vehicle Stops/Pedestrian Checks 49/58 Investigative Follow-up 7 Citations 7 Search Warrants 1 Business Checks/Meetings 150 Arrest Warrant Served 5 Arrest - Felony 7 Arrest - Misdemeanor 12 Property Value Recovered $1500.00 792 Significant Activity for January, February & March 2016 Between the months of January and March, La Quinta BDU assisted the La Quinta Special Enforcement Team on several search warrants related to the city of La Quinta investigations. Between the months of January and March, La Quinta BDU, in collaboration with California Alcohol Beverage Control, conducted four Impact Inspections. Under the Impact Inspection program, uniformed deputies, along with ABC Agents, enter liquor stores throughout the valley and inspect them for any ABC violations. In the month of January, BDU members conducted a follow up investigation on a strong arm robbery that occurred at Kohl's in La Quinta. BDU members identified the suspects from video surveillance and weeks later located them at Best Buy. BDU members interviewed the suspects and obtained full confessions to the robbery. At the time of the arrest, one of the suspects was still wearing clothing that he had stolen during the initial robbery. The suspects was then booked at Indio Jail for Robbery and Conspiracy charges. In the month of March, BDU members assisted with the service of numerous warrants during the Coachella Gang Injunction. The above mentioned incidents are just a sample of the quarterly activity conducted by the La Quinta Business District Unit. Officers from BDU have conducted several investigations related to the La Quinta Highway 111 Business Corridor which have resulted in numerous arrests for thefts and frauds. La Quinta BDU will continue their pro -active and community oriented policing efforts throughout the city which will result in increased awareness and education within the business community in order to improve the quality of life for the business owners, shoppers, and residents of La Quinta. 793 of Activity Total Collisions NumberType Incidents 95 DUI Collisions 4 DU I Arrests 13 Seatbelt Citations 32 Total Hazard Citations 774 Total Injury Collisions 35 DUI Collisions with Injury 2 Citations Issued 1112 Excessive Speed Citations 427 Total Non -Hazard Citations 338 2016 brought in a new year and new opportunities to educate citizens to the dangers of driving distracted and the importance of wearing your safety belt. Extra efforts were made to enforce these traffic safety laws so as to help protect the citizens of La Quinta as well as those who choose to travel through the City. In March, the Traffic Services Team conducted a DUI / Driver License Checkpoint on Washington St., south of Avenue 47, to help educate citizens on the dangers of drinking and driving as well as to deter those who would consider to drink and drive. Approximately 1700 vehicles were screened through the checkpoint while information regarding designated drivers and safety programs were distributed to each. Those who choose to drink and drive are a long standing concern for the Traffic Enforcement Team in La Quinta. With the safety of the public in mind, constant effort is being made, through directed traffic enforcement as well as DUI saturation patrols, to keep roadways safe. The Traffic Enforcement Team would like to encourage all citizens to remain vigilant and to`►! contact the La Quinta Police Department regarding any driver they observe who might be under the influence or any other situation they feel would make the roadways unsafe. J M -a 794 Child Seat Safety Inspections 5 Neighborhood Watch Meetings 2 Crime Free Multi -Housing 4 Community Events 9 Business Meetings 1 CPTED Reviews 4 In January CSO Munoz worked the Career Builder Golf Tournament. In January CSO Munoz attended a La Quinta Internal Security meeting. In January CSO Munoz conducted a CPTED inspection at Villa Cortina In January CSO Munoz participated in Coffee with a Cop. In January CSO Munoz attended a meeting with Volunteer Connect meeting. In February CSO Munoz conducted a CPTED inspections at Cordoniz, Camino Vista, and Cherry Road. In February CSO Munoz conducted 2 child car sear inspections. In February CSO Munoz attended a neighborhood watch meeting. In February CSO Munoz worked at a crime prevention table at Farmer's Market. In February CSO Munoz did presentation on home safety at La Quinta Museum. In February CSO Munoz participated at Coffee with a Cop. In March CSO Munoz attended a communication class. In March CSO Munoz worked at a crime prevention table at Farmer's Market. In March CSO Munoz participated in the Day Of The Young Child event. In March CSO Munoz attended a meeting at Andalusia. 795 In January, CSO Herrera prepared the quarterly report which includes calls for service, average response time and year to date crime comparison. In January, CSO Herrera prepared the Gem article in regards to Nextdoor.com. In January, CSO Herrera attended a Neighborhood Watch meeting in the La Quinta Cove. In January, CSO Herrera provided quarterly training for the Citizens on Patrol members. In January, CSO Herrera coordinated Coffee with a Cop at Old Town Coffee. In February, CSO Herrera met with citizens about Crime Prevention at The La Quinta Historical Museum. In February, CSO Herrera conducted training for COP members. In March, CSO Herrera coordinated Coffee with a Cop at Starbucks on Hwy 111. In March, CSO Herrera recruited two new Citizen on Patrol volunteers. In March, CSO Herrera attended a meeting at Andalusia. In March, CSO Herrera attended a communication class. La Quinta High School In January, SRO Contreras went to a call for service at the La Quinta Park regarding juveniles out during school hours. SRO Contreras gave them truant citations and one of them was in possession of drugs. The juvenile was cited and released to his parent. In January, SRO Contreras received a report there might be a shooting during an assembly at La Quinta High School. SRO Contreras initiated the Riverside County Kids with Guns Protocol and spoke to several students and completed a home visit. It was determined no credible treats were made. Extra security was provided during the assembly with no suspicious activity occurring at the assembly. In January, SRO Contreras received a report of a student possibly in possession of a smoking device. SRO Contreras determined the student was in possession of hydrocodone pills without a prescription. The juvenile was arrested and transported to Juvenile Hall for possession of pills without a prescription. In February, SRO Contreras investigated a report of a robbery that occurred after school at the La Quinta Park. The investigation revealed three males took a cell phone from a student after brandishing a bat. The suspects were later located that day and arrested for the robbery. They were transported to the County Jail in Indio and Juvenile Hall. In March, SRO Contreras investigated a report of a student researching mass shootings and school killings while on campus. SRO Contreras initiated the Riverside County Kids with Guns Protocol and determined the student had no access to weapons and was not a threat to the campus. In March, SRO Contreras investigated a report of a gun on campus. SRO Contreras initiated the Riverside County Kids with Guns Protocol and determined the gun had been brought to school on multiple days. SRO Contreras determined the gun was a CO2 BBGun. SRO Contreras completed two home visits and collected the BB gun as evidence. Charges of BB Gun on campus were filed out of custody on two students. The students were suspended from school and are in the middle of the expulsion process. In March, SRO Contreras witnessed a battery that occurred at the La Quinta Park where the suspect ran from the location. SRO Contreras later followed up on the case and identified the student suspect. SRO Contreras arrested the student and transported him to Juvenile Hall for battery. 797 Summit High School & Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle School In January, Officer Hernandez did two 5150 evaluation and had the subjects admitted on a 5150 WIC hold and wrote several reports related to activity at Summit High and Col. Paige. 798 La Quinta Middle School, Harry Truman, Ben Franklin & John Adams Elementary In January, SRO Klicka Investigated an incident where a student brought a knife to school. Deputy Klicka and Deputy Contreras initiated a "Kids With Gun's Protocol" and checked the home of the student. In February SRO Klicka was contacted by the Counselor at Harry S. Truman Elementary in regards to a student who wanted to kill herself. SRO Klicka Transported the student to the Riverside County Mental Health Facility. In February and March, SRO Klicka assisted with enforcement in the Park Program and has been spending time at the La Quinta Parks to deter illegal activity. SRO Klicka has issued five citations for various municipal code violations. 799 Community Service Officers - Patrol Ty ,•o Burglary Reports ,•Incidents 28 Grand/Petty Theft Reports 25 Vandalism/ Malicious Mischief Reports 8 Traffic Collision Response/Reports 68 Vehicle Code or Parking Citations 196 Abandoned Vehicle Tagged/Warning 46 Towed Vehicles 21 Lost or Found Property Reports 18 Custodial/Non-custodial Transports 90 Miscellaneous Calls 163 :�� - Wk Type of Crime Free Multi -Housing of • i 269 Business Checks 647 Community Events 8 Neighborhood Patrol 308 Traffic Collision Response 16 Extra Patrol 111 Total Patrol Hours 1482 Office Volunteer Hours 818 CPO Monthly Visits 83 During the months of January through March, six members of the COP have volunteered their time to receive additional hands-on training at Palm Springs Citizens' Police Academy. The Academy runs for 13 consecutive weeks which covers Patrol Procedures, Traffic Investigation, Community Policing, K-9, SWAT, Crime Scene Investigation, Narcotics, Internal Affairs and other interesting topics. We feel our COP will learn valuable information they can use while being the "eyes and ears" of their community. COP assisted with traffic control, a DUI checkpoint, traffic motorcycle transportation, Day of the Kids at the La Quinta Civic Park and a recruiting booth at the Farmers Market. Our office volunteers conducted a variety of clerical functions, as well as data entry of citations, traffic collisions, arrest reports, parking citations and pawn slips. They also assisted 83 walk-ins during the quarter. 1 MCP Captain, Andrew Shouse 760 863-8990 Assistant Chief of Police, Lt. David Walton 760 863-8227 Administrative Sergeant, Chris Frederick 760 863-8399 Special Enforcement Team Sergeant, Ben Ramirez 760 863-8398 Crime Prevention Unit 760 863-8990 "Gem of the Desert" E 803 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Community Services Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Engel. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Blakeley, Chiapperini, Engel, Johnson, Simonds. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Blakeley led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed as submitted. PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION - REORGANIZATION UPDATE Presented by Director Escobedo. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2016 Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Johnson/Blakeley to approve the February 8, 2016 Community Services Commission Minutes as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1. LA QUINTA PARK SAFETY UPDATE Presented by Manager Mendez. 2. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016 Presented by Supervisor Calderon. REPORTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS 1. REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS REGARDING MEETINGS ATTENDED 2. CALENDAR OF MONTHLY EVENTS 804 COMMISSIONER ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Blakeley/Johnson to adjourn the meeting at 6:11 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, LISA CHAUDHRY, Executive Office Assistant City of La Quinta, California .1R, CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-49-5 CALLS TAMPICO LA QUINTA.11 Cat 922-5.3 - (760) 777-7000 wwvv.Playln,LaQjlnta.co.m, tl r, ',tow dl 'Al g" Good Neighbor Brochure ,H' for -V a cO op, Renters ti V., HAND OUTS �I-Iq-I�n he't of la ,Qulnta asks ar your1611 cooperation:`- '*5 dhlt are,advised that all .Ills weal be trlctP - nforced. y. E r $ CY ., allure°to nth comply irnay result a cf atl+on fines, and/or Kpulsionirorn the rented ropertY• Intl have the right ort tgrm vacation IPe` , report1 o` _ e 1e rules I �h�S �i�roc`hure. —7 d -- GEM fnm DESERT -- - MBER OF OCCUPANTS PERIVIITTED'I'N LA_QUINTA VACATfON RENTAL PROPERTIES NUMBER OF TOTAL OVERNIGHT TOTAL **DAYTIME OCCUPANTS BEDROOMS OCCUPANTS (INCLUDING OVERNIGHT OCCUPANTS) 0-STUDIO 2 8 ; I ! 1 4 8 i 2 6 8 I a i O 1G 4 10 16 5 12 18 6 14 20 7 14 20 �l y *OVERNIGHT (10:019 *DAYTIME (7:00 AM-10:00PM) NOISE: Please keep any music to an appropriate level. Remember you are renting in a residential neighborhood. The surrounding neighbors have access to a 24/7 hotline ((760)833-9050) that they may call to file a complaint. The homeowner or an ap- pointed agent will be expected to respond to any complaint within 45 minutes or the La Quinta Police Department will be called. TRASH: Rental properties should be kept clean with no visible trash. Please keep all trash containers out of street view. PARKING: Onsite parking is limited to approved carports, garages, and driveways. Renter's vehicles should not block a neighbor's driveway. Additional vehicles should be parked directly in front of the rental property. Keep in mind you are renting in a neighborhood. Ge qt IF�}1 �' u�o�/��e- I sialuall AUJ A'14 ajn4:)OJEl joq4giaN pooh 0 ,kM Okv 0001--/-u-, (09L,) ES,Z',Z6 VJ "VIUM, b, �n 031dilY.Ml 311V'J, S-1617-8L. V1UMD, vi:to llll ,jWftt kA+v k" kjAAA& J �/l 1�26 1� d4A/� #Wtt Date: 4/19/16 Attention: L.Q. CITY COUNCIL Reference: Chandi Commercial Rezone & Chandi Project at Washington & 501h Corner As introduction, I am a 10-year resident of Painted Cove in La Quinta and I hold a degree in Architectural Design. I was attracted by smart City Planning that clustered on Hwy 11 lmost high traffic retail, auto, restaurants, services & grocers. This approach is not only efficient for shoppers but substantially reduces air pollution as well as limiting noise and glare to a commercial core. La Quinta also wisely expanded upon historical architecture in the Cove and at La Quinta Resort. Carmel and Santa Barbara have rigidly enforced historical architecture to prosper as a top tourism destination. This in the tradition of beloved, quaint euro cities that have proven tourism cache for over a century. Importantly, the stunning natural beauty of our cove area is not lost on the aesthetes that attend the nationally ranked La Quinta Art Festival. It would be an error to degrade that experience and risk losing visually astute buyers of art. Unfortunately, the architecturally bankrupt Chandi project proposed at the Washington/50th Street Corner is the Gateway to both Old Town La Quinta and La Quinta Resort. This aesthetic will utterly destroy current approach ambiance. La Quinta median plantings, the Rancho La Quinta Lemon Tree promenade and Residential street plantings all conspire to seduce residents and visitors alike. All that has been done thus far will hit a discordant note at 50th & Washington if this project is approved. La Quinta's Gem of the Desert is this area's mountain backdrop corner of the City. Indian Wells seeks to challenge with recent luxe upgrades to their boulevard. Would Indian Wells ever accept this project ? I urge you to preserve this area's special ambiance of premier tourism & golf destination by rejecting a project that is more�ted to the Hwy 111 district. Thank You for Your C Nance McKendrick Jection of this project. , 444ut w;b pj�,� &-ttlut 0 Oqlp,01� 6qvx� huLt� • � �a t Ch romiu150 ' a erTreatment Facmilitmies Projmect PGA WEST Town Hall Meeting Coachella Valley Water District April 12, 2016 1 Agenda i J � n. ro _ uc ons, • Objectives • Chromium 6 (Cr6) Project Overview • WBA Treatment Facility Components • Architectural Renderings • Project Schedule • Questions t ILA Objectives Ct�`�. • fi> a u /F��yI 9 ■ } f■ l � .:%i ! h�„i1 ■S Yf.:,L ��Nt,.21 d �J�MC�M��M�..:n e � ■ • The project will benefit hye` Coarchella valley by treating groundwater to meet the new State of California mandated chromium-6 drinking water regulation that became effective July 1, 2014 • Provide information and establish a dialogue with PGA WEST • Solicit community input on the building architecture and landscaping • Coordinate construction activities to meet the State of California mandated compliance schedule Public utr eac � Nf ee ,cvvvdsor /cry for inf®rmation on legislation, background, and related documents • Desert Sun articles • Notice of Preparation July 10 to August 8, 2015 • Meeting with City of La Quinta January 2016 • Meetings with PGA WEST.beginning in late January 2016 • Future meetings I California's Path to Regulate Cr6 >20 PaIL 10 - 20 Ijg1L 5 -0 P9fL pqj1L L Widespread Natural Occurrence -`NRDC THE EARTHS BEST DEFENSE V. CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC Cr6 Occurrence in CV'W® Wells Cr6 MCL of 10 parts per billion (ppb) effective July 1, 2014 • Existing well levels from <1 to 21 ppb • 31 wells expected to have Cr6 levels above 10 ppb •r 25 wells expected to have Cr6 levels between 8-10 ppb L "T Sni irruo of -qi innlvu _Qfi irlu • Evaluation of treatment and non -treatment alternatives • Assessment of treatment technologies — Weak -base Anion Exchange (WBA) — Strong -Base Anion Exchange (SBA) — Reduction-Coagulation-Filtration (RCF) — Reverse Osmosis (RO) Selection of Ion Exchange Treatment • Proven effective treatment method • Flexibility in accommodating future water quality regulations .4 • Efficient residuals management • Cost effective Weak -Base Anion Exchange (WBA) Raw Water Carbon dioxide for pH reduction AT YYf 4 vessels Caustic Treated Water Raw Water Strong -Base Anion Exchange (SBA) Bag Filters Reaerieratlon' s' . Resin Vessels Treated Water OFF -SITE REGENERATION Brine Waste Tanks Brine Tanks {; TREATMENT OF SPENT " - BRINE:AND'DISPOSAL OF :BRINE:AND SOLIDS r:, 5 Finish Date Complete CEQA Certification/Design Substantially Complete Jun 30, 2016 Start Construction Jul 31, 2016 Complete Construction - ID8 Dec 31, 2018 Complete Construction - Cove Jun 30, 2019 Begin Operations Oct 31, 2019 ,IAT C_ � II �� `6 7��4 � y r � + Yr � �-�x �.k 4 ����t�.k� y • rg,�!�� •�'�; (! G I lull^^'�+•��'+•- )-. •.��.•ne►a.,�� ,�. ` irk, Olt At roi 13 �::� Alt L i 11�►L't\�` i� ', - _ �1 : '; r i r ` •1�'t 1.r �,�.J.$i��,•f�- � �=1° •;jc i t r1 t .. 1. a ,e.t � .:. WK `fIAI , y Ma: �A1 �' - {i�y • ` t .L sA' it r r uC•4;+4ry, f1 ``�!fl,i` � • Z ,� �-.�� .�..c ;rti,±" ► �Q�FJii��.��il�l!i�;'�si��i���110���"iSi;�, � ,-,,��ti ;��; ��;* � � `�:� ,{ t *,, '1,,�,,.•*•, j d,'�.I ti 4'd. ►. .f i+!'. `I .f.' y�=y t+�CA�;I�! yt1� Eppcl: {�jf `�`�; 4'. ' i. _... ExistingLegend El Existing CVWD Reservoir P • • • - • ' • • " }' �' (w....f ''>• i tip WBA Site Selection Criteria iay trle ary fixa t x Location se''"'e'tte ance environmental, social, & economic concerns: • Size of property • Property is owned by CVWD • Water quality of nearby wells • Existing pipeline infrastructure • Distance from nearby homes • Ability to screen exterior of facility s • Meet state -lance r- A7'e. S^Y'•� � -rm�Ap.� � �' ��r �3 e� i rr i !h ' $'� � ?l N ] K'Y � Z; 1 r J F"..� s e .r6 i v�, e rd TR` V y4.?}r°f'4 i ..;F,vi1* 3:� �3-' i s Y•7 9r *r f e R 1 s ,� . t {..n. IL '=s 4' 1 13 '�y �'m-,H.�rihx�r �sl'K'3''+,�� s.+tta .q l�t�.�k.`7 �4r `Y rid o � 7�` ry.. ,�+y•, � � '.4 i:.. .,'f ytt 't i.... iy'� ry., y q I � ;r _ _ r f ,,. .� wr Design Features • Site 'a'r'chite, 'C �I match the su ure"'-""h�'a�"""""s'�'''Deen'',aesigned to rrounding area • Facilities meet Cityz ' zoning requirements for buildingheight • Facility will comply with Citynoise ordinance (LQMC Section 9.100.210) • FacilitywiII notproduce odors Golf courseperimeter_ pred wel-f aF _ a b r r i � T t 5 1 14 �6f't•� tr �`.. lry y7 �'x Fl S{•k{.5 tY 5{ vrf + tifi. �tf �I ! � t 1 td i1 �� F (h f Pi 5 :1 4 l t: 4` 3 a A L) I Hazen V41: 4\ �' t e }: r r- Existing Conditions at Tee box ti �' � 1t•,, ? t A�4�1LL'a,;�,wEy � ckrchitectural Renderina — Tee bd � ,� i��t♦i 'fir Rf . �� , ` r��,.1� `1 P' �� ��� �tY , •zi '•�,�,• ���' •,'�' • ....:r•., .,;Ai—=• Rr, e x tf d�5� �1r i � � . Y n k �, "k�G t . � _ ,. �y k I! ! r . �` ✓ :. ^E'c 0 �.t Gb `�� �#'' i. f� Y� M �.yF. C h'`l nitt ' � � - + � ed jc:+fiz >m�{Sn M'tas(yad f .€{ !��� R '. r x. �s �%_.. ',`fix ,R�Y�. � }�FS,•�..n .axe; - , w•, � y x .e�f f '�+.>x fu�,gr�3`tmF,5N1j � '�&. .'Y'�4'� �`�=h ;fit ,.r � _ Vie,: ��sa. �: ,ki�Ty,,��pp �ty�.:'�;: t,� �k. �Tii1:f.Ta :�F.TTi ' -f / ,�� i R F�q a Architectural Rendering -View from Backyards ------_._ __` April 2016 MtWP--, ---N ?"'ej Architectural Rendering —View from Backyards November 2015 ,-- IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Compliance Plan - Financing Design Environmental Review Construction _ 77777 -�'«<.y `, {. .,� .a�s. rv. ���.. ���. ��-,,. c�Fet�?„e• .,4f`"rt i°i � jlS:< t .i tt t Y } r.... ,,� Y .'J � �., at ,r.'r... t rl } i , �. .i -:, S. t'�:. `;f{,<. .t�'.. "T-� k{'���� >,.'.� �F`qi.;. rY., erg. � t_ -}z•y:lt i-x, �j. f5� 5r1. xr r' { e- F' � •.� p 'i h` , i } ,r.^ f �yy s� r �. .;rt„ 7 ��..., h� � � � x: r y { #- �r 2 .:�,}f } e N t I � ��r y7" ` � i..�y �`'tiA �G.$�-T�'`�'4 �` ° �' '� i't ��f�.) ��^.,'� r. i � 3. ^�. d � :•• . _. O. y �,• ..x.... ,yam. Y 1 � ;5.: r t R-�.. gi., iJ :�y,-2�a hc`ait � < r tr Mi'� � 1 :° 23 � 3i.�7 "itd. L nt N �n�` „rr �� Ufa y <;, �, ,T,, n`� �*„ �yy { �'-i1• }s t 4pa, y i °� , , d ° TRC4� rt �x}'X, fir, ar?, a}� i x y�6i ^"'2 l.Jitie(i T ..a',(z`-r�'Tl {' ,e 3 ,F ,iw r �. ., i , t -,: r.,Ll. z. pr�.. y`5';I'P,Y�*-" Sv�'' -tt - ., rrlYi '}} tr 53 �3,.•; i. wr n� �ti ' t �. - y ,,ems 2 � '°.. . hr...,n rs'"'42rr ttL�,y� �u,'.Y•^�''$%Y.r$F&AtS�$r... ++,1#i......�.}8. ,�1u.P.,. .�:i�u1w; ii;•.s;l..�e,..._.....si...l;._aoC1.D,?��,..i;._.{.:0 ..,..._„;_.e;. �...1 ..'J,r_....,1.. ..,.,.... _ C. �� .. Chromium-6 Water Treatment Project Schedule La Quinta Facility j , •. a r y� �� gnu JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE eon 2sn JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1JAN FEB MAR APR NAY JUN DULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 4 Site Work Excavation- 2 months Concrete Concrete Construction. 9 morift Structural CMU Masonry Exterior Roofing System Interior Building Perimeter CMU Wall T Structural Steel Erection- 5 months 1 � Masonry Construction- 5 months Decking and RootinD- 5 I i 9 months Perimeter CMU Wall-2 months _ f r Summary must ,,.CVWD corn I with the new state of pY California chromium-6 drinking water re ulation by the earliest feasible date g • Provide ongoing information and outreach • Solicit community input on the building architecture, color, and roof tile • Coordinate construction activities with GA WEST f COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS? Please visit www.cvwd.org/cr6 for additional information jr a k New' g.�M i�ir Sy��$ �', '� .•k4: ;.+It 4� ..�?k"ry,li f. �,h; °rr� � 1r r.Vf 3 Xa ��. h i 'k }�.-a. f..z',Y F i,tz r� j � , r r. Y ' -� ., ... � <... ;•-.', A d I y4Q�E� ;,s r9, �: qY' `3:!k. ._'1 ti. ',�, i k.F .;v 1'i +. .. �,�, J. �`: �,%i F 4 £.,.';6 ..p :fftl � -,r. .,.y� .it s . • fP .. i.::: ... .��P` -{-.i er�33�,.,i':�. -^�iF ,ter• -:�,t k'T'x.. r.. �>SS '�.�,r.. .U,'.i�r�as a-4ir..t k� _{, c 1aa.. '�^�y.ryEC -K X,a s.�✓ry,. �� {, �+ � e ri r. - , • � ,a � ' '�f' ,� '� r �;� � '�i;' aa5 � t4. .3 u h M -'s � - k r �` •+. ty,'._ e t tT' Si . �i ' ,}J �1, .: %y, .•._ - �" �� ".�,.'+ )... .. : - ', `�+.' r r �,•:�r h,Cu`.,g-"`t$ `r"' Lc'�n ,:'�£' _�ti •,:�a - :+: v 1� t d':.. z M � X � ..r:'.„ f Y } -�5.. >h .: , .. -.�,s. :'': .S a r TR1 { ',r,L: �{ ,:t�v� r�e^'Tf6i'��i� M''4s1� i i:�i, w7F�. a'�,�.1r�ritu��u ?�`e ��7;..w4 §t e71: •r2r �) '':j::lxr? i � r a r x ` ju a.;ia r P � ..��.�.'� xy a�✓',+ n�t� �.t 14 tifi. S'( r. a,s `y�l ,� E�fr r.. ar P i a_ r F. �{ i ' F „ ., Y�a�'`�i^.3�c�;;�i'�'��°'�reu2e'3'Y'� iv;. r>>!� r�� <:::t Y:i3:,r`.� s»; t� ,�..'x..�>�^yg`,� . _ i �rs: .t � .t t,a+:� �• ..t: n � ° „> ? r t r,� r ,k v + � •I _4��4pvtt to C&� &Wtk,� pvk�v, FJAVV�, stmga Architectural Rendering -Airport Blvd It I ' " • • •I• C W +!•�- r� as �,Jw i c ATER TR,G'C 57605 Ballybunion, La Quinta, CA 92253 1 Zillow Q5 Ballvbunion la Q LISTING TYPE ANY PRICE Page 1 of 1 a 0+ REDS - fill®RE is http://www.zillow.comlhomesl1_ahl57605-Ballybunion-la-quinta-ca_rb/?fromHomePage=... 4/ 15/2016 r,st hk 4 '►. �(S.f �.. '.;: ,awr-�.-a�, }rV YfJ .r ' �r C��r '_r ",'�'7. F Ave►wo B2 tw 82nd Ave { +0:/�4,�ftt l k yty�` � ,I, K, q!' t�}�'•��:�� Ju/ ;, �I 1 � I�s N. .10 ` a {��, ! 1 1 `YAf`t +y, 4 ,tk' 4i •r ' £` r 1 (YY yy G 1 F Lit, ` (A Jam" ..,+{ k;•s."k n., �'!� �R' K,,1"tF'M\!f'+i`;,+A,. Ny.,� 61 l: ,'• �' `' #`'` ��. r y, M14 j Ft'Y. fi.� % �' t, � r #�� , d,'. �p1. m 2'. 9,�, Y 4 tr"i t i . use Yj I �r�ta 541hYA`vb .� V c ILL R�% r Y '1,.W., t A, , • ?�fi`"'` Aitp fvdiile7iiii Ai yL'i d 1M11Y!#f#�S#�walr P BIVd t1SJ, h _� `�. � 4" ! ��, C 4 �,.' y;�� ✓•�i� ill 6 y.L ' y 3 y �e1r, . r ,�f�j"N1li I *ry ,� �t R .1�`•`' 12 ,; r ,.� �""� F• r ° � t' )�M*��' si , I yl � � t�,.f , 1 1 . D. I `� � SAd+t ! � �. ,R .I • 'TV ' Sl ,.,1� ,A*�' f _,,, _ =Y � ��h�l,•I�,j. r F �}`A �,v.'?p �y .'� ��rr,([*Q ,� �"�'. �'. ,/ Y``�'� < ♦ ��+ +;77 all 11-13 //2,01� cc �/ r✓ �o�Kc . CITY , RECEIVED Gleam-k CLERK'S OFF[GE Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista 79I6 APR 13 PM 3; 07 La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY OF LA QUINTA GAL IF�' RNIA April 13, 2016 La Quinta City Council Members C/O Design and Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 Re: Appeal of March 8, 2016 Planning Commission Decision Application Dear City Council Members: This letter and attached related memorandum are a supplement to our Appeal documents submitted to the City'on March 18, 2016 related to the above -captioned matter. We do not agree with (a) the Planning Commission's decision to approve the z Conditional Use Permit for Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 and (b) the Findings of the Planning Commission. The Findings are inaccurate and not supported by substantial evidence. One important theme which is consistently emphasized throughout the City's General Plan, Specific Plan, Ordinances and Regulations is "preservation of the mountains for its scenic vistas". Another theme is "prevention of removal of rock outcroppings". The language of the General Plan and regulations is clear and unambiguous for these City policies. The proposed project violates the City's General Plan and Regulations concerning these City policies because the Project includes removal of critical_ sections of the Mountain and a substantial area of rock outcroppings. Another extremely important situation is the drainage issue. Residents of the area surrounding the Project incurred substantial damage and negative economic consequences from the 2013 and 2014 storms related to substantial water flow from the mountain. Proposed construction activities and building on the hillside would exacerbate water flow conditions from the mountain. A repeat of 2013 and 2014 storms would result in conditions and consequences materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare to surrounding properties in the neighborhood. Mitigation measures and analysis of a final drainage plan have been deferred for an undetermined period of time. Any final evaluation of the project cannot be done until the completion and acceptance of a final plan. This scenario, by itself, should be a basis for denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The Project is not consistent with and will frustrate the policies and goals of the General Plan. The Project is not only inconsistent with the General Plan's policies and goals, it also obstructs the objectives and goals of the General Plan, the hierarchy of local government land use. In conclusion, for reasons set forth above and the substantial evidence included in the attached memorandum, fully incorporated herewith, we hereby request that the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 and reverse the Planning Commission approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2013-630. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, h Veigh ter: 77220 Loma Vista - La Quinta 77240 Avenida Fernando - La Quinta 77339 Avenida Fernando - La Quinta Date: April 13, 2016 Memorandum Re: March 8 2016 Planning Commission Meeting By: Joseph McVeigh Owner: 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta This memorandum concerns the City of La Quinta Planning Commission Resolution on March 8, 2016 approving a mitigated negative declaration for Environmental assessment 2013-630, and a conditional use permit for a single family house on a 3.16 acre lot at 77210 Loma Vista. APN 658-200-004 On March 18, 2016 we submitted to the City Council an appeal of the March 8, 2016 Planning Commission decision approving Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and Conditional Use Permit 2013-152. The appeal also serves as our request to the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission approval and deny the Conditional Use Permit. This memorandum sets forth substantial evidence to support our appeal and request. Background - General California Case Law References: Re: General Plan "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group V. County of Calavaras (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3rd 1176, 1183). A general plan is the constitution for future development" and controls other local land use regulations, including zoning. (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773.) "The requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (Debottani v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3rd 1204, 1203.) Use of Terms - City of La Quinta zoning Code 9.10.070 "A. Rules for Construction of Language. The following general rules of construction shall apply to the textual provisions of this code: 2...."The word "should" identifies a regulation or design guideline which must be followed in the absence of compelling opposing consideration identified by the city decision - making body." "Should is used in the following statements of policies, goals, etc. of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. General Plan Policy OS-2.1& OS- 2.2 Specific Plan - pp. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Specific Plan - 4.7 Therefore the policies stated in these sections must be followed in any conclusion for a decision of consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. These are the Planning Commission Findings - March 8, 2016 Meeting WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan & La Quinta Resort Specific Plan The project site is designated Open Space on the General Plan land use map, and Low Density Residential on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan provides the localized land use designation for the site. The project is consistent with that designation. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code. The Conditional Use Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the Low Density Residential zoning district and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Planning Division has prepared Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Surrounding Uses As conditioned, approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. The proposed single family home is consistent in size and scale with the existing homes in the Enclave subdivision. Comments on Planning Commission Findings Finding 1 Planning Commission states "the project site is designated Open Space on the General Plan Land use map..." The Commission's Finding is not correct. The correct designation of the project site is Natural Open Space - (General Plan Land Use Map - Exhibit II-1) (General Plan Land Use Element Table 2-1, Page 2-2) (General Plan Land Use Element Table II-2 Page 2-6) "This land use designation is applied to areas of natural open space, whether owned by private parties or public entities. With the exception of trail or trailhead development, little development is permitted in this designation." (Land Use Element - Natural Open Space - Page II-5) The correct designation is important because Land Use Element Table 11-2, Page II- 6 zoning Designation Consistency Matrix, General Plan Designation, "Natural Open Space" includes as "Zoning Designation" OS - Open Space and HC - Hillside Conservation Overlay. Based on this City General Plan document the Hillside Conservation Overlay is included and incorporated therewith in the General Plan. Land Use Element Table II-3, Page II.8 Land Use Summary, for "Existing Units" and "Potential Units" shows a blank or "zero" for this land use designation. This would indicate that under the City's General Plan Land Use element there would be no housing Unit designated for the project site. Based on Table II-3 in the General Plan it is the City's intent to have no residential development on the hillside in the Natural Open Space area. This is also supported by General Plan policy OS - 3.1 which states, "...PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE...". Therefore the General Plan Land Use element overrules the HC zoning district which allows for one (1) residential unit for the ten (10) acres in the HC Hillside Conservation Overlay Regulations. "The Natural Open Space Category applies particularly to lands in the foothills of the mountains that the City has always strived to preserve. These lands provide a backdrop to the development on the Valley floor, and are areas important to biological resource preservation. They provide an important social and economic asset to the City that cannot be undervalued." (Open Space and Recreation Land (Pages II-21 & 11-22) 3 "This Land Use Element makes no change to Open Space land use designations. It preserves these lands for the long term, and reasserts the Cites commitment to their preservation." (General Plan, Land Use Element, page 22) Planning Commission No.1 Finding is basically a non-conclusory statement regarding use designation. There is no explanation or substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the project is either consistent with or in compliance with policies, goals, programs and land use elements in the General Plan and/or Zoning code. The Planning Commission did not consider any of the reasons and/or evidence set forth in La Quinta resident/owner Joseph McVeigh March 8, 2016 letter to the Planning Commission (delivered to the City prior to the hearing) in their decision to approve Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") and the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). We do not agree that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission Finding No.1 is entirely lacking in evidentiary support for its statement of Finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Set forth below are Policies, Goals and Programs of the General Plan, Land Use Elements and Open Space Element to further support that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. It is inconsistent because the project is in conflict with the stated Policies, Goals and Programs in these documents. The language of the General Plan policies, goals and programs is clear and unambiguous. Further evidence of inconsistency and violation of the City's Municipal Code includes non-compliance for the following code sections and ordinance. La Quinta Municipal Code ("LOMC") 9.110.050 OS open space district: A. Purpose and Intent, To provide for the protection and preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as areas with significant cultural resources, the natural or endangered plan and wildlife species habitat, scenic resources and significant topographical constraints. B. Development Standards. The same as the development standards for the PR district, preceding (Ord 284, Section 1,1996) TRD Ordinance According to the City's TDR ordinance and the City's zoning code, La Quinta's TDR program is designed to preserve open space and other resources identified in zones "enabled" to serve as sending areas, which in this ordinance are called "donor parcels." The TDR provisions specifically reference the Hillside Conservation or HC regulations. 4 Relevant Provisions - General Plan Open Space and Conservation The following are included here as further evidence that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan "Because the open space element addresses a broad range of issues, its policies and programs are interwoven with many other General Plan elements,including ...Land Use, ...Biological Resources and Environmental Hazards. In addition, the open space Element complements the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) by providing for lands which may be identified as containing important wildlife habitat." (General Plan Open Space - page III-68) "Due to La Quinta's geographical setting at the foot of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, some properties are undevelopable due to engineering and safety limitations, or have been designated for the purposes of flood control and storm water conveyance. These lands have been set aside as open space dedicated to protect public health and safety." (General Plan Open Space - page III-70) "All lands having twenty percent slope or greater have been designated as open space in order to protect the public from hazards associated with hillside development, including seismic activity, landslides, flooding, inaccessibility for fire and emergency services, lack of water for fire control, wildfires, collapse of roads and similar risks." (General Plan - Open Space - page III-71) "Thoughtful implementation of the General Plan, zoning ordinance and other regulatory mechanisms will be required to assure the long-term preservation of open spaces.... The City also has the opportunity to encourage residents and other agencies to become involved in open space preservation". (General Plan Open Space - Page III-71) General Plan Policies and Programs Policy OS -1.1 • Program OS-1.1a: Identify lands suitable for preservation as natural open space on the General Plan Land Use map. 5 Policy OS - 2.1 Unique and valuable biological resources should be preserved as open space, to the greatest extent possible. Program OS-2.1-a: Continue to implement the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Policy OS - 2.2 Where appropriate, geological hazard area, including but not limited to earthquake fault lines, areas susceptible to liquefaction, floodways, and unstable slopes should be preserved as open space. Policy OS - 3.1 TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE WHICH ARE ELEVATED AND VISUALLY PROMINENT FROM ADJACENT DEVELOPED AREAS OR ARE LOCATED WITHIN OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO AREAS IDENTIFIED AS CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. Goal FH -1 Protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community from flooding and hydrological hazards. Goal OS-1 Preservation, conservation and management of the City's open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental and economic purposes (Page 111-72) Goal OS -1.1 Identify and map lands suitable for presentation as passive and active open space. Goal OS-2 Good stewardship of natural open space and preservation of open space area. Goal OS-3 Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. Program OS - 3.1. a: Cel Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance Program OS - 3.1. b: Minimize the loss of open space resources. Goals Policies and Programs - General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU - 2.6 "Participate in efforts to preserve and protect sensitive resources through the City and its Sphere of Influence, in support of the CVMSHCP." "Program LU-2.6.a: Maintain and enforce the Hillside Preservation Ordinance." Policy LU - 4.1 "Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure." Goal LU - 3.1 "Encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern." Goal LU - 4 "Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods." Specific Plan Planning Commission states "the project site is designated Low Density Residential on the Specific Plan land use Map. The Specific Plan provides the localized land use designation for the site. The project is consistent with that designation." We don't agree with Finding No.1 for the project's Specific Plan designation for the following reasons based on the provisions of the Specific Plan. • Page 2.4 depicts existing zoning of OS/HS - Open Space/Hillside Conservation (Table 5 - Planning Area V - Approved Land Use) • The following are provisions in the Specific Plan determining that the designation of the project site is included in Planning Area V. 7 "The residential components of Planning Area V consists of one unit built immediately to the north of the Enclave Mountain Estates. No change to this existing entitlement in the Hillside area of the RSP will occur as a result of approval of this amendment to the LSRP." (Page 2.23 1st paragraph) Open Space and Hillside land in Planning Area V is defined by the mountainous areas in excess of 20% slope and are generally bounded by the La Quinta Resort Golf Course and existing residential areas of Planning Area III. This provision is evidence the Project site is not included in Planning Area III ("Low -density residential") because it refers to the Project site area as bounded by the existing residential areas of Planning Area 111. The existing area is the 54 homesite Mountain Estates -(Tract 25237). By this reference the project site is excluded from Tract 25237 (Planning Area III). Therefore the project site is included in Area V- Open Space. The project site is in Tract 28335-R, a vacant land parcel. The Specific Plan designates Planning Area V as open space and defines it by the areas with a slope in excess of 20 percent. The "Project - Specific WQMP Summary Data Forms" submitted by the Applicant for this Project describes the site as having a slope of at least 25 percent. Based on (a) the foregoing references, (b) the map included in the Specific Plan and (c) the slope of the site the designation of Planning Area V is the appropriate designation for the site. Specific development criteria related to Planning Area V Open Space and Hillside Areas are defined in Section 3, Zoning and Development Regulation within this Specific Plan Area. The project is inconsistent with the La Quinta Specific Plan policies and goals encouraging preservation of hillside areas because these mountains "contribute to the City's visual, wildlife and archaeological resources." (Specific Plan p. 2.30) The Swenson project would overwhelm the street scene with (1) a 390 lineal foot, 18 foot wide driveway (2) Rock fall walls up to 7 feet wide on both sides of the driveway, (3) over 500 lineal feet of retaining walls up to a minimum of 20 feet high, and other structures built in excess of 37 feet above street level. The Specific Plan states that development should be restricted on hillsides and allowed for areas to protect the City's scenic resources and those hillside areas should be maintained as open space. (Specific Plan pp. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5). The Specific Plan also requires the City to be protected from the adverse impacts of storm runoff including property damage as well as water quality. (Specific Plan Area V, section 4.5) "The future development on hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the loss of life and minimize damage to property resulting from geological instability during seismic events." (Specific Plan Area V, Section 4.7) Finding No. 2 Consistency with Zoning Code Planning Commission Finding, "The Conditional Use Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning 'standards of the Low Density Residential zoning district and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code." The above stated Finding language is misleading and inaccurate, The project site is in the Open Space District Residential Zoning District. Therefore it is required that the project be in compliance with zoning standards and regulations of the open space District including but not limited to La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) 9.110.050, 9.110.070 and 9.140.040. Because the project is not in compliance with the above listed La Quinta Municipal Regulations it is not consistent with the City's zoning code. The applicable provisions of the Regulations are: 9110 070 HC hillside conservation overlay district A. Purpose and Intent 1. To define those hillside areas which are not developable from either a public safety or an engineering perspective and to prevent inappropriate development on them; 2. For those hillside areas which are developable, to ensure the safety of the public, and to ensure that the placement, density and type of all hillside development within the city is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain, that proposed developments will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitat, and that the natural hillside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable; 3. To protect the public from hazards associated with hillside development, including seismic activity, landslides, flooding, inaccessibility from fire 0 and emergency services, lack of water for fire control, wildfires, collapse of roads and similar risks; 4. To protect and conserve hillside ecosystems (Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area) through the retention of unique natural topographic features and hillside characteristics, including drainage patterns, streams, slopes, ridgelines, rock outcroppings, vistas, natural vegetation, and the habitats and migratory routes of animals; S. To maximize the retention of the city's natural topographic features, including, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridge -crests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent vegetation, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas through the careful limitation and selection of building sites and building pads on said topographic features, thereby enhancing the beauty of the city's landscape; 6. To assure that developmental use of said topographic features will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design and location of the developmental use; 7. To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and cut and fill slopes; 8. To balance public and private interests while preserving the hillsides. B. Development Standards. Section 9.140.040 specifies that: (1) the maximum residential density within the HC overlay district shall be one dwelling unit per every ten acres, and (2) other development standards shall follow those of the RVL very low density residential district. 9140 040 HC hillside conservation regulations A. Applicability 1. "The HC hillside conservation overlay district applies to all land within the city designated in the general plan as "open space" and shown on the official zoning map as "HC". See Exhibit A for these complete regulations. (Pages 1-6); Especially Section F-1 through F-6 and Section 1-3 Hillside regulations require "the maximum retention of vistas, and natural topographic features including mountain sides, ridgelines, hilltops, slopes, rock outcroppings, arroyos, ravines and canyons." The project plans include the removal of a substantial area of rock outcroppings (approximately 3,000 square feet) on the hillside and mountain area and removal of certain topographic features of the mountainside up to 16.5 feet high. Plans also include construction of a 3 foot wide brow ditch to the rear of the mountain ridge line at the upper area of the proposed driveway. 10 The construction activity is inconsistent with existing zoning for this project site. Finding No. 3 We do not agree the project is in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). See January 20, 2016 letter from Chatten, Brown & Carstens LLP to Nicole Sauviat Criste, City of La Quinta Planning Department in which we state that we object to the use of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for the proposed residential project at 77210 Loma Vista. The letter sets forth the reasons for our objections and evidence for the requirement of a full Environmental Impact Report. Finding No. 4 Surrounding Uses - Compatibility Planning Commission Finding states, "The proposed single family home is consistent in size and scale with the existing homes in the Enclave subdivision." This statement compares only the size and scale of the house structure with other homes. Regarding "scale" the finding does not mention that the house is situated at an elevation 37 feet above street level and when completed the elevation to the top of house will be about 54 feet above street level. This is not in scale with the existing homes in the Mountain Estates subdivision, all of which are at the street level elevation. (55 feet below the top of the proposed house) There is no mention of the numerous other structural elements of the project, i.e. the elevation of the hillside, the mountains, and infrastructures, walls etc., all of which are significantly incompatible with surrounding uses. There are over 450 homes in the sub -communities of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan LQRSP area. All of these homes are located at street level on the Valley floor in their respective communities. The proposed project would be the only property in the LQRSP area on a hillside. One property on a hillside with proposed substantial infrastructure features compared to 450 homes at street level does not support the concept of compatibility and consistency. The project overshadows Mountain Estates Tract 25237. A major hillside project is not in character with neighborhoods totaling 450 homes at street level. 11 Therefore, the Project is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element, Policy LU-41, "encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure"; Goal LU-3.1, "encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern" and Goal LU-4, "maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods". Further evidence of neighborhood incompatibility is that the project area is located on a hillside in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Elevations on the parcel site range approximately from 60 to 180 feet above mean sea level. The site is on the northern edge of the Mountain Estates, the adjacent subdivision with 54 finished, City approved graded lots, most of which have completed custom homes. The project consists of 3.16 acres of vacant land, rock outcroppings and a mountainous ridge section of the Santa Rosa Mountains. As an example of incompatibility with the adjacent Mountains Estates (Tract No 25237) (a mostly built out subdivision) the HOA architect reported this summary for the Project site. "(1) the lot is undeveloped, yet partially disturbed, and not fine graded, unlike anv other lot in the Mountain Estates (2) the lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates (3) the lot is the only lot in the Mountain Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. (4) the proposed home is elevated roughly two stories above all other homes (5) the lot does not have the typical front yard, side yards, rear yard set up like all other homes and (6) the proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes, like no other home in the Mountain Estates. See also Exhibit B, a chart showing the comparison of elements of the proposed project and the 54 home site subdivision. In my March 8, 2016 letter to the Planning Commission I provided details of the reasons to deny the Applicant's requested Conditional Use Permit. A summary of the conditions which negatively affect the surrounding neighborhoods is: Impairment of view; privacy; all structures of rock fall and retaining walls; lack of harmony with neighboring communities; preservation of value; adherence to natural features of hillsides, removal of rock outcroppings, and mountain; nuisance from noise (outdoor TV and speakers) and effects on wildlife species which inhabit the mountains (especially Bighorn sheep). There would be significant visual impact on the hillside/mountain. (unlike any other surrounding uses.) These consist of the proposed (1) 390 lineal foot driveway transversing the hillside from the street to approximately 37 to 40 feet above the street (2) rock fall walls along both sides of the driveway (3) over 500 feet of retaining walls throughout the project site up to a minimum of 20 feet in height. 12 Construction of a retreat area of 43 feet from the boundary line of the proposed residence area would involve the removal of rock outcropping. This is a violation of provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City zoning regulations. The following comments represent our understanding of "conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity." View and Preservation of Value Proposed construction of structures on the hillside will impair view and thereby negatively affect value. See explanation in my March 8, 2016 letter included with appeal form. This letter includes our explanation for determination of diminution of value. Privac The structures, including proposed house, pool, spa, will create a situation whereby there will be direct views looking down on the private spaces of homes surrounding the project site and homes in the neighboring community of the Enclave. This is an overall infringement on the privacy of surrounding residences, especially the six (6) residences directly adjacent to the project hillside. Construction Activity Movement of heavy trucks and large earthmoving equipment will damage the street surface of the Loma Vista cul-de-sac. Work on the mountainside by tractors, etc. including extensive jackhammering will affect the stabilization of the mountains. Hydrology/Drainage The General Plan has a specific goal concerning drainage, "Protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community from flooding and hydrological hazards (General Plan, Goal FHA) 1) See my comments related to drainage in my March 8, 2016 letter. This is a brief summary of elements of the proposed on -site drainage plan. The drainage system is comprised of a series of area drains connected to a localized storm drain system that terminates in an underground retention system adjacent to the proposed driveway. The system appears to consist of 4" to 12" storm drain piping with minimum slopes of 0.5%. Hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) calculations should be provided to verify that the system has adequate capacity to convey the water capacity for storms such as the 2013 & 2014 events into the downstream retention system. 13 2). The underground retention system is comprised of a sloped 48" diameter pipe connected to a drywell to facilitate percolation. The location of the drywell is approximately one (1) foot from the limits of the existing culvert pipes that convey drainage from the channel system underneath Loma Vista to the downstream drainage facilities in the La Quinta Resort. The close proximity of the proposed drywell to the existing culvert pipe causes concern for the following reasons: a. Constructability - The drywell installation is a threat to damage the existing culvert pipes. b. The drywell will dispose of storm water through percolation to surrounding soils. The result will be additional lateral pressure on the culvert pipes during times of percolation. c. Collapsible soils present around the drywell can cause structural damage to the culvert in the presence of percolated water. d. Has adequate geotechnical testing occurred to verify that the drywell will completely percolate within 72 hours to satisfy vector control concerns? e. The proposed underground retention system will encroach into the existing private storm channel easement. (copy of easement attached - Exhibit C) Mountain Estates HOA and individual homeowners hold an easement, which includes the area where the retention system and the proposed access gate would be located. This proposed drainage system and gate encroach on and interfere with the existing easement. Such encroachment is not permitted because of the interference with the rights of the dominant tenement. This Finding is inconsistent with the requirements of Specific Plan Area V Section 4.5. "The City should be protected from the adverse impacts of storm water runoff, including property damage as well as water quality." "The golf courses are designed with basins within the corridors to provide water retention during flooding." (refer to litigation between La Quinta Resort Hotel and Mountain Estates Homeowners Association) The City should deny the CUP because of the potential impact from storms similar to the storm events in 2013 and 2014. The hydrology expert we engaged found a flaw in the Applicant's hydrology plan. Nicole Criste informed us that the existing Hydrology plan is the version that was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the March 8, 2016 Hearing. The Finding conclusion was based on the flawed plan. In order to properly evaluate the drainage plan we would need to see a complete final Hydrology/Drainage plan. It is improper to defer a submittal of a final plan, 14 especially in view of the fact that the plan submittal to the Planning Commission was prepared incorrectly. Conclusion The foregoing comments, statements, citations from the General Plan, specific plan, ordinances, and city regulations are all submitted as evidence that the Swenson project is not consistent and not compatible with the General Plan and related City documents. Therefore we hereby request that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission decision and deny the Conditional Use Permit. r Signed: V Jose h M eigh Date: April 13, 2016 15 Exhibit A - 981406040 HC hillside conservation regulations. 9.1,10.040 HC hillside conservation regulations. http: //www.gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_140-9_140_... La Quinta Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Title 9 ZONING Chapter 9.140 SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL PURPOSE REGULATIONS 9.140.040 HC hillside conservation regulations. A. Applicability. Search Print No Frames 1. The HC hillside conservation overlay district applies to all land within the city designated in the general plan as "open space" and shown on the official zoning map as "HC." More specifically, the HC district and the provisions of this section apply to land meeting the criteria for being above "the toe of the slope," as defined in this section, within the following sections of land (San Bernardino Base and Meridian) within the city: a. T5S, R7E: Sections 19, 30; b. T5S, R6E: Section 36, 25; c. T6S, R6E: Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25; d. T6S, R7E: Sections 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 33; T7S, R7E: Sections 4, 5. 2. The provisions of this section shall also apply to each and every parcel of land within the city (without otherwise being noted on exhibit or map which is added to the city by annexation, dedication or other means) meeting the criteria for being above "the toe of the slope." 3. Except as specifically provided elsewhere in this title, any and all disturbance of natural terrain, grubbing, grading, new use, and every new building and premises or land in the HC district shall be used for or occupied and every building shall be erected, constructed, established, altered, enlarged, maintained, moved into or within such HC district exclusively and only in accordance with regulations set forth in this section. B. Application of Regulations to Property. 1. In the city general plan, all hillsides and some alluvial fans are designated open space. In general, the dividing line between open space and other land uses is meant to follow and be bounded by "the toe of the slope." The area above the toe of the slope includes not only hillsides, but also alluvial fans which are not protected by flood control structures, and drainage ways and stream courses which have some potential for flooding. In general, alluvial fans not exceeding twenty percent slope are developable consistent with this section either through the transfer of residential units from contiguous hillside areas, by change of designation, or by providing flood protection. 2. For any parcel subject to the jurisdiction of the city, the city engineer, upon viewing the site and considering a land suitability study submitted by the applicant (in accordance with the requirements of this section) shall determine the boundary between the developable and the undevelopable portions of the parcel by locating the toe of the slope per the following criteria (more than one criterion may apply): a. The point where waterborne alluvial material not exceeding twenty percent slope begins to collect to a depth of one foot or more; b. The dividing line between steeper rock formations and more gently sloping alluvium, i.e., where there is a noticeable break in the angle of slope from steep to shallow; c. Where the slope gradient exceeds twenty percent; d. An area unprotected from flooding potential, i.e., an area above the uppermost flood control 2/14/2016 11:15 . 9.140.040 HC hillside conservation regulations. http://www.gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_140-9_140_... structure which intercepts runoff (in the form of either natural watercourses or as overland sheet flow) and directs it to a controlled stormwater diversion channel. C. Permitted Uses in HC District. 1. No development (except as provided under subsection C4 of this section) shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. 2. The following are exempt from the requirements of this section: tracts and specific plans already approved. 3. The following uses within the HC district shall be permitted on alluvial fans with slopes not exceeding twenty percent: a. Golf courses (not including above -ground structures), including fairways, greens, tees and golf -cart paths to access them; b. Flood control structures; c. Parks, lakes and passive recreation facilities; d. Water wells, pumping stations and water tanks (if properly screened); e. Power, telephone and cable substations and transmission lines (if properly screened or undergrounded); f. TV, cable and radio antennas; g. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails; h. Single-family residential uses; i. Accessory uses necessary to establish and maintain the permitted uses, such as roads, gatehouses, on -site subdivision signs, parking lots, noncommercial community association, recreation, and assembly buildings and facilities. The following uses within the HC district shall be permitted on slopes exceeding twenty percent: a. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles; b. Access roads which shall be nonvisible unless applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the city that the only access to a nonvisible area must traverse a visible area. (Ownership or nonownership of property is not sufficient proof of reason to place a road in a visible area.) Roads shall not exceed fifteen percent grade. c. Uses listed in subsection (C)(3) of this section may be permitted provided the land was graded or otherwise significantly disturbed prior to January 1, 1996, and only if the scarred location is visible from more than one -quarter of a mile away. D. Conditional Use Permit Required. In addition to the requirements of this section, all development within the HC district shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 9.210.020. E. Site Development Review Required. All development in the HC district shall be subject to site development review by the planning commission pursuant to Section 9.210.010. "Development" in this context shall include the following: grading, building, grubbing, or permitting any heavy equipment (equipment whose fanction.is digging, clearing, earth -moving, grading, or a similar function disruptive to the natural terrain) access to the HC district property. F. Criteria for Review of Grading Plans. The planning commission and city council shall consider the following matters of particular concern in their review of grading proposals in the HC district. Conditions may be attached to the approval of grading plans so as to achieve the purpose and intent of this section and the following objectives: 1. The health and safety of the public; 2/14/2016 11:15 P 9.140.040 H. hillside conservation regulations. http://www.gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_140-9_140_... 2. The preservation of vegetation and animal habitat, designation of stream courses as open space, preservation of habitat corridors, encouraging revegetation with drought -tolerant native species; 3. The avoidance of excessive building, padding or terracing and cut and fill slopes to reduce the scarring effects of grading; 4. The encouragement of sensitive grading to ensure optimum treatment of natural hillside and arroyo features; 5. The encouragement of imaginative grading plans to soften the impact of grading on hillsides, including rolled, sloping or split pads, rounded cut and fill slopes, and post and beam construction techniques; and 6. The maximum retention of vistas, and natural topographic features including mountainsides, ridgelines, hilltops, slopes, rock outcroppings, arroyos, ravines and canyons. G. Engineering Reviews Required. For every home site or for every subdivision proposed within the HC district, the following reports shall be prepared by a California -licensed engineer (licensed in the appropriate discipline), and filed with the city engineer, unless specifically waived by the city engineer based on a visit to the proposed site: 1. Hydrology, drainage and flooding report for all sites; 2. Soil survey of the sites proposed attesting to stability of all sites and the appropriateness of the construction method proposed; 3. Underlying geology/engineering report attesting to stability of all sites; 4. Seismic analysis attesting to the stability of the site(s) and addressing the potential of material above the site(s) impacting the site(s); J 5. Access plan showing the preliminary engineering for roads giving access to the proposed site(s); 6. Grading plan for the construction site(s) and access routes; and 7. A utility plan demonstrating the feasibility of providing water for domestic and fire suppression purposes, sewer, power, and other utilities, especially with regard to the scarring effects of the grading necessary to install such utilities. The city engineer shall specifically approve each proposed site and access route based on the submitted reports. H. Other Studies Required. The following studies shall be filed with the planning department as a part of the application process: 1. All development in the HC district shall be subject to a report by a qualified biologist addressing the following: a. Natural vegetation and native plants which may be affected by the project; b. Wildlife habitats, migratory routes (e.g., for Bighorn sheep), and native animal species; and c. Plans to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within HC district. 2. All development in the HC district shall be subject to a review by a qualified archaeologist addressing the following: a. A review of the literature and records for any known and/or recorded historic or prehistoric resources; b. A survey of the project site for historic or prehistoric resources; and c. A final report of findings and recommended mitigation and resource treatment shall be submitted to the planning director for review. 3. A plan for the preservation of all areas exceeding slopes above ten percent as specified in 2/ 14/2016 11:15 A 9.140.040 HC hillside conservation regulations. http://www.gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_140-9_140_... subsection (I)(6) of this section, including: a. The designation of all areas exceeding ten percent slope, with the degree of slope noted, and the calculation of the percent to be left undisturbed; b. The designation of all watercourses both natural and man-made, with plans for the preservation and/or reintroduction of native drought tolerant plants. Watercourses shall be designated as open space; and c. A monitoring program (following CEQA) for the preservation of open spaces. 4. A viewshed study, including plans and sections, showing visibility of proposed project and grading as viewed from surrounding properties located at lower elevations. I. Grading, Grubbing and Scarring Control. 1. No permits shall be issued for any grading, grubbing, building or structure in the HC district until grading plans, slope planting and irrigation plans, and building elevations for design review have been submitted to the planning commission for approval. In reviewing plans for grading, slope planting and irrigation, native revegetation, mitigation of scarring caused by grubbing and grading, preservation of the natural state of the hillsides and water courses (based on slope angle) and building elevations, the commission and council shall consider the purpose and intent of this section and the criteria established in this section, together with applicable standards and shall approve the design if all applicable provisions are met. 2. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards so as to bring such development into conformity or the plans and drawings may be disapproved and the city shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. 3. Any person who fails to protect the natural terrain, defaces, grades, grubs, scars or otherwise disrupts the natural terrain in the HC district without prior city approval of plans for such work subject to this section shall have created a public nuisance which shall be abated. Abatement may include the property owner undertaking the restoration (under city supervision and monitoring), or that failing, city -contracted restoration of the disrupted area. The property owner may be charged the cost of the restoration together with the direct costs of supervision and monitoring of the restoration. If the property owner fails to reimburse the city for the costs incurred, a lien against the property for payment may be instituted. 4. Any plans which are being considered by the city for development shall, at the time of discovery of the creation of the public nuisance, be denied by the decision -making authority. After such time as the public nuisance has been. completely abated, the plans may be resubmitted upon payment of all required fees. 5. The provisions of this section shall be in addition to other municipal code titles and regulations applicable to grading activities within the city. No grading shall be conducted, nor shall any grading permit be issued for grading in the HC district until grading plans and special drawings showing grading and topography as viewed from critical locations within the neighborhood or community have been approved by the planning commission. J. Development Standards. 1. Maximum Density and Minimum Lot Size. In the HC district, the maximum density permitted shall be one residential unit per ten acres. On a contiguous parcel which includes areas both above and below the "toe of the slope," residential units may be clustered together below the "toe of the slope" to take advantage of buildable areas with lower slope angles, provided the overall density for the parcel of one unit per ten acres is not exceeded. Structures shall remain single-family, separated, on individual lots having an area of at least twenty thousand square feet. 2. Setback Requirements. The requirements for the RVL very low density district shall apply. 2/14/2016 11:15 A 9.140.04014C hillside conservation regulations. http://www.gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_140-9_140_... 3. Maximum Building Height. The requirements for the RVL district shall apply except that no structure shall be placed in such a way that its outline is visible above a ridgeline. 4. Parking. Off-street requirements shall conform to Chapter 9.150. 5. Roof Equipment. No roof -top equipment for heating, cooling or other purposes shall be permitted. 6. Architecture. The architectural treatment of structures within the HC district shall be compatible with the setting of the structure and shall be generally consistent with requirements of the desert setting and other architectural treatments found elsewhere in the city. Use of indigenous materials for the structure of walls should be encouraged. Fencing and walls shall conform to the standards for the RC cove residential district standards as set forth in Section 9.30.050. 7. Landscaping. a. On the cut or pad occupied by the structure, landscaping may be left to the choice of the homeowner providing some selection of drought -tolerant species is included. Elsewhere on the site (or within open space), native vegetation shall be undisturbed or shall be recreated after approved grading. b. The applicant or developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of all slope planting and irrigation systems until such time as the properties are occupied or at the time a new property owner or homeowner's association accepts the responsibility to maintain the landscaping in common areas, or other maintenance district formation is established. 8. Utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground except for water tanks and substations, which shall be appropriately screened and painted in colors to blend into the background. K. Land Divisions in HC District. In order to assure compliance with the provisions of this section, the following requirements shall apply to the proposed division of any property which is partially or completely within the HC district: A preliminary grading plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of municipal code Title 13 and this section shall be submitted (together with other requirements of this section) with every conditional use permit, tentative subdivision map or parcel map filed for approval. The preliminary grading plan shall show at least one practical, usable and accessible building site which can be developed in accordance with the provisions of this section within each proposed lot or parcel. L. Transfer of Development Rights. 1. Transfers of development rights shall follow the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 9.190. 2. Any owner of property within the HC district may transfer development rights from the HC district on the basis of one residential unit per ten acres. 3. Development rights may be transferred as follows: a. Transferred to a subdivided portion of the same property below "the toe of the slope," as presented in a conditional use permit; or b. By means of sale to any area of the city which has been zoned for residential purposes, provided the increase for any particular parcel does not exceed twenty percent of the general plan density designation; c. Development rights may be retained by an individual; d. Transfer rights may be further sold as provided in Chapter 9.190. 4. Any owner of property within the HC district may sell, bequeath or transfer the development rights of the property, in accordance with this section and Chapter 9.190 to any governmental jurisdiction or any properly organized nonprofit organization whose charter allows for the ownership of public open space. The governmental jurisdiction or nonprofit organization may retain or sell or transfer acquired 2/14/2016 11:15 P 9.140.040 FIC hillside conservation regulations. http://www.gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_140-9_140_... development rights in accordance with Chapter 9.190. M. Relocation of Toe of Slope. If, as a result of an approved developmental project, a flood control structure is placed higher on a hillside area so that an area of alluvial fan becomes protected from flooding potential, or if the location of the toe of the slope is moved by alteration of some other criterion set forth in subsection B of this section for determining the location of the toe of the slope, the new area below the toe of the slope shall remain within the HC district. The conditional use permit approved for the development shall determine the effective density of any new developable portion of the new area by virtue of the transfer of development rights from the hillside areas to the new area. N. Ownership and Maintenance of Recreation/Open Space. 1. Those areas located within a hillside development controlled by this section which are to remain as undeveloped open space, such as undevelopable slopes and natural landmarks, may be offered for dedication for game preserve, recreation or open space purposes. Such areas may be offered to a public agency or to a nonprofit land trust, conservancy or similar organization whose charter allows for the ownership of recreation and open space which will preserve the natural open space in perpetuity. 2. - If an offer of dedication under subsection N 1 of this section is not accepted, the developer shall make provisions for the ownership and care of the open space in such a manner that there can be necessary protection and maintenance thereof. Such area shall be provided with appropriate access and shall be designated as a separate parcel or parcels which may be maintained through special fees charged to the residents of the subject development or through an appropriate homeowner's association or maintenance district. O. Change in Designation of HC Land. All lands within the HC hillside conservation district are designated on the general plan land use policy diagram as "open space." A property owner may propose a change from this designation and from the HC district zoning by means of all of the following procedures: 1. Approval of a general plan amendment from open space designation to an equally appropriate category. 2. Approval of a change of zone from HC to an equally appropriate district. 3. Approval of a specific plan for the property. 4. Satisfaction of the engineering and other reviews required in this section. 5. Compliance with all other provisions of this section except subsection C, J1, 2 and 3, Land M. (Ord. 299 § 1, 1997; Ord. 284 § 1, 1996) View the mobile version. 2/14/2016 11:15 P 0114VIII:10:3 Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Comparison of Elements Element 3.16 Acre Parcel — Proposed Project 54 Homesite Community Pad Elevation 37 feet Street Level Pad and House Elevation Total 59 feet 22 feet Pad status Unfinished --no approval Finished pads approved by City Driveway Length 355 feet Average -- approximately 30 feet k Driveway Grade 15% Street level IJackhammerTurnaround 1860 square feet None Rock Fall Wall (West Side of Driveway) -- Length 165 linear feet None Rock Fall Wall (West Side of Driveway) -- Height 4 ft. to 7 ft. None Retaining Walls (Approximate Total) -- Length 575 linear feet None Retaining Walls -- Height Up to 16.5 feet None Mountain Removal —Height 2 feet to 16.5 feet None Mountain Removal -- Area 2700 square feet None Excavation and Grading -- Overall Site Disturbance 26,000 square feet None Fill Import Up to 1600 cubic yards None allowed Storm Drain Pipes — Lot Site 225 linear feet None Storm Drain Pipe Size 12 inch to 48 inch diameter None Walls -- Cast Stone Facing -- on site Approximately 800 linear feet None Walls -- Cast Stone Facing -- Bordering Mountains Surrounding Estate Community Approximately 800 linear feet None I Elevated Driveway Lights Dusk to 9:30 PM None Wit Exhibit C - Grant of Easement Exhibit C • ORANGE COAST TITLE CO. 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: OHIO CTPIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION I � a in i� I P. O. BOX 780 LABy QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 U. GRAr4 T OF EASEMERr LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CAI.IFORNUI, INC., a Delaware corporation (•Grantor"), whose address is 78-140 Calle Tampico, La Quints, Califorwa 9=3 - Attention: Greg Abadie, hereby grants to OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, its legal representatives, successor$, and assigns m hereinafter permitted (tutIec$vely .Grantee'), whose address is P. O. Box 780. La Qulnte, California92253, an easement on and to that certain real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein (the Troperty"), and dopicted on Exhibit "B,' attached hereto and incorporated herein, for drainage purposes, including, without ]Imitation, the use, maintenance, repair and/or replacement of and access to the flood control channel and gravity barrier wall. Any construction or other work pzrformed by Crantee pursuant to the easement rights granted herein shall be at the sole cost and expense of Grantee. t3rantee shall, at its sole cost and expensa, maintain the Property, including any and all improvements located thereon, in a are and sanitary condition, which shall include, but not be limited to, the obligation of keeping the Property and any and all improvements located thereon free from weeds, debris and obstructions, and replacing the surface of the Property as necessary. This right and easement shalt be appurtenant to and run with the. real property described in Exhibit 'C; attached hereto and incorporated herein, as the benefitted dominant tenement and shall not be sold or transferred except as an appurtenance thereto. Grantee agrees to Indemnify, defend and hold Grantor, its employees, directors, legal representatives, successors, assigns, and entities related thereto, harmless from any and all cost, loss, claim, liability or damage directly or indirectly arising from Grantee's use of the rights granted herein. Notwithstanding the- above, Grantor reserves the following rights in and to the Property: The right of ingress and egress and access to and across said easement for repairs to, or replacement of, Irrigation facilities. Grantor shall be responsible grilyy for replacing surface in kind and not for trees, shrubs and other plantings that have been removed and repl,�nted during said repairs i!rd/or rapIaccment. Grantor shall not be res�onsble for damage caused to Grantee's improvements ar�d/or landscaping should Grantor's irrigation fadliues break, rapture, or in any other way damage said improvcmcnts and(or landscaping. Should Grant' q its suecessorc and/or assigns, damage any of Grantor's irrigation facilities, Grantee, its successors and/or assigns, shall be responsible for repair and/or replacement. Grantor may use the Property for any purpose(s) so as not to interfere with the rights granted herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this Grant of Easement on this 30th day of January, 1991. GRANTOR LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CAIIFORNIA, INC. a Delawares corporation GRANTEE'S ACCEPTANCE NAME & TITLE: GREG ABADIE VICE PRESTDFNT GRANTEE hereby accepts the above restrictions, terms, covenants, and conditions. GRANTEE OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION an Ohio rporatioonn DATE: / 20 9J BY.I T •�lvLr NAME & TITLE: t STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On this 3M day of January, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, penaaally,ppeared GREG ABADIE, personally known to we (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenoet)heti be the person who executed the within instrument as Vice President of or on behalf of the corporation ein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed it. W1T7NE.SS my hand and official weal. ./ q 4 _< -7 -: C ��� c in and or Sad State 11 tOLM * Carerh "Pat Jura 11.1"A if WMIBIT 80 41631 J.R. D�vfdao►� A�eaalete�.lno. May 20, 1990 ReVi.sed December 10, 1990 PN 807031-06 ON20 CT1'IIZNQ =lQVl9%WM CO"ORATION VLOW COIMOL lABIWI iT Lot "0" of Tract o. 25237 as shown by map on file in Book.2.Z8 Of Map&, Pages through thereof, Records of Riverside County, California, and that portion of the Southwest one - quarter of the Northwest one -quarter, and the Northeast one - quarter of the Southwest one -quarter of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of La Quints, County of Riverside, State of California, - lying within a strip of land 15.00 feet wide, the Southerly line being described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of Lot "L" of said Tract No. 2 5237t Thence N. 78018'00" W., a distance of 262.12 feat; Thence N. 44019100" W., a distance of 236.14 feet; Thence N. 19058'00'T W., a distance of 46.80 feet; Thence N. 38034' 00" E., a distance of 202.10 feet; Thence N. 23022F00" E., a distance of 136.15 feet; Thence N. 01003'00" E., a distance of 55.00 feet; Thence N. 58036'00" W., a distance of 90.25 feet; Thence N. 86927'00" w., a distance of 145.25 feet; Thence N. 74010'00" W., a distance of 69.65 feet; Thence N. 09040.00" W., a distance of 41.60 feet; Thence N. 10°51'00" E., a distance of 148.65 feet. Thence N. 12 40050'00" W., a distance of 53.15 feet (the previous courses being along 25237) ; the Northerly line of said Tract No. • OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT REVISED DECEMBER 10, 1990 PAGE 2 Thence N. 89*351001, W, along the Northerly line of Lots 14 and 15 of said Tract No. 25237, a distance of 301.96 feet; Thence S. 41015'00" W., a distance of 38.80 feet; Thence S. 000590'00" W., a distance of 142.05 feet, Thence S. 11°19'001e E., a distance of 91.75 feet; Thence S. 41044'30" W., a distance of 87.15 feet; Thence S. 860121001, W., a distance Of 150.35 feet; Thence N. 30°57100" W., a distance of 110.75 feet; Thence N. 48°51'00e1 W., a distance of 140.50 feet; Thence S. 63000'00" W., a distance of 73.51 feet (the previous 8 courses being along the Northerly and Northwesterly line of Said Tract No. 25237),- Thence S. 53006'00" W. along the Northwesterly line and the Southwesterly prolongation thereof, of Lot 21 of said Tract No. 25237, and the Northwesterly line Of Lot 22 of said Tract No. 25237, a distance of 272.88 feet,to the Northwesterly corner Of said Tract No. 25237, said corner being the termination of said Southerly line description; The Northerly line of said 15.00 foot Strip of land shal3.. be Prolonged or shortened as to terminate in the Easterly line of said Northeast one -quarter -of the -Southwest one -quarter, and prolonged or shortened to terminate in the -Northwesterly Prolongation of the Southwesterly line of said Tract No. 25237; The above described parcel of land contains 26.81 acres, more or less. J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Prepared under the supervision of: Wzi. = �rowtner, PLS N0, 6152 License Expires 3-31-94 Date: 1 21 I`t9e. MC/D3/vb:L$GAL:AY8 41631 tM M CITI' U U NIWA6 gem W RIVWt0R •TATC OF CAiIWA EXHIBIT PLAT Ron 4 biI10TVtltM M A IO urm w Tlt mf 0 t wo w UCTICN ifi T.�ly 11.•I!.� �.�.R. J.E. OAVIOSM ASSOCIATES;, INC. APAT< l990 9•.'rrua n.. f •te ea d1T o /� Tx tusw ♦ NTATIV4 TRA\CT'37\ tLOT !ice �\ ♦y1 r�\i l� \, 'v �C ,� �. �• 1 T ti�i S4496j 1 `r^' i��\ ` ♦ i ♦ \ / / 1 l l .' U+1< (40/66-571 �/ _ w c , 1 \ � • (TR 54496-6r • � , / /• 1 y w 140/fl- ��� / / FLOW �\ ` ice~ _, '-� ♦ � �- ��� ! , , , �' II t • �r 1 \ � loco • •tit{ \ �' ♦ \ i f 0T 'w GOLF catstsE 0 .02 tM IV wo 40b .S�QLE /N FS r >+ccT s a I Was f lf..e�iZ R ..A �J f rh SIR I / / / / rwp�ar.Tna1 ns.awt K uoo� pwa t7rN ITA 14499-31 � •. LNs t2Q/$0-631 AN 11 A m W IPA 7M TW C.T. [/ TA MANTA. C[{Mit d Iltr[Mi0[, [TAtt Ci• GLf/OMiA EXHIBIT PLAT u1Nfa 4 wfasttfia or I ►MfR rut KaIAtJ M s[cifo/ M I.M. M.[t« 1.t.r. d.f. OAVIOSON ASSOCIATES.. INC. AMIL 19" NR•R•A ■■``n a !••• TR 1i w loi it %% / /Coca Caf M L ' ti `+ ! + ! + ! a • --- �7.--..`01( ���/ r� rat �\ ! + ; r' r ♦ 1 �%�\\ • i \+,'' NTATIVg TRACT-, _ 37\11 .'- -- ; J. i i ! (LOT Ir �\ �y1 ��t� ! t ,L 1 r /f 1/; j i ♦'''fw taV4661 i `�-'�^ + ` ++ rr'iTR 31t96-Sr t i ! 1 � _1 1 \ter- �� + ` ► ` �' 'ram � ! ! EAICKW i r'cmawal 3% ; � t r OT N. GOLF COURSE {ONAMAGE [As[nENA 0 • itb ld7 f!1 E00 •jpp . New "Lo• /N FEEI ORE. 1 a [ OR[T& Uri ka � l l �`• ,f r t � ER8'iYidER Q ! i i t{o.5I52 R df OMWO pN AflWAT�'� fflC I1TOi 9[OrAIOC! TM ft Ol► �v ! / / rft+� arnn TrArri (TR i[a9h7! IN 124V i $31 IQ N 0.1 E+ ORANGIF COAIST TITI-la CQ- RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: of a OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION P. O. BOX 780 LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 GRANT Clt F-ASEMIWr t LU LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFa Delaware corporation ('Grantor'), whose address is 78-140 Caliu Tampico, La Quinta, COMMaiifornia 92253 - Attention: G Abadle, hereby grants to OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, its le representatives, suece�sora, and assigns as hereinafter permitted (collectively •Grantee'), whose address hs P. O. Box 780. La Quinta, Califo=ma 92253, an easement on and to that certain real property located in the County of Riverside, State Of California, more particularly described in Exhibit A,• attached hereto and incorporated herein (the Property'), and depicted on Exhibit 'B; attached hereto and incorporated herein, for drainage purposes, includin& without limitation, the use, maiatenanee, repair and/or replacement of and access to e -floodcontrol channel, gravity barrier wall, pipolwe and headwalls. Any construction or pother work performed by Grantee pursuant to the easement rights granted herein shall be at the sole cost and expense of Grantee. Grantee shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Property, including any and all improvements located thereon, in a safe and sanitary condition, which shall include, but not be limited to, the obligation of keeping the Property and any and all improvements located thereon free from weeds, debris and obstructions, and replacing the surface of the Property as necessary. This right and easement shall be appurtenant to and run with the real property described in Exhibit -C,- attached hereto and incorporated herein, as the benefitted dominant tenement and shall not be sold or transferred except as an appurtenance thereto. Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and bold Grantor, its employees, directors, legal representatives, successors, assigns, and entities related thereto, harmtess from any and all Cost, loss, claim, liability or damage directly or indirectly arising from Grantee's use of the rights granted herein. t Notwithstanding the above, Grantor reserves the following rights in and to the Property. The right of ingress and egress and access to and across said easement for repairs to, or replacement of, N irrigation facilities. Grantor shall be respoav'bio only for replacing surface in kind and not for trees, shrubs \+ and other plantings that have hewn removed and replanted during said repairs and/or replacement. Grantor \ . shall not be respons%le for damage caused to Grantee's improvements and/or landscaping should Grantor's 1{`r irrigation facilities break, rupture, or in any other way damage said improvements and/or landscaping. Should Grantee, its successors and/or ass damage damage any of Grantor's irrigation facilities, Grantee, its successors and/or assigns, shall be responsible for repair and/or replacement. Grantor may use the Property for any purpose(s) so as not to interfere with the rights granted herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this Grant of Easement on this 30th day of January, 1991. GRANTOR LANDMARK LAND CO?"ANY OF CAUFORMA, INC a Delaware corporation GRAN12= AcC E"ANClr NAME do TITLE: GREG ABADIE VICE PR ctn riff GRANTEE hereby accepts the above restrictions, terms, covenants, and conditions. GRANTEE OHIO C rlZ.ENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION an Ohio DATE. / 30 / BY: —L NAME & TITLE-- � y��:jl — V,eg STATE OF CALWORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )) ac. On this 30ti< day of January, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public im and for said County and State, Fmotnejappwared GREG ABADIE, perscnaliy known to me (or proved to me on tl a basis of to be the person .rho eked thw wkhoa instrument ss Vie President of cc on behalf of the eWpnamed and admowle4pill to/ono that such corporation executed iL WITNESS my hand and official scat. ratsryy rvv cin sna for sod btate �MNMDEO[x Jt+ha 11, It� EXBIBZT `A' jr 41632 J.F. OnvOdw an Associates, Inc. October 22, 1990 PN 8007032-06 OEZO iCXVXZZMS ZWZ3rAXNT CORPCRATZON XZOOD CON11toL AND ACCISS X"RHENT TRACT 110. 25237 That portion of the Southwest one -quarter of the Northwest one- st Section 36,ter d the Townshiph5aSouth, Aangeer Of 6 East,1eSanrthwest Bernardino Basetand Meridian, in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California; being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of Tract No. 25237 as shown by map on file in Book —ZaZ8 of Maps, Pages 9thereof, Records of Riverside County, California: Thence S. 59*58100" E. along the Southwesterly line of said Tract No. 25237, a distance of 27.17 feet; Thence S. 53606f00" W., a distance of 60.65 feet; Thence H. 36°59'00" W., a distance of 65.00 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 40.00 feet Northwesterly of the Northwesterly line and its Westerly prolongation thereof of said Tract No. 25237; Thence N. 53906.00" E. along said parallel line, a distance of 55.00 feet; Thence S. 36059.00" E., a distance of 10.00 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 30.00 feet Northwesterly of said Northwesterly line of Tract No. 25237; Thence N. 53006'00" E. along said parallel line, a distance of 188.26 feet; Thence N. 51058.00" E., a distance of 100.00 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 35.00 feet Northwesterly of said Northwesterly line of Tract No. 25237; i6 "' OJHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION FLOOD CONTROL AND ACCESS EASEMENT TRACT NO. 25231 OCTOBBR 22, 1990 PAGE 2 Thence N. 63.0 0t00" E. along said parallel line, a distance of 77.25 fart, to a point in a line parallel with and 30.00 Northeasterly of the Northeast line of said Tract No. 25237; Thence S. 48`51•00" E. along said parallel line, a distance of 135.68 feet; Thence S. 41.0 9000" W., a distance of 15.00 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of that certain Flood Control Channel Easement conveyed to Avr &e_ and as described in Instrument No. , recorded A\ � \ el, Official Records of said River aide County; which said Nort eh asterly line bears N. 48.51.00" H; Thence N. 48051t00" W, along said Northeasterly line of that certain Flood Control Channel Easement, a distance of 120.15 feet; Thence S. 63000,001, W. along the Northwesterly line of said Flood Control Channel Easement, a distance of 84.96 feet; Thence S. 53006,100" W. along said Northwesterly line of that certain Flood Control Channel Easement, a distance of 280.58 feet, to an angle point therein, said point tieing in the Northwesterly produced Southwesterly line of said Tract No. 25237; Thence S. 59058.00" E. along said Southwesterly line of that certain Flood Control Channel Easement and said Northwesterly produced Southwesterly line of Tract No. 25237, a distance of 16.30 feet to the Point of Beginning. - The above described parcel contains 0.259 acres, more or less. J.Y. DAV=DSOW ASSOCIATES, INC. Prepared under the supervision of: Marisa& Crowther, PLS NO. 6252 My License Expires 3-31-94 Date:i;V. �j� 1-M1 DMB/MC/vb:LEGAL: AS7 L�:M r WIMIDIT NB" 4163Z SUBJECT, FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT PA OC 1 Or 1 PROJECT' TRACT MAP 25237 �� .+oi No.80-7031-05 nt ue�s ffw are GMO / OM8 AT��Y o�w r �►itrMu�S��O�t�haii Se+. DAM OCTOBER 1990 N 59.58'00'W 27.17 Pf"AMW UNO" TW SJPEJ M390N OR MApil" c Nowl" R -- - - P" NO. stl .W.O W"M A=00AW36 NBC. OA1C �• �% �^ f,�i9 DOCUMENT NO. 80-7031-05_(P) 7R25237 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PORTIONS OF THE SW 1/4 NW1/4 AND SE 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SEC. 35. T.5 S.,R.B E.. S.H.M. N 41009%0rE EXISTING FLOOD 15.00 CONTROL CHANNEL EASEMENT OF 15TM UNtE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA • , . . • EXHIOZr ■a- 41632 d, I SUBJECT, FLOOD CONTROL EASEMEIJT I __ _ PPiOJ�t►R CTp MAP 23237 JF" A���OfT;YIT I{ iIOA EMT OF''}�i}DOCIYrTiON .1011 NO. 80-7031-06 eri GMD / DMB OAIE: OCTOBER loaf N 41909'00`E EXISTING FLOOD 13.00 CONTROL CHANNEL S+� EASEMENT ��Y �i 20• N 4p- 51 00 W vload TRACT BOUNDARY �•. I �. o Icf S 1 �tl► UN o1 r U -41S.L - EXISTING FLOOD CONTROLEASEMENT NNEL IN ! r h$ r_.c TRACT BOUNDARY Ad I� 5. z 1 I N 5905a'00'W APPROXIMATE LOCATION 1 I 16.30 OF 1 GTH LINE I N 59.5S'00'W _w 27.17 • 2Lmoo - s4 ao w o MtiAA71Sp uHOpt 1HE ivMtMil0/a OFk C - i • . , :. • i _ yr �a•3 �-�4- Y i1a. G15? � •M►.rwwwssOa�A�a, tee. � wo, nsi ��. •; va� DOCUMENT NO. W-7_031-06 (P) 1 TgZs 3 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA POR71ONS OF THE SW 1/4 NW1/4 ANO SE 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SEC. 36. T.S S..R.® E., S.O.M. APPROVED eY THE CITY OF LA OUINTA @ 4MN� �OA &kx� PH April 19, 2016 The Honorable Mayor Linda Evans and Members of City Council City of La Quinta 18-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of CUP Permit 2013-152 and Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for the Swenson Project Dear Mayor and City Council Members: By signing below, we attest that we are homeowners residing within the Enclave Mountain Estates, have been there a number of years, and wish to advise that we support the construction of a house on the property located at 77210 Loma Vista, to be known as the Swenson Residence. For years, we knew there would be built a house on the hillside, and we look forward to its completion. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Respectfully, name address • �. 7 0 �Ilv V1'q n rne, i auuress name address d/I �T -7 72- Z name address 77 a as 4�. name address 372 t ame address V RESORT & CLUB 2.1.1 PLANNING AREA BREAkDOWN PLANNING AREAS WITHIN THE RESORT PLAN COMMUNITY The Specific Plan document breaks the plan area into five distinct sub -areas, each with cor- responding "site driven" development regulations and design criteria. These Planning Areas are depicted in Exhibit 4 shown below. IV t- PLANNWG .AREAS l� PLANNTING AREAL BREAK OW.N i t l 11 I Li Qtdula Re- Gannuls V -7 rJ y F111 Li Q,unt.-i Resort & R-Aentinl i �• y �1 IIISanta Rosa Cove &RcsMential [Wyl Ia Q iinln Recurl Gulf Con�_-e Uf l 1 7V Open Space III I II -��--�-��-_ Exhibit 4, �Planning Area Breakdown THE LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT V 2.2 Google Map"s Page 1 of 1 Imagery ©2016 Google, Map data ©2016 Google 100 ft Google Maps //www.google.com/maps/@33.6928635,-116.3169942,390m/data--!3ml! 1 e3 4/ 19/2016 SWENSON RESIDENCE Site Visit & Line of Site Vetting WW Design & Consulting, Inc. visited the project site on April 8, 2016 to evaluate existing conditions and take photographs from the both the rear patio and kitchen window of 77220 Loma Vista. The photograph locations were recorded. All photographs were shot at 5'8" above finished grade at each location using a Nikon D3100 camera at a 52 mm effective focal length. Project Simulation WW Design & Consulting, Inc. created a three dimensional scale model of the proposed home based on the information in document "CUP13-152 EXHIBITS 11-16=15-3" submitted to the City of La Quinta by the project applicant using Autodesk 3ds Max modeling and animation software. An in -software daylight system was created to simulate the sun location and strength at the project longitude and latitude at the time the photographs were taken. Using the real world camera locations as a reference, virtual cameras were created in the scale model at the various locations so the subsequent renders would match exactly the real world photographs. The focal lengths, aperture, exposure time and "camera heights of the virtual cameras matched exactly the real world camera settings. Virtual photographs of the viewpoint locations were then rendered in Autodesk 3ds Max. The rendered site photographs were then composited with their real world photograph counterparts in Adobe Photoshop to finish the simulated views of the project. m City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map Legend Q ciy um1 0 sPtet. a mau:nm.w P1wYrgMu Rnet.W. Cat..y Pa dBaadvie. General Plan Designations - Lo+r OPn.�ty Re.iO.ntitl Moadnvwa� M—Y R..W w [-_� MEuatrI.ULiOb M.ewbmtNq is M.}at:amtmnttYP.dla.. ® no—BP-Rtw..tim 51—t Plghb eWay 0.5 0 03 1 13�06 1 M � 1,�00 fert b Sutace: City or L., Quiet. G--:tl Plan, 05.07.2012 0 r, Q City of La Quinta General Plan r. exhibit L J TERRA NOVA® Land Use Map PI—Inga Res 06 tna La Quinta, California Arially - d th this Land Use EC and the Land U: - flap, fiaclu a 0 Cis 5 here of Influence. The sphere is descn-lbed, and polICTI-Es and. p programs goveming, its land uses in the future should thelimds be a"I'lexed are also IntldOd in, this docurnent. Only If -these lands are annexed will the. GtVs deslgntatlons,, ppilcles and progmms, became effectlye for this area. At, present,, these [andt remain under- the juds6dion Of the tounty,of Weitt'de. Use, Des, ibis end Use Element includes a consolldat[orr of several of the land. use designatlbnsused: 1hprevlausGeneral Plans. As shown in Table IM, the resTdentlal designations, whiTO previously were defined in five categories, have, Wen: reduced to two. The seven previous comm., ercial 1009nations have been combined Into three, and, the open, space ,designations, wNchwam previously In four categories, have been co,risoUdated Into two desloatlons. loui bet!Vaut0h New Des -tion Very Low Density Residential Low Density. ReSE-danual -,Low-DenftAesld'enW ,Medium Density. ResIden-bal -d Me, - I u. m I H D-en, s, i ty Medium HIgh, Density Re iden U s Residential � OT Hin Oens[�y Resident Re" Stonal Comm ere; 61 Community Commerdal NelghborhoodComm, extail general ConnT, Camm-erda[ Park Offlce Resort,Mrxed,U'Se Tourist Commercial Tourist Commercia, IlegeCom-Triercial ilia a CO mmerdal IndustrfajjVt Mqnufactqrrna__ ,Ma)or Cbrnmunf!y Fadtf`d , es IMajor Communly Fadliu-'es Recreational Opan!;pace ulf course peen pate ztercoume Natural Open Space LAN � D USE Urz Table II-2 Zoning Desi nation Consistency Matrix General Plan Designation Zoning Designation RR — Rural Residential Overlay EOD — Equestrian Overlay Low Density Residential RVL — Very Low Density Residential RL — Low Density Residential AJER — Agricultural/Equestrian Residential RSP — Residential Specific Plan Overlay* RC - Cove Residential Medium/High Density RM — Medium Density Residential RMH — Medium High Density Residential Residential RH — High Density Residential RSP — Residential Specific Plan Overlay* CR — Regional Commercial CP — Commercial Park General Commercial CC — Community Commercial CN — Neighborhood Commercial CO — Office Commercial Tourist Commercial CT —Tourist Commercial Village Commercial VC — Village Commercial Industrial/Light I — Industrial/Light Manufacturing Manufacturing Major Community Facilities MC — Major Community Facilities Recreational Open Space PR — Parks and Recreation GC — Golf Course OS — Open Space Natural Open Space FP — Flood Plain HC — Hillside Conservation Overlay *Can occur in any residential zone, base zone governs density. Distribution of Land Uses The Land Use Map addresses not only the City's corporate limits, but its Sphere of Influence. The character and distribution of these land uses, and the character and quantity of existing development are described for both these areas individually below. A summary of all lands within both the City and its Sphere of Influence is also provided. LAND USE 11-6 Table 11-3 Land Use Summary City Limits Only Land Use Designation Developed Acres Vacant Acres Total Acres Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Low Density Residential 4,006.o 1,583.7 5,589.7 2o,834 4,752 25,586 Medium/High Density Residential 1,292.4 37.6 %666.o 2,655 3362 6,017 Total 5,298.4 1,957.3 7,255.7 23,489 8,114 31,603 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 385.6 184.0 569.6 3,695,282 1,763,309 5,458,591 Tourist Commercial 206.6 138.9 345.5 1,979,889 1,331,io6 3,310,996 Village Commercial 77.1 12.9 90.0 738,865 123,623 862,488 Total 669.3 335.8 11,005.1 6,414,o36 3,218,039 9,632,074 Major Community Facilities 252.7 193.8 446i5 Open Space - Natural 2,171.6 4,761.7 6,9333 Open Space - Recreation 4,392.2 867.0 5,259.2 Street Rights -of - Way 1,764.6 19m b955.7 H Grand Total 14,548.8 8,3o6.7 I 22,855.5 1 *Differences in sums due to rounding. Sphere of Influence In the Sphere of Influence, there are a total of 8,101.4 acres. 91.3% Of land is designated for residential land uses. 3.5% of Sphere lands are designated for commercial land uses, and less than 1% are designated for industrial land uses. There is no designated Open Space land in the Sphere currently. The acreage is shown in Table 11-4, below. There are currently a total of 8o1 housing units in the Sphere, all of which are single family homes. The vacant residential lands have a potential to generate an additional 2o,699 units, 20,48o of which would be single family units, and 219 of which would be multi -family LAND USE 11-8 Table 11-5 Land Use Summary City Limits and Sphere of Influence Land Use Designation Developed Acres Vacant Acres Total Acres Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Low Density Residential 4,557.5 8,410•3 12,967.8 21,635 25,232 46,867 Medium/High Density Residential 1,292.6 398.o 1,69o.6 2,655 3,581 6,236 Total 5,850.1 8,8o8.3 14,658.4 24,290 28,813 53,103 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 414.2 44o.6 854.7 3,969,042 4,222,106 8,191,148 Tourist Commercial 2o6.6 138.9 345.5 1,979,889 1,331,1o6 3,310,996 Village Commercial 77.1 12.9 90.0 738,865 123,623 862,488 Total 697.9 592.4 1,290.2 6,687,796 5,676 835 .12,364,631 Industrial/Light Manufacturing 0.0 63.8 63.8 - 611,4o8 611,408 Major Community Facilities 280.9 195.4 476.3 Open Space - Natural 2,171.6 4,761•7 6,933.3 Open Space - Recreation 4,392.2 867.0 5,259.2 Street Righ of - Way 2,084.5 1 1.1 2,275.6 Grand Total 15,477.2 15,479.7 30,956.9 *Differences in sums due to rounding. Residential Build Out Population The US Census estimated the City's population at 37,467 in 201o. This population was distributed in 14,82o households, which translates to a total of 2.53 persons per household. In order to estimate build out population in the City, the total number of potential housing units was multiplied by the current household size, resulting in a total population In the City at build out of 79,956 persons. It is difficult to estimate what percentage of the City's housing units will be occupied by seasonal residents at build out, but if the current seasonal vacancy rate of 27.5% were to cant' through to build out, the permanent population in the City would be 57,968. LAND USE