Loading...
EA 1994-287 Travertine & Green (Coral Canyon) - 1995 Final EIR Vol IVOLUME I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRAVERTINE AND GREEN SPECIFIC PLANS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS State Clearinghouse No.#94112047 Lead Agency: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact: Jerry Herman EIR Prepared by: The Keith Companies 2955 Red Hill Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Contact: Saundra Jacobs March 1995 ° ' 'Q1 r r- TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 History of Proposed Project 1 Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 2 Summary of Topical Responses 4 Bighorn Sheep HMP 4 Multi -species HCP 6 Comments and Response to Comments Letter 1 Julia Dugan, Bureau of Land Management Response to Letter 1 1-1 Letter 2 Orlando H. Gonzalez, California Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Letter 2 2-1 Letter 3 Robert G. Harvey, California Department of Transportation Response to Letter 3 3-1 Letter 4 Patricia Wolf, California Department of Fish and Game Response to Letter 4 4-1 Letter 5 David M. Cosper, City of La Quinta Public Works/Engineering Department Response to Letter 5 5-1 Letter 6 George L. Meyer, College of the Desert Response to Letter 6 6-1 Letter 7 Thomas F. Lyons, Imperial Irrigation District Response to Letter 7 7-1 Letter 8 Tom Levy, Coachella Valley Water District Response to Letter 8 8-1 Letter 9 Lloyd "Nick" Nickerson, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Letter 9 9-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES EV MODUCTION Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires the lead agency (City of La Quinta) to consider public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and to prepare written responses to such comments. This document contains all comments received on the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 94112047) during the 45 -day public review period which occurred from January 17, 1995 through March 4, 1995. The City of La Quinta extended the review period to March 7, 1995 at the request of the local and state agencies. Responses to comments offered by responsible agencies and interested citizens are included, followed by various revisions and refinements to the Draft EIR. These revisions and refinements provide clarification and additional information, but raise no significant new environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Draft EIR. The Response to Comments, together with the Draft EIR (DEIR), all the technical appendices and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process constitute the Final EIR (FEIR), as defined in State EIR Guidelines, Section 15132. History of the Proposed Project In 1988-89 the Toro Canyon Private Land Exchange was proposed to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by the Nature Conservancy and George Berkey and Associates, Inc. Initially the Travertine property owners, represented by Mr. Berkey, owned four separate sections of land within the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Nature Conservancy owned one section of land which was within both the City of Palm Springs and the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area (SRMWHA). All five of these sections are within the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area (SRMNSA) and encompass approximately five square miles of land (3,207.24 acres) in the vicinity of Palm Canyon in the Santa Rosa Mountains. In exchange for these five parcels of land to BLM, the Nature Conservancy and Mr. Berkey requested one section of BLM land comprised of approximately 638.56 acres. This requested site is currently known as the Travertine Specific Plan site. The Environmental Assessment (EA), performed for this Federal land exchange, concluded that as a consequence of exchanging five sections of land to BLM for the Travertine site, these five sections would now be protected as Federal resources and the Travertine site "would subsequently be developed in accordance with the land use planning designations."' As required in the EA, the four sections of land exchanged to BLM from George Berkey and Associates Inc., would be managed as habitat for the San Jacinto Mountains population of bighorn sheep. The Travertine site is not a part of a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) nor is it designated part of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Details of the EA performed for this land exchange are provided below. I. Environmental Assessment, Toro Carryon Land Exchange, August 1990. 1 r At the time of the land exchange, the Travertine site was within the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan (ECVCP) in the County of Riverside. The ECVCP land use designation for lower, flatter portions of this site was "Planned Residential Reserve". This designation was intended to allow for large-scale, self-contained resort communities. The steeper portions of this site were designated as "Mountainous Areas" in the ECVCP. Limited land uses are permitted in areas covered by this designation. They include Open Space, limited recreational uses, limited single family residential, landfills and resource development. Once the land exchange was approved and completed, the City of La Quinta commenced annexation proceedings for the Travertine site. In 1993, the Travertine site was incorporated into the City of La Quinta boundaries and was designated with an LDR land use designation (Low Density Residential, 2 to 4 dwelling unit per acre), and an Open Space designation, (1 dwelling unit per acre). Toro Canyon Land Exchange Environmental Assessment As part of the land exchange process, The BLM prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Travertine portion of this Federal land exchange. Biological and archaeological reports were prepared for the Travertine site. These include: "Biological Survey and Report for the Toro Canyon Property", prepared for BLM by Brian F. Mooney Associates, July 1990; and an Archaeological Class III Survey also prepared by Brian F. Mooney. As stated previously, the EA concluded that a consequence of exchanging five sections of land to BLM for the Travertine site, would result in the subsequent development of the site, in accordance with the land use planning designations imposed by the City of La Quinta. In order for the land exchange to be approved, the EA required the four sections of land exchanged to BLM from George Berkey and Associates Inc., to be managed as habitat for the San Jacinto Mountains population of bighorn sheep. The one section of land exchanged to BLM from the Nature Conservancy would be maintained in the SRMWHA. In addition, the mitigation measures imposed by the EA included the conveyance of 160 acres of land to the Nature Conservancy. This 160 acres of land is located in the southern portion of the Travertine site, also known as the Martinez Rock Slide. The intent of the mitigation measure was to utilize the 160 acres of land to buffer the Toro Canyon area from the assumed Travertine development. This 160 acres of the Martinez Rock Slide will be managed as part of the SRMNSA. Although the EA indicated that this 160 acre buffer would provide access for Native Americans to Toro Canyon, the DEIR for the Travertine and Green Specific Plans have recommended that access be restricted into this buffer. The Final EIR will recommend that limited access be provided to individuals, entities and institutions for scientific study, as well as Native Americans. 2 The EA conclusions were utilized extensively in preparation of the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft EIR. The EA specifically indicates that the site proposed for the Travertine Specific Plan "is designated as Class III habitat for the federally endangered, desert tortoise." (This Class III rating means that the probability of encountering these animals is low because of habitat modification or other factors). The EA goes on to indicate that "[t]he probability of encountering these animals on the selected public land [Travertine site] is low"; and that "no adverse consequences to the species are anticipated." The EA also specifically indicates that "the site abuts the eastern range of the State Threatened Federal Candidate 2, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep," and that "[b]oth of these animals [desert tortoise and bighorn sheep] prefer steeper terrain such as that to the south and west of Section 4 [the Martinez Rock Slide on the Travertine site] . No adverse impacts to these species are anticipated, particularly as minimal development would occur on the steeper slopes of the selected public land [Travertine site]". The exchange of 5 square miles of land to the BLM allowed the management of the land as part of the SRMNSA. This SRMNSA provides critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. 3 SUMMARY TOPICAL RESPONSES Environmental issues which were frequently identified in multiple letters received on the Draft EIR, are discussed in this section. These topics are also cross-referenced in response to Letters 1, 4, 6, and 9. A number of concerns have been raised in letters and comments received on the Draft EIR regarding the biological impacts associated with the Travertine and Green Specific Plans and the implementation of the bighorn sheep Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Specifically the comments regarding biological impacts refer to clarification of the components for both the HMP and MSHCP. This section summarizes and describes a refinement to the Travertine Specific Plan which further mitigates biological impacts. Bighorn Sheep Habitat Management Plan The Draft EIR Section 3.8 Biology (page 3.8-11) recommends the following mitigation measure in order to mitigate impacts to the bighorn sheep to less than significant levels: 3. The applicant shall ensure that a habitat management plan (HMP) for the bighorn sheep is prepared and implemented. Elements of the management plan should include but not be limited to: designating a buffer area separating the developed area from the toe of the slope; usage of sound walls; restrictions on outdoor lighting; usage of non reflective surfaces; leash laws for pets; and education of property owners. The HMP shall be prepared by a biologist and reviewed by CDFG prior to issuance of a grading permit. (T, G) The Environmental Assessment prepared for the Toro Canyon Land Exchange required the conveyance of 160 acres of buffer area in the southern portion of the Travertine site (Martinez Rock Slide). The FEIR has acknowledged this buffer area and has recommended a refinement to the residential development. This refinement would be implemented as part of the bighorn sheep Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Therefore, the refinement has been incorporated into an expanded mitigation measure for the project. (If the preparation of the HMP for the bighorn sheep is stalled or prevented from being adopted, the expanded mitigation measure will still be required to be implemented as part of the mitigation monitoring plan). This mitigation measure would replace measure 3 above: 3. The applicant shall ensure that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the bighorn sheep is prepared by a biologist, reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game, and implemented prior is issuance of grading permits. Elements of the management plan shall include the following measures. These measures will be required even if the preparation of the HMP is stalled or prevented from being adopted: 4 a) Residential or commercial development adjacent to the 160 acre buffer, shall be located at a minimum of 300 feet, from the toe of slope of the buffer. Within this 300' setback, limited private or semi private recreational. uses (ie: target golf course) will be allowed. (A target golf course would provide greater opportunities to revegetate the golf course with native vegetation. However, replanting or transplanting native vegetation does not replace lost habitat from development). The 300' setback shall be verified by the City Public Works Department during plan check. b) A conservation easement shall be established over the 300' setback to preclude structures from being developed within the 300' setback area. This conservation easement will provide an additional buffer for the preservation of off site archaeological resources. c) Public pedestrian access from the Travertine site to the 160 acre buffer would be restricted to individuals, entities and institutions for scientific study, as well as Native Americans. This restriction shall be verified by the City Public Works Department during plan check. d) All turf areas and water features will have biological (i.e., mosquito fish) and chemical treatment programs to control insect vectors that might transmit infectious diseases to sheep. e) Support the prohibition of hiking and riding trails, outside of the re -aligned Boo Hoff Trail, except as indicated in 3 (c) above by providing signage indicating that unauthorized vehicular/pedestrian access to the surrounding properties is not permitted, prior to occupancy of each phase. Prior to building permit issuance and where aesthetically practical, outdoor lighting shall be directed at the ground and shielded away from the bighorn habitat to reduce impacts to nocturnal animals. g) Building materials shall be limited to non -reflective, non -glare surface materials, including paving, roofing material, paint and exterior material. h) Sound barriers (i.e., berms, landscaping) shall be installed at the toe of the slope of the 160 acre buffer area. Barrier material and height shall be consistent with Specific Plan Policy. i) Streets providing access to the estate lots areas shall be located on the north side of the residential units to reduce reflective car lights. E n it 1 j) The Homeowners Association for the developments shall assist the City * enforcing 1 strict leash laws for pets, by posting of signs, providing residents with information on the adverse impacts of domestic pets in wildlife habitat areas and by reporting I violations to the City.. k) Provide educational material to project residents and guests explaining the ecological requirements and behavior of peninsular bighorn sheep. Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Draft EIR Section 3.8 Biology (page 3.8-10) recommends the following mitigation measure in order to mitigate impacts to the extent feasible for the taking of sensitive plant species and the incremental loss of plant and animal communities within the Coachella Valley: 1. The City of La Quinta shall ensure, as proposed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, that mitigation/compensation funds shall be made available to the Coachella Valleymulti-species planning process prior to any habitat impacting activities (grading permit), due to this project. Such funds should be calculated on the basis of acreage of habitat disturbed, pursuant to a formula for fees which is equitably and uniformly applied throughout the Coachella Valley. (T,G) One purpose of an area -wide multi -species habitat conservation plan is to provide a vehicle for property owners to mitigate for the loss of otherwise irreplaceable biological resources. Development of the Travertine site will inevitably have direct and cumulative impacts that cannot be addressed on a species -by -species basis. The City may choose to become the trustee of funds contributed to CVAG until such time as the MSHCP is adopted. COMMIENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMAIENTS 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES Letters Received During Public Review Period Letters received on the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft EIR between January 17, 1995 and March 7, 1995, are listed below and included in this section. Responses to these letters, and individual comments bracketed therein (ie., 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, etc.) are provided in Section II. Letter Commenting -Agency or Interested PaM Date Federal Agencies: 1 Julia Dugan, Bureau of Land Management 3/7/95 State Agencies: 2 Orlando H. Gonzalez, California Regional 2/23/95 Water Quality Control Board 3 Robert G. Harvey, California Department 3/2/95 of Transportation 4 Patricia Wolf, California Department 2/28/95 of Fish and Game County and City Agencies: 5 David M. Cosper, City of La Quinta Public 3/7/95 Works/Engineering Department Interested Parties: 6 George L. Meyer, College of the Desert 1/30/95 7 Thomas F. Lyons, Imperial Irrigation District 1/30/95 8 Tom Levy, Coachella Valley Water District 2/28/95 9 Lloyd "Nick" Nickerson, Robert Bein, William 2/10/95 Frost & Associates 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 0-. / iidi 1'2jLTJ: 3_ O_ :�: , : i i:'3 yJ: 03: AS 09-30 0610 251 x1248 BLN PALM SPRi\G$ t!TiM, I MAt< 4 gee% C1T'f OFiA a� A Nsxc OVARTMENT 4 !;.s Lesile Mouriquand-Cherry Associate Planner The City of La Quints 78-496 Calle Tarttplcu La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear ms. Mouriquand-Cherry* Q002 LE77ER 1 1785 (CA -066.31) Thank you fear the opportunity to review and cor" ment on the T,-ava!4.1ne sn4 Green Specific Psan and EnvrronMEr;1PJ Impact Repar!- We offer the follcwtng ccmments for your consideration. dlife. True proposed dBvelopmertt is +r! close proxi,,nity tc important Peninsular bighorn sheep (Qv -us cana ensis) lambing ar,c Gvve habitat (BLM et al j995). The mitigation measures proposed to offset impact; *o tris s-ec;jes appear' to be adtquate in t wary. However, the plan r-nakei3 no mention of noir ;hese °-nearaures will be irnplernet &j and ___1-1 enforcGd Efforts- should ne made to avoid installation of b± g t �+utdcor lighting througi some kiwi of Carling restrii: isOr1. Domestic and wild a; tcmals should be Rapt sera=ate through fencing and enforcement of Ise -ash laws. R?sidert�al units that abut ;;igharn sheep habitat should avoid kt•te use of ornamental shrub$ in isindscapirg. Additionally, golf course design should exc,ude the use of lakss and ponds as these are breeding areas fur greats, Gnats are vectore of dlseases whiQh are harmful to bighom sheep. The plan states that impacts tc sensi;tve species -'oft as `he pr,, i ie falcon, blavi+-tailed gnatcatChef , loggerhead shtrike, Palm springs pocket rn,�use. and sensitive bats M+! be 1-2 mitigated through the Habitat Conse: iation Pial for Ccacheila Valley. Tina HGP is tett early in ms planning stages to mafce tris statement. i=tlt�r;'�atl�1Q 3 wrl result ,n L)Q least Impact to the aforementioned species. Vehicle PsoC S. Vve would likettte EIR to consider the indirect imcactt-q of ine!eased 1-3 motorized vehicle access onto the adjoining pubica r.dS ;arid bow the increased access will be controlled. 03i02J1995 10 32 93.03:93 66:31 6191/77155 .:TT ' GF LA 1.10:ItiTAQAGE 03 '1"03 a 0248 BLS P3L.K SPRTNGS LETTER 1 COt"`1t'd rl Water Pesourcos. Since avatar consumption will e-xfreed water 2vallablilty from 'n-slte 1-4 wells resulting In a rei-�ucion in the existing ur oer grctind water supply, wd recomMend that a recycled water prograrn be ir-n plat nerited for irrigating the !ands"pir g and golf courses. Botanical ResNurces We suggest the botanical list be'.1ptfated. The Cali�fil-mia barrel Ca' ;s r; ll r 1 Letter 1 Bureau of Land Management, Julia Dugan, March 7, 1995 1-1) The Environmental Assessment prepared by BLM in July of 1990 provided mitigation measures that were implemented prior to the Toro Canyon Land Exchange. These mitigation measures included the dedication of a 160 I _ acres of development buffer area in the southern portion of the Travertine Specific Plan site. The EA indicates that the site abuts the eastern range of the State Threatened Federal Candidate 2, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep and that bighorn sheep prefer steeper terrain such as that to the south and west of the Travertine site. The Travertine and Green Specific Plan DEIR presents the conclusions found in the BLM EA: No adverse impacts to this species is anticipated. This is particularly so since no development is proposed on the steeper slopes of either the Travertine or Green sites. The topical section of this Final EIR provides detail of the buffer setback area and specific items to be presented in the required HCP for the bighorn sheep habitat (see prior Summary Topical Responses). All mitigation measures presented in the Draft and Final EIR for the Travertine and Green Specific Plans will be implemented and enforced through the mitigation monitoring program. 1-2) The DEIR indicated that impacts to these species will only be mitigated to the extent feasible with the HCP for Coachella Valley. Impact to sensitive species will remain significant after mitigation. 1-3) The projects as proposed are not proposing to provide vehicle access to areas outside of the project boundary, except in the eastern portion of the Travertine site where Jefferson Street is proposed to connect to existing streets in Riverside County. However, the DEIR does indicate that the Travertine and Green Specific Plans have a growth inducing impact, since they are proposing to bring infrastructure and utilities into an area that does not currently have these. The Travertine and Green Specific Plan DEIR proposes to realign the Boo Hoff trail to the Jefferson Street right-of-way within the project boundaries. 1-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES In an effort to reduce trespass on surrounding parcels the following mitigation measure 7 has been added to Section 3.8 to reduce impacts related to indirect access to the extent feasible: Z Prior to occupancy of each phase, the applicant or subsequent homebuilder shall provide a sign program which indicates that unauthorized vehicular/ pedestrian access to the surrounding properties is not permitted. 1-4) Please refer to mitigation measures 1 and 6 on page 3.5-12 of the DER regarding the use of recycled water. 1-5) The biological report for the Travertine and Green Specific Plan DEIR was prepared in June, 1994 and does not require updating. Comment is noted. The California barrel cactus is no longer listed as a C2 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The California ditaxis (Ditaxis californica) was not listed in the biological report because the consulting biologist did not observe this species. 1-6) Figure 3.8-1 has been revised to depict some Creosote Bush Scrub area near Section 32 as Desert Dry Wash Woodland. Refer to the following page. 1-2 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 1� -ig, , ic , T I < '44 J 4 4 1 4 4 4 4. 4 it 0 f F7 4 0 t .rr ' . flit, a Figure 3. Site Map Showing Major Vegetation Communities 1 11 Creosote Bush Scrub / �/` Desert Drywash Woodland <1, I Cultivated (Vilis spp.) Desert Wash Blueline Stream Identified USGS Martinez Mountain 4 A- '004 '4 Quad 1988 A A. I Site Boundary 14 a J it1.xt 0 -------------- J54f I, I.~ I t I t4 t pyFjj/ .,Zt a'4L 4� C -ell 4P T\ 4r li/j 4- j J 'A A 4k 4 aw rA 4 t r 4 -2 -Nr, A 4. 1 1 - I I - . 5? .. . " 4 1 (L fi444 41 it Ll: .1 E Tr SM. V-9 Ma N K TMO 12 F I 966064 * Revised 319195 to address BLM concerns regarding boundaries a'?/27/1995 11:17 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUINTA PAGE 02 LETTER 2 STATE OF CALMORMA • CALWOAMA ENVIRONMENTAL PROMMON AGPNCY PETE VALSON. Gftemcr CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 130ARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN • REGION 7' M-720 FILED WARWd OR, SurrE 100 PALM DESERT. CA 2ma " Q f j�` PIIOM Is,n 1442034&74�, c_ F N 1'f It 1111 fAx cs,� �,�easa LEB z a aes Jerry Herman, Community Development Director City of ha Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Travertine and Green Specific Plan Project. SCH # 94112047, La Quints Regional Board staff received and reviewed the above document. Our review indicates that a General Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit may be needed for the construction activities for the subject project since it may results in a land disturbance of over than five acres. To obtain coverage under this General Permit, the owner/operator of the land where construction activity occurs must submit (1) a completed Notica of Intent (NOI) form; which is attached to the last pages of the enclosed General Permit copy, (2) the appropriate fee (9500), and (3) the site map, to the following address: State Water Resource Control Board Division of Water Quality Attention: Storm Water Permit Unit P.O. Box 1977 Sacramento, CA 96812-1977 Permits are required for all storm water discharges as3celated with construction activity that result a land disturbance of five or more acres. This includes the following: 1. Construction activities directly or indirectly related to clearing, grading, or excavation that results in soil disturbance. Areas of =- 2. Construction activities directly or indirectly related to the receiving of fill materials within a project site. Areas of fill. 3. Areas of water conveyance and/or drainage structures whether they be permanent or temporary. 4. Areas used to store soils and wastes. 5. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practice will be used during construction. 6. Construction access roads and access (staging) areas. 7. Vehicle storage and service areas_ Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas. 8. Stabilization areas. Areas that include temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, soil stabilization, erosion control blankets, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, plant covering, application of ground base on areas to be paved. .— 2-1 2-2 03/27/1995 11:17 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUINTA PAGE 03 LETTER 2 cont'd Storm water discharge from construction activity that results in a land disturbance of less than five acres, but which is part of a common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. A permit is required until the construction is complete. Permittees are required to develop and implement a Storm 2-3 Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Section A of the General Permit (a plan to keep the facility dean) and the Monitoring Plan, Section 8 of the General Permit (a plan to inspect and monitor storm water leaving the facility to ensure there are no pollutants being discharge). These two plans have to be developed before construction is started. If you have any question regarding this matter, please call me at (63 9) 776-8962. &. -0 ORLANDUR GONZALEZ Water Resource Control Engineer OG/)r Enc. as above noted File: Case File Letter 2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orlando H. Gonzalez, February 23, 1995 2-1) Section 3.7 Hydrology/Stormwater, page 3.7-5 states that, "The City of La Quinta is participating with all other Coachella Valley communities, Riverside County and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in completing permit requirements for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." 2-2) Refer to Response to Comment 2-1. 2-3) The following mitigation measure number 8 is added to Section 3.7.5 on page 3.7-1: 8. The proposed project will be required to comply with NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water permit requirements which include submittal of the Notice of Intent and fee to the California Water Resources Control Board, and development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), monitoring plan and reporting plan. The SWPPP will include Best Management Practices (BMP) to mitigate erosion, sedimentation and groundwater degradation effects. 2-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES U. f Vo! 177 10: 1CJ 017: i ii77 _ i I 'I Ur- _A I -A- lI I I LETTER 3 ATE Of CAUFORNIA--SUSIMM. vRANS"TAT10N ANO M.MSING AGENCY PETE W!M!% Gowrnw DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION asnaa k P.O. ion ni FXN 8RNARDedo. CAUFORNIA 92102 fe 19043 383.5939 March 2, 1995 08-Riv-111-29. SCHO 94112047 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quint& 76-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 927251 Dear Mr. Herman: Draft Environmental Impact Report fgr the Travertine_ a7O Green Srecific Plan We have reviewed the above -referenced document and request consideration of the following continents: ■ The "Year 2000 Directional Distribution of Green Specific Plan Traffic" (Figure Iv -1) and "Buildout Directional Distribution of Travertine Specific Plan Traffic" (Figure V-7) indicate that a significant amount of traffic generated by the developments will travel on Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe Streets. As these streets intersect with State Route ill (SR 111), a regionally significant transportation facility, it is highly probable that many of the trips will utilize the State Route. The study should be amended to disclose each project's projected traffic impact at SR ill and intersections at Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe Street&. 3-1 ■ In order to maintain a Level Of Service D, SR 111 will need to be improved to a six (6) lane highway by the year 2010. The City should ensure that each project which negatively impacts the State Route should 3-2 participate in a fair -share machanis-m to fund improvements for the decrease in the level of service for which it is responsible. 63/06/1995 16:10 6197777155 Ci'r-,' OF LA hl0=riT, xr. Jerry Herman starch 2, 1995 Page 2 R43E IE I LETTER 3 cont'd When available, please send the amended traffic study to: La Keda Johnson Transportation Planning, CEQA/IGR California Department of Transportat2on P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 It you have any questions, please contact La Xeda Johnson at (909) 383-5929 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, Office of iver�ide County Transportation Planning 3-3 Letter 3 California Department of Transportation, Robert G. Harvey, March 2, 1995 3-1) In 1992 the City of La Quinta Updated its General Plan Traffic and Circulation Element. Based upon the City's TRANPLAN modeling it was determined that at buildout State Route 111 would need to be improved to a six (6) lane highway to maintain Level of Service D. This is consistent with Caltrans findings as stated in the March 2, 1995 letter. The study area and key intersections in the traffic study were established through close coordination with City staff. Together with the traffic study and the TRANPLAN modeling performed with the Circulation Element Update, the City has determined that there is sufficient information to make a "fair share" assessment of off-site infrastructure responsibilities for the proposed projects. The City will assume the responsibility of coordinating with Caltrans regarding the funding of improvements along SR 111. 3-2) The City of La Quinta currently has an infrastructure fee program in place. Monies which are paid to the infrastructure fee program are utilized for facilities which are impacted in a general or indirect manner. Mitigation measure 8 on page 3.2-23 of the DEIR has been provided to ensure that the applicant contributes funds to this fee program prior to the issuance of building permits. 3-3) Refer to Response to Comment 3-1. 3-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 03/136/19135 16: 10 5197777155 CITY ;�� UIQ;7; PAGE 03 LETTER 4 FATE Of CAtWCRWA--TI# I SOURM ACANCr — —Pr -E WILSON. do-" to DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 70 GOL(Xt4 Sr4ORt, SUITE 30 ONG MACH. CA 901102 (310) 59G-5113 Mr. Jerry Herman City of Ii Quittta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, California 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: February 28, 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Travertine and Green Specific Plan SCH 94112047, Riverside County r ;firs. The Department of Fish and Game (Deparamen:; has reviewed the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DE?R)_ The project proposes to develop 2.647 homes, a resort hotel and two 18 -hole golf courses. The project site is located in the Coachella Valley and Santa Rosa Mountains of Riverside Counry. Desert habitat within and adjacent to the project could be adversely affected by conversion to residential and recreational uses. As proposed, approximately 1,411 acres of alluvial fans, desert riparian habitat, and desert hillside and mountain habitat would be directly impacted. The majority of the habitat is Desert Scrub, Desert Succulent Siuub and Desert Dry Wash which provides habitat for two starlisted species. k -i additional 299 acres of vineyards are in agricultw-a? production. Mountainous habitat in the adjacent fc rthiUs will be indirectly impacted by project deaelopmenr. Guadalupe Nash traverses the proj,*c:t site and supports stands of desert riparian vegetation including smoke tree, catclaw acacia and. desert willow. The northern portion of the site borders with the recently developed Quarry project. Most notably, two state -listed threatened species are likely to be adversely affected by project construction and development. The project occurs within he ranges of Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnvbates) a State -listed Threatened spe:ies and the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassh�f) a State- and Federally -listed Threatened species. The Travertine and Green Specific Plan would convert habitat for the Desert tortoise and Peninsular bighorn sheep. The project, therefore, has the potential to directly, and isndirectly, adversely affect these species, their habitat and conservation_ recovery effo:ls. As proposed, this development would contribute to additional loss of bighorn she t habitat in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Reticent developments and additional planned developments in the Santa Rosa Mountains are likely to exert adverse cumulative effec*.s on Threatened wildlife resources in the region. 41 4-2 4-3 03:' 06!1956 16: 10 619' 77155 CI -P-' OF 1-7UIt1TA PAGE 04 LETTER 4 cont'd Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1995 Page Two In our judgement, we find that the DEIrR does not adequately address wildlife resource issues. There are deficiencies in the biological surrey inforrsation, such that reasonable assessments of project impacts cannot be made. For those resources which are 4-4 identified. proposed mitigation measures are not adequate. Where unavoidable impacts to sensitive resources are identified, specific and effective mitigation measures are not provided. The cumulative impact analysis for the project is a;.: --o inadequately addressed. Because of these deficiencies, the Department must request that a supplemental EIR addressing wildlife resource issues be prepared so that acceptable, biologically effective mitigation measures can be developed. The supplemental EIR should then be circulated for subsequent review. With these general concerns in mind, the Departanent provides the follow.Lng detailed comments: Suitable habitat for the Stare- and Federally -listed TILeate ed Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassidt) occurs onsite and the project lies within the historic range of the species. The Department's current strategy for mitigatirig impacts to desert tortoises in the Coachella Valley is to provide compemating habitat offsite. A conservation s►rategy for 45 tortoises focuses on acquisitions of superior habitat in regions where preserves can be managed for population viability. Conceptually, tortoise habitat in the Coachella Valley is not likely to provide for long-term population viability and, therefore, can be sacrificed in favor of alternative locations. The DeparttLent would consider acquisition of additional tortoise habitat as an appropriate mitigation and compensation measure for habitat that is to be developed. Peninsular bighorn sheep (Oris canadensis cremnobates), a State -listed 1111reatened species and a species proposed for Federal listing as Endangered, inhabits hillsides, canyon bottoms and alluvial fans associated with the development site. Suitable habitat is present onsite and bighorn sheep have historically been observed on site and within the vineyards by Department staff. Bighorn sheep have also been observed on, or i mediately adjacent to, the site by researchers from the L:nivemtrf of California, Davis and by Depament wildlife biologists during aerial survey efforts. The Department's "Anna Sorrego Population Health Study of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep" is being conducted under contract with U.C., Davis in the Santa Rosa Mountains of Sar, Diego and Riverside Counties. During Mr. the last fifteen months, research biologists have been collecting telemeter data on sheep in the region. Observations of bighorn sheep have been made in Devils Canyon, Guadalupe Canyon and on hillsides within and adjacent to the project site. M In general, wildlife is a function o. `tabitat and pen Ovular bighorn sheep are not an exception. In California Peninsular bighorn siaeep are distributed from the San Jacinto mountains to the San Ysidro Mountains near the Mexican border (CDf&G 1992). Peninsular bighorn inhabit open desert slopes below 4,GOO ft elevation (Grinnell & Swarth 4-7 1993, Hicks 1978) with steep terrain for escape coyer. Sheep are seasonally distributed in the desert depending upon forage availability and Nater sours -:s. Peninsular bighorn sheep F-11 r 03/06/1995 15:10 619'..'155 I Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1995 Page Three PlUBc 05 LETTER 4 cont -d have not been observed in forests or chaps-, al at higher eievation.5 in these mountain ranges. Bighorn sheep use steep mountainous terrain for lambing habitat and escape cover and occasionally appear on desert fiats, bajadas and alluvial fans. As a State -listed Thrtatened species, out management goal for Peninsular bighorn sheep is to recover populations to viable self-sustaining levels. A large, well distributed population is necessary for population viability and species recovery. Bighorn sheep populations are managed as "metapopulatiors" {Schwartz at a1 198$, 81a1eh at al 1990). Metapopulations are a system of local populations linked by dispersal, comprised of several smaller sub -populations that contribute to the overall integrity and genetic viability of the whole. These subpopulations ;hat compose metapopulations are subject to periodic extinction and small populations are especially prone to stochastic extinctions processes (L Linde 1988). Fragmentation of habitat can further isolate sub -populations and, 'tent, affect metapopulation dynamics. Removal of habitat or encumbering adjacent habitat with project related disturbance eliminates available habitat for species recover;_ Further contraction of species range precludes opportunities for recolonization and hence recovery. Adverse cumulative effects of habitat development have already been exerted upon this species across its range particularly, in Riverside county. Of the remaining Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat in Riverside County there is a perimeter of approximately ferry miles of residential suburban interface. Fulfillment of these specific plans would further extend this interface em-arnbering additional habitat of this Threatened species with corres—ponding levels of disturbance. Developnien: communities along the San Jacinto and' Santa Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley have failed to demonstrate a neutral effect on wild populations of bighorn sheep. The only possible czception would be a small population of sheep which occurs coincidental with housing in the Thunderbird Cove region of Rancho Mirage, This situation is unique amongst communities within or adjacent to Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat. In spite of the numerous developments within the Santa Rosa Mountains, Rancho Mirage has the only housing communities where Peninsular bibhcrn sheep appear to coexist with development. This population, however., has been manipulated by the Bighorn Institute for a number of years at considerable monetary expense. In spite of this manipulation this sub - population has experienced problems and does not represent a desirable management situation. Further analysis of this Thunderbird Cove region population reveals that wild sheep in this area have low levels of lambing suc_ess in the wild. This population also suffers from disproportionately high losses from traffic co',lisions- In addition to traffic collisions 4-7 aont'd M* 4-9 03/061'1995 1E:10E!7'77155 �ITr OF-iU_t4T., P'tG 06 LETTER 4 cont'd Mr. Jerry Herman Febnury 28, 1995 Page Four incidental mortality has occurred as a result of poisoning and accidental stranedation. Human disturbances such as intentional feeding have adversely effected or disrupted normal behavior patterns in these sheep as well. This is not a management situation the Department would want replicated in other portions of the range. As a result of development and growth of tesidential cot ununities in the Coachella Valley, there has been an infusion of a greater number of re•cmationists in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Recreational use and demand are expanding conunensura.e with population growth in the rrgion. This increased use bac been provided by trails and other conveyances which facilitate access into bighorn sheep habitat. Unregulated recreational uses, intrusions and trespass have resulted in a devaluation of conservation values associated with Department and US Bureau of Land Management (BUI) lands in the regi3On. Bighorn sheep are shy and elusive, feeing from ],yar= u when approached. Blong (1967 & 1958) identified human disturbances resulting in disruption of behavior pattert!s in bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Miller and Sirrith (1985) described flush distances of desert bighorns in response to humans, dogs and vehicles based upon 571 empirical observations. Minimum :lush distance for bighorn sheep was 184.6 m (Miller & Smith 1985). The accumulation of various disturbances can significantly effect normal reproductive patterns in wild sheep (Monson & Summner 1980, Nicks & Eider 1979). Particularly noteworthy in these specific plans is the proposed use of trails in this area of the range. Trails provide a conveyance for increased human activity and greater disturbance at levels which were never before realized. Of greatest concern are potential conflicts and disturbances from trails in lambing habitat, near riparian areas and around summer watersources or oases. Within the land -use section of the DF_1R, there is a proposal to utilize open space "...for hiking and riding recreation." References are also made to relocating the Boo Hoff trail along foothills within the project site. Both of these measures would be inconsistent with conservation strategies for bighorn sheep. A portion of the Boo Hoff trail trespasses upon the California Department of Fish and Game's Santa Rosa Wildlife Area. These properties were acquired primarily for the conservation and management of Peninsular bighorn sheep. Providing a Fail as a conveyance into bighorn sheep habitat front such a 'large development community as this would most assuredly devalue the conservation value of these lands. The Depattment 6s a cooperative agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with t} a BLM regarding management of bighorn sheep. Impacts on State and Federal lands is a significant impact, un threatened wildlife which is not mitigated for. The biology section of the DEIR is supported by unsubstantiated opinions of consulting biologist and relies to a great extent upon personal i:nowleige and beliefs. This practice is unacceptable and fails to comply with relevant CEQA surutes. Throughout this 49 f cont 4-10 4-11 4-12 t 4-13 03. 86i 15'i5 15: 10 o1'J: i, .'155 :-':7'.-' tF LA -OUINT , -- LETTER 4 cont'd Mr. Jerry Herman FebnuLry 28, 1995 Page Five section and within the biological assessment assertions are made without s-spporting rationale, data or relevant peer reviewed literature. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Statutes, $21080 requires that expert testimony and opinion be substantiates" by Substantial 413 evidence. Section 21080 (c) states: cont'd 'Argunmnt. spoculedon, umubsrandatad opinion or assrsare, avtder:ca which Is clearly lnaccursla or arronsous, or evidence of so>dal or s4.:onam1c Impacts whl" do not can~* to, or sre not caused by, physical impeeft on ;ire arvkanmant. Is not substandd evidence. Substantial evidence shag Include facts, rsssonable assunrpdons otodicsted upon facts, and expert oplMon# suppoovd by facts. " [Ananded. Chapter 1131, Statutes of 19931 The following narrative is a critique, in the Department's view, of erroneous assumptions presented in the DEIR: The biological section and assessment assumes that the project abuts :he raage of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The DEIR fails to provide substantiation for this assertion ti at the 414 project boundary conveniently coincides willi the species range. As previously stated, the development occurs within historic range based upon a review of literature and observations by Department staff. An assumption is also made that bighorn sheep would not occur on site "..because it prefers steeper terrain." It is important to clarify that steep terrain is important as escape cover and lambing sites, bajadas and alluvial fans are recognized as habitat for bighorn sheep. Both the "Anza Borego Population Health Study" and the "Investigations of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep in the San Jacinto Mountains" study have revealed habitat use is less precipitous terrain than that associate with this project. The DEIR recognizes adjacent hillsides as Per -insular bighorn sheep habitat; however. inferences are made that this is an area only of potential or infrequen! use. The Department questions how a meaningful determination of patterns of use could be determined from a survey effort not specifically focused on bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep are wide ranging organisms and a ram can traverse an average home range of 13 sq. mi. in desert environments. In order to arrive at an accurate assessment of habitat use, these behavioral 4-15 factors must be reconciled in the analysis. Determinations on frequency of use are further confounded in the Santa Rosa Mountains by the small r opuiati� psi size of this threatened species. Limited effort and lack of observatiar_s can be atmbuted more to ar. artifact of the current population size and behavior of bighorn sheep that a pattern of infrequent use or absence as the DEIR suggests. The DEIR makes reference to ev idenc.e of muk: deer or, the project site but the biological assessment does not provide a description of this evidence or hock this determination was made. If presence of fecal pellets were used as evidence of mule deer, 416 the Department questions how this sign, was differ itiated from bighorn sheep droppings. Fecal remains from both animals ere quite similar in appear-mr-c. The Department is aware of only light densities of mule deer occurring at lower elevations in the Santa Rosa 03/06/ 1955 LE. 10 6197-77155 OF I_^ .0 ITA P�3c 13 LETTER 4 cont"d Mr. Jetty Herman February 28, 1995 Page Six Mountains. Conversely, the Department is aware on" bighorn sheep occuring at lower 416 elevations in the Santa Rosas with moderate densities of mule deer at higher elevations. cont' Pellet groups found on site are more likely to be indicarve of bighorn sheep than mule deer. E In order to ameliorate project related impacts on Penimsular bighorn sheep; the DEIR proposes to develop buffers between the community and its surrounding open space. This buffer is not described and its conception is to be formulated in a "Habitat Management 417 Plan" prepared after certification of the EIR and prier to issuance of grading permits. These buffers are allude to in the DEIR but Wraps of project descriptions illustrate residential development within these potential buffer zones. Effective buffer.; can not be maintained within areas encumbered by residential lots. It is not clear to the Department hoar this discrepancy is to be reconciled in the EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines, §15S70) and the Deparnrent do not recognize plans as mitigation. An ensuing pian would not be available for public review and comment unless it was included in a subsequent EIR. Furthermore, there are no assurances that a habitat managemert plan will be effective at mitigating significant impacts to bighorn sheep. Mitigation must be specific. The Department, therefore, recoma:terds that specific mitigation treasures be prepared in a mitigation agreement between the Department 418 and project proponent. This information should ties be incorporated into a revised documeyt for further review and comment. Without this information, the lead agency cannot make an, informed, reasoned decision as to t1he merits of the proposed project as CEQA requires. Department staff will be available to assist in the design of effective buffers and acceptable mitigation measures. Appropriate buffers will assuredly be a condition for a California Endangered Species Act -Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU). The Department has previously met with consulting staff (on February 10, 1995) to discuss this issue and informally offered conceptual solutions to these problems. Within the Biology section of the DER specific mention is made of relocation of species to off site locations as a mitigation effort. Relocation of wildlife is not an option. In order for relocation efforts to be successful the assumption !hat suitable but vacant habitat 419 was available for translocated species wculd have to be satisfied. The Department is unaware of any such site capable of absorbing additional c:rgarisms without stressing wildlife populations already present. Furthermore, translocati4)n of wildlife is under the direct jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Sevztion 7118 of the Fish & Game Code. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of this development on bighorn sheep should be addressed with appropriate compensation and mitigation measures identified 'to substantially reduce impacts to a level of insigttif came. The Department Minds F—he DEIR to 420 be deficient in this regard. Devek+pments within the Coachella Valley, San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains have severely impacted bighor-i sheep. Cumulative effects of habitat reduction are significant across the species range. Particular emphasis is placed upon the 03/06/19S5 15:10 E197777155 CI -Y !_F L- OWWA p;aE 09 LETTER 4 cvnt'd Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1995 Page Seven sub -population in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains due to its scull population size and low rates of recruitment. This sub-populadon is also subjected to a greater risk of development 420 pressure than other portions of the species' range. Dousing developments and golf courses cont'd have directly or indirectly affected sheep populations through he conversion of suitable habitat to urban uses. The impacts associated with these developments crust be reconciled with past and future planned developments in the area. Additiorally, none of the mitigation measures proposed address how loss of bighorn sheep habitat is to be compensated for. Appropriate mitigationlcompe:><,ation should include. 421 or provide for, habitat of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the ecological requirements of Peninsular bighorn sheep to reduce adverse effects to a level of insignificance. To the extent possible mitigation habitat should be contiguous or adjacent to existing open spaces, public lands or reserves. The proposed project is likel}° to adversely effect, bosh on and off the project site, State -listed species and habitat esseudal to :heir continued existence, therefore, the applicant must obtain authorization from the Department pursuant to Fish and Game code §2050 et seq. The Department can enter into management agreements (known as CESA-MOUs), 4-22 pursuant to §2081 of the Fish and Gane Code, with the project sponsor. The Department encourages the City to enter into earl, consultation on these issues and will facilitate participation of the interested parties. The Department finds that the cumulative effects analysis is seriously deficient and does not comply with the requirements of CEQA Guideline, §15131. There is no summary of adopted general plan or related planning docum. encs which would assist in evaluating regional conditions as required (CEQA Guidelines, §15131.1B). No other specific projects 423 are mentioned other than in a cursory fashion through general plans. The DEIR has not adequately indicated that an evaluation of all past, present and reasorably foreseeable future projects affecting natural communities and wildlife resources has lien undertaken. The introduction of thousands of new residents following buildout will seriously degrade adjacent values on adjacent lands. The DEIR does not mialyze these impacrs, including increases in tion -native wildlife and plant species associated with golf courses and residential development, unmanaged recreational impacts to public lands, disturbance and displacement of adjacent wildlife, impairment of m,v.ment through wildlife corridors, and 424 degradation of vegetation and watershed values through an increase in the urban! wildland interface. For tahose cumulative impacts which ale ijentified as sigrificant, the DEIR fails to propose specific mitigation measures. Therefore. the DEIR is seriously deficient by failing to comply with CEQA requirements (Guidelines, ;150H3.d.4). The fundamental basis offered for mitigating impacts to sensitive wildlife resources is425 to contribute to the development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plar. (M SHCP) - OVOE/ 1995 16:10 6137 155 OF L._ CUI ,?41 P�aE 10 LETTER 4 cont -d Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1495 Page Eight Plans do not represent acceptable mitigation under CEQA (Se` Guidelines, §15370). Mitigation measures must be specific, reasonable, feasible and measurable against specific monitoring requirements. The City would effectively be deferring to the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide mitigation through consultations on an as yet, unrealized planning effort. There are no assurances that project impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance, (as predetermined in the DEIR), which would allow approval of the EIR by the lead agency. Reliance upon unproven mitigation ir.:.sures and deferral of project mitigation to other agencies would clearly be inconsistent with recent court decisions (Sundsh»m Y. Courtly of Mendocino). The Department is currently participating in a Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan process for the Coachella Valley, but reserves judgement until a final product is realized. and,implemented. The project proponent must either avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or compe.mate for the impacts through replacement of substitute resources. Compensation habitat must be of comparable or better quality to the habitat impacted and trust be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation casement or deed to the Department :r our designated agent such as land trust or non-profit conservation group with expertise in resource protection and management. All preserve areas must include a management and monitoring plan funded by the developer, and a permanent endowment find sufficient to provide for ongoing management and monitoring needs_ Compensation throne. habitat protection. ensures that there is sufficient incentive for project proponents to minimize significant biological impacts. and provides for specific and treasurable project mitigation (see C EEA Guidelines, §B364). 425 cont' 426 In summary, the DEIR makes the assertion that impacts to bighern sheep and desert tortoise can be mitigated to a level of insignificance but offers no supporting rationale for this opinion. This assumption appears to be operating under the misconception, that 4'27 mitigation will be provided through consultations with the department or reliance on unrealized or proven mitigation plans. The Alternatives section of the DEIR should be expanded. The Department supports the buffering concepts presented in alternatives 2 and 3 but would like to see a conservation alternative incorporated in a supplemental E1R. The Deparmnent requests t.}e opportunity to allow an appraiser from the Wildlife Conservation Board to visit the site and evaluate it for 4"28 potential acquisition as a reserve. The current alternative analysis is essentially a variation on a theme with the inclusion of a "no project" alterative. Additional offsite locations should be included for a potential selection in the analysis. The Department opposes the elimination of water courses and/or their conversion to sub -surface drains and channelization. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the 4.2� riparian and aquatic habitat values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. Earthen channels shmld be interconnected with -adjacent large open space areas r 03/06/19915 16:10 61' 77 -'155 1ITTY OF LA %UINTr-. P -GE i i LETTER 4 cont -'d Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1995 Page Nine populations. Earthen chane:s should be interconnected with adjacent large open space areas Jt29 to increase their effectiveness as wildlife corridors in urban surroundings. n#'d The Department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code §§1601-1603 in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake. Department j.uisdiction extends to any stream -course from which wildlife derives benefit and is not limited to "blue -line streams". 430 Early consultation is encouraged, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Formal notification (with 'fee) under Fish and Game Code §1603 should be made after all other permits and certifications have bee,-. obtained. The DEM presents six mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to biological resources. The Department offers the following comments on each of :hese measures: The first measure proposes expenditure of funds for participation in an IMSHCP; 4-31 however, there is no guarantee funds will be a xpende•.i apon habitat acquisition. This measure should be modified to reflect. specific acreage figures for compensation and not on an unspecified monetary amount. The second measure proposes transplanting native v_getation. The Department views 4-32 this largely as ineffectual mitigation since it does nct replicate plant communities and impacts remain essentially the same with or without is implementation. The third measure declares that a Habitat Managetnent Nan will be prepared for bighorn sheep. Plans are not acceptable forms of mitigation. The Department 433 recommends that a mitigation agreement to satisfy requirements for a CESA-MOU should be prepared prior to certification of the final EIR and included in the supplement for distribution and public review. The fourth measure relics upon the Department w mitigate impacts to desert tortoises. Mitigation for tortoise habitat is to occur at an approved conservation site not 4-34 necessarily the Chuckwalla Bench, however ties site has been used in the past and is a worthy location. Specific requirements sho-Uld be set forth in a mitigation agreement for a CESA-MOU. The fifth measure proposes to avoid Palin Springs Rcund-:ailed Ground Squirrel 4-35 habitat. Avoidance is deemed an acceptable miti.garion measure. The sixth measure requires the applicant to obtain State and Federal agreements and 436 permits for szeambed alterations. De:paruncnt jurisdiction is not limited to blue -lire streams. 03/06/19915 16:10 6113'..'1`5 CIT'.` Or LA DUif;T� FALX. 1 n - _ LETTER 4 cont'd Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1995 Page Ten In conclusion, the Department recommends that she DEIR be amended with a supplement addressing wildlife resource issues and substantially recirculated incorporating our comments which are summarized as follows: 4-37 1. Impacts to Desert tortoise habitat should be mitigated through preparation of an mitigation agreement with rhe Deparunent to satisfy the requirements of the CESA. 2. Impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep should be mitigated through preparation of a mitigation agreement with the Department to satisfy the requirements of the CF_SA. 438 3. The cumulative effects section of the DEIR is deficient and will need to be expanded. 14-39 4. The alternatives analysis will need to be expanded to include a conservation and � � offsite alternatives. 5. A concerted effort should be made to avoid all stream courses and provide these 4.41 habitats with buffers from surrounding developments. 6. Lastly, the Department encourages early consultation with Department staff on issues related to Streambed Alteration Acyreements and the CESA. The Depart hent holds regular pre -project planning early consultation meetings the first Friday of every 4.42 month at our Chino Base office, located at 4775 Bird Farm Road. To make an appointment, please call our regional office at (31Q) 590-5137. The Department would like to be informed of any public hearings on these specific plans so we may participate in the public review process and provide additional comments as necessary. The Department would also like to request the City notify us immediately upon 4-43 approval of the project. Furthermore, we request a copy of the Notice of Determination be mailed to the above address and faxed to the Department within 24 hours of its issuance by the City. Please fax the Notice of Determination to *FIs. Lilia I. Martinez at (310) 590-5192. 0�: db:'19�5 16:111 6197777155 !2Tr-� OF L� OUPITA Frac 1? LETTER 4 Cont'd Mr. Jerry Herman Febmary 28, 1995 Page Eleven The Department appreciates this oppornmuity to review and comment on these specific plans. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lilia 1. Martinez, Environmental Specialist III at (310) 590-4830. Specific questicns related to bighorn sheep and desert tortoises be directed to Mr. Kevin Barry Brennan, Associate Wildlife Biologist, at (909) 659- 2641 or Mr. Mike Giusti, Associate Fisheries Biologist at (949) 597-1008. Sincerely, e-PA� *, Patricia Wolf Acting Regional Manager Region 5 Armcbment cc: See attached list 01j/ UW 1'7'77 It: Li] bl'7r' 1 i 1177 �.;1I - rh 1. UUI.;IA f+AUt- 14 LETTER 4 cont'd Mr. Jerry Herman February 28, 1495 Page Twelve cc: Mr. Kevin -Barry Brennan Departinem of Fish and Game Idyllwild, California Ms. Lilia I. Mard= Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Mike Giusti Department of Fish and Game Chino Hills, California Mr. Frank Hoover Department of Fish and Game Chino, California Ms. Dee Sudduth Department of Fish and Game Jamul, California Mr. Jim Dice Department of Fish and Game Borrego Springs. California Mr. Liars Davis Department of Fish and Gaspe -'CCP San Diego, California Captain Mike McBride Department of Fish and Game Long Beach. California Mr. Jeff Neuman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California Mr. Eric Stein U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Us Angeles, California State Clearinghouse Sacramento, California 03/06/-991! 16: 1@ 6i9',7 -'155 G17. OF LA' QUII-IT- F..:liE 15 LrrERATURE CPTED Bleich, V., J. D. Wehousen and S. A. 14ail. 19yG. "}desert -dwelling mountain sheep: conservation implications of a naturally fragmented distribution". Comer,/. Biol. 4:383-390. Blong, B. 1967. "Desert bighorns and people in the Santa Rosa mountains". California - Nevada Sec. of the Wildl. Soc.Trans. 11:66-70. Blong, B. aW W. Pollard. 1968. "Summer water requirements of desert bighorn in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California, in 1965". Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 54:289-296. California Departyneat of Fists & Game. :992. "Annual report on the status of California state -listed tiYr =jed and endangered arima,3 and plants". Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Sacramento, CA, 203 pp. Grinnell, J. and H. S. Swarth. 1913. "An account of the birds and mwzurals of the San Jacinto area of southern California". Univ. Calif. 1'ubl. Zool. 10(10):197-406. Hicks, L. L. 1978. "The status and distribution of een€nsular bighorn sheep in the In -Ko -Pah Mountains, California". Unpubl. Mann., BLIVI, El Ccntro, Californzia, 81 pp. Hicks, L.L. and J. M. Elder. 1979. "Human disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep". J. WUdl. Manage. 43:909-915. Lande, R. 1988. "Genetics and demography in biological conservation". Science 241:1455- 1460. Miller, G. and E. Smith. 1985. "Human activity in desert bighorn habitat: what disturbs sheep'?". Desert Bighorn Council, 1985 Trans. pp. 4-7. Monson G. and L. Sunu ner. 1980. "The desert bighorn its life history, ecology and management". Univ. Ariz. Press. Tucson, Arizona, 390 pp.. Schwartz, O. A., V. C. Bleich and S. A. Hall. 1986. "Genetics and the conservation of mountain sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni". Biol. Conor:. 37:179-190. Letter 4 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Patricia Wolf, February 28, 1995 4-1) The Draft EIR concludes that the taking of sensitive plants are reduced by mitigation but remain significant after mitigation due to the permanent and unavoidable removal of some sensitive plants. The DER also states that the loss of the Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub and Desert Dry Woodland plant and animal communities within the Coachella Valley are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. 4-2) According to Thomas Olsen Associates, the consulting biologist, the statement by CDFG that "two state -listed threatened species are likely to be adversely affected by project construction and development", is inaccurate. These threatened species "may be affected". However, the Biological Assessment found in Appendix D, states there is no evidence that the site is occupied by the desert tortoise. Page 7, paragraph 7 of the Assessment: "There is no evidence that the project site currently is occupied by the desert tortoise. Kim Nichols, California Department of Fish and Game states that she has spent a great deal of time in the vicinity of the project site and seen no tortoises there. Olsen biologists found no tortoise scat, occupied or potentially occupied burrows, or other recent tortoise signs. " "Olsen biologists found two collapsed burrows that were definitely made by the desert tortoise. Both were under a single creosote bush in the north - central portion of Section 4 and clearly had not been occupied for many years. The fact that we found burrows at only one location on a 797 [909] acre site in 40 hours of field observation suggests that this was a low density population. This inference is consistent with the fact that the site is within Class 3 habitat based on USFWS range maps." As stated in the introduction, the EA prepared by BLM indicates: The Travertine Specific Plan site "is designated as Class III habitat for the federally endangered, desert tortoise. " (This Class III rating means that the probability of encountering these animals is low because of habitat modification or other factors). The EA goes on to indicate that "[t]he probability of encountering these animals [desert tortoise] on the selected public land [Travertine site] is low"; and that "no adverse consequences to the species are anticipated. " 4-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES An additional mitigation measure has been added to this Final EIR in order to unequivocally answer the question of effect on the desert tortoise: 8. The applicant shall have a focused survey performed for the desert tortoise, conducted prior to issuance of grading permits for all phases. The Biological Assessment also states: "The Peninsular Bighorn Sheep is not expected to occur on the site, itself, but its presence on the adjacent hills has been documented by CDFG. " This observation is reiterated in the EA prepared by BLM: "the site [Travertine] abuts the eastern range of the State Threatened Federal Candidate 2, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep," and that "[b]oth of these animals [desert tortoise and bighorn sheep] prefer steeper terrain such as that to the south and west of Section 4 [The Martinez Rock Slide area of the Travertine site] . No adverse impacts to these species are anticipated, particularly as minimal development would occur on the steeper slopes of the selected public land [Travertine site]". As indicated on the grading plans, pages 3.6-6 & 3.6-7, Section 3.6 Soils/Geology/Seismic of the DEIR, no development is proposed on the steeper slopes south of Travertine nor in the steeper central portion of the Green site. EA concluded that a consequence of exchanging five sections of land to BLM for the Travertine site would result in the subsequent development of the Travertine site, in accordance with the land use planning designations imposed by the City of La Quinta. The EA required the four sections of land exchanged to BLM to be managed as habitat for the San Jacinto Mountains population of bighorn sheep. The one section of land exchanged to BLM from the Nature Conservancy would be maintained in the SRMWHA. In addition, the mitigation measures imposed by the EA included the conveyance to the Nature Conservancy of 160 acres of the southern portion of the Travertine site (Martinez Rock Slide) to buffer the Toro Canyon area from the assumed Travertine development. This 160 acres of the Martinez Rock Slide will be managed as part of the SRMNSA. 4-2 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES r The information provided by Thomas Olsen Associates on the Travertine site and the EA prepared by BLM for the Toro Canyon Land Exchange, supports the conclusion in the DEIR that the taking of desert tortoise habitat and impacts to the bighorn sheep habitat can be mitigated to a level of insignificance: 4-3) Please refer to Response to Comment 4-2. As stated in the DEIR, Section 3.8, page 3.8-8, paragraph 2, "Potential indirect impacts to bighorn sheep which may frequent hills overlooking the project site to the west are considered significant. However, past projects in the Coachella Valley have demonstrated that it is possible to design residential projects alongside bighorn sheep habitat, if the requirements of the species are taken into account through a habitat management plan. " Although cumulative impacts to the bighorn sheep are anticipated, mitigation measures have been proposed to continue funding for the ongoing conservation efforts and implementation of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep HMP (refer to the Summary Topical Response section) will reduce impacts to an insignificant level. 4-4) Refer to Response to Comment 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3. The topical section of this FEIR includes a detailed mitigation measure which will adequately address potential impacts associated with the bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise. Due to the extensive biological information available in the DEIR and EA, and additional mitigation added herein, no supplemental EIR is required. Response to Comment 4-24 addresses cumulative impacts further. 4-5) Suitable habitat for the Desert tortoise only "may" occur on the project site. Please refer to response to comment 4-2 to review the added mitigation measure related to species specific survey. Additionally, please refer to page 3.8-11 mitigation measure 4 for offsite replacement, which will mitigate impacts to the desert tortoise to less than significant levels. 4. The applicant shall comply with the CDFG requirements for mitigation of taking desert tortoise habitat prior to issuance of grading permit (e.g., Offsite replacement of about 200 acres of potential tortoise habitat in the Chuckwalla Bench area, at a ratio of 1:1.). 4-3 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 4-6) Comment noted. Please refer to the second half of Response to Comment 4-2 and Response to Comment 4-3. The CDFG's "Anza Borrego Population Health Study of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep" report will be utilized as part of the HMP. 4-7) Comment noted. One can only speculate that the reason bighorn sheep "occasionally appear on desert flats, bajadas and alluvial fans," is because the historic vineyard may have provided a water source and groundcover (forage) for the sheep. 4-8) Removal of bighorn sheep habitat does eliminate the available habitat for recovery. However, the City is not aware if the Travertine or Green sites are targeted property by CDFG for acquisition in a recovery plan. At the time of the Toro Canyon Land Exchange, the CDFG had an opportunity to comment on the exchange and perhaps try to acquire the site as mitigation area. To our knowledge, CDFG did not attempt to acquire the Travertine site. As previously stated, the Travertine site is not part of a Wilderness Study Area, nor is it designated part of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. While development may fail to demonstrate a neutral effect, the principle cause of bighorn sheep population decline in the Santa Rosa Mountains has historically been attributed to disease associated with cattle and grazing activities. 4-9) Comment noted. Wild sheep in this area not only have low levels of lambing success in the Santa Rosa Mountains, but throughout much of the mountainous areas of the western United States. Response to Comment 1-3 provides an additional mitigation measure to preclude road/traffic hazards for the sheep and provide educational programs that will deter residents from poisoning, strangling or feeding the sheep. 4-10) The Travertine and Green Specific Plan DEIR recommends the realignment of the Boo Hoff Trail within the project boundary to the Jefferson Street right-of-way. This will minimize the amount of unregulated recreation uses, intrusions and trespass on adjacent BLM lands. Furthermore, regulation of recreational uses (private or semi -private) within the golf course setback and private ownerships adjacent to the golf course, will also preclude unregulated intrusions, and may result in less disturbance/harassment of the sheep population. 4-4 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 0 4-11) Numerous studies have examined the influence of harassment by man on animals. However, only a few have been conducted on wildlife; those involving desert races of bighorn sheep are limited. Results of studies on human harassment of animals are not clear cut and are compounded because studies of animals in captivity may not be applicable to free ranging populations. Captivity may be stressful in itself and can distort an animal's behavior and baseline measures of physiological functioning. Published studies of harassment on big game have involved noise, aircraft overflights, petroleum exploration, and other forms of human harassment (e.g., walking, driving by, walking with dogs, water development, construction). Although many of these impacts have been, or have attempted to be mitigated by managers, their influence on wildlife will require further research before definite results are available. Most research to date has produced "guidelines" to serve in minimizing man related activities on wildlife. Until data are available that accurately indicate how harassment influences desert bighorn sheep, their populations should be managed conservatively. Please refer to the topical section of this Final EIR for an expanded mitigation measures on the bighorn sheep HMP. Also please refer to Response to Comment 4-9. 4-12) Refer to Response to Comment 4-10. 4-13) Comment noted. The project biologist has been a professional consulting biologist for over 22 years and is particularly knowledgeable in the Coachella Valley area. His observations and opinions are respected by other professional biologist and agencies throughout California, Arizona and New Mexico. Past projects in the Coachella Valley have demonstrated that is is possible to design residential projects alongside sheep habitat. These projects include: PGA West, Canyon Project, The Quarry, Morrada Community, Big Horn, La Cahuilla. Habituation over time and predictability of human action are key factors in coexistence of sheep and development. In spite of the fact that sheep and development do "coexist", the expanded mitigation measures in the topical section of this FEIR is provided in order to: 1) increase the sheep habitat's distance from development, 2) decrease noise and light into the habitat area, 3) restrict free roaming pets, 4) provide physical sound wall barriers, 5) provide a visual buffer in the form of a golf course and 6) will provide 160 acres of access to uphill escape routes. 4-5 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 4-14) Please refer to second part of Response to Comment 4-2 and the Toro Canyon Land Exchange Environmental Assessment summary in the Introduction section of this FEIR. The expanded mitigation measure outlined in the topical section of this FEIR will minimize the developments effect on the bighorn sheep habitat. 4-15) The Toro Canyon Land Exchange provided approximately 5 square miles of bighorn sheep habitat to BLM (protected in perpetuity), in exchange for approximately 638 acres to be developed as the Travertine site. Of the 638 acres exchanged to Travertine, 160 acres was conveyed to the Nature Conservancy to be managed as part of the SRMNSA. The information provided by Thomas Olsen Associates for the Travertine site and the EA prepared by BLM for the Toro Canyon Land Exchange, provides information to make preliminary conclusions that the impact to bighorn sheep habitat can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 4-16) The reference made to mule deer in the Draft EIR (Page 3.8-2), footnotes the use of the Biological Survey and Report for the Toro Canyon Property, prepared for BLM by Brian F. Mooney Associates. As stated on page 3 of the above mentioned biological survey and report, "Further up on the rocky plain and slopes, evidence of mule deer, black -chinned sparrow, cactus wren, rock wren and Gambel's quail were found". These species were noted by both direct (calls and sightings) and indirect (scat, tracks, burrows and nests). The entire property was surveyed either directly or with the aid of 7x35 binoculars. The conclusions referenced in the above report were utilized in the DEIR. 4-17) Please refer to the topical section of this FEIR, Page 4. A refinement to the project is recommended as part of the expanded mitigation measures outlined. The refinement provides a 300' setback area to the 160 acre buffer. The mitigation measure also provides a mechanism for implementation even in the event the HMP is delayed or not prepared. "If the preparation of the HMP for the bighorn sheep is stalled or prevented from being adopted, the expanded mitigation measures will still be required to be implemented as part of the mitigation monitoring plan. " 4-18) Please refer to Response to Comment 4-17. 4-6 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES Cl 0 4-19) Page 3.8-9 paragraph 6 of the DEIR states, "Relocation of identifiable species to offsite locations and participation in the multi -species habitat conservation plan would mitigate such impacts. However, impacts would remain significant. The plan is being coordinated with the assistance of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments with the assistance of the Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy." This relocation was proposed as a component of the CVAG multi -species plan process. Relocation would only occur if suitable but vacant habitat was available for translocated species. One purpose of an area -wide multi -species habitat conservation plan is to provide a vehicle for property owners to mitigate for the loss of otherwise irreplaceable biological resources. Development of the Travertine site will inevitably have direct and cumulative impacts that cannot be addressed on a species -by -species basis. 4-20) Please refer to Response to Comment 4-15. As stated previously, the proposed mitigation measures and refinements to the plan will mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Also, please refer to the topical section of this Final EIR for expanded mitigation measures for the bighorn sheep habitat. 4-21) Refer to the second half of Response to Comment 4-2 and Response to Comment 4-15. The Toro Canyon Land Exchange provided approximately 5 square miles of bighorn sheep habitat that was contiguous to existing open space and public lands. In addition, 160 acres of the Travertine site was conveyed to the Nature Conservancy to be managed as part of the SRMNSA. 4-22) The Draft EIR has concluded that the Travertine and Green Specific Plans will result in impacts that remain significant after mitigation. Based on our February 10, 1995 meeting with the Department of Fish and Game, a mitigation agreement is being pursued. 4-23) In concert with the City of La Quinta Planning Department, the cumulative analysis presented in the DEIR utilized the General Plan Buildout in an effort to include all future projects as identified by the City of La Quinta. This methodology was used in order to avoid a specific project by project analysis in which some projects may be overlooked. 4-7 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES p , l' Refer to 3.1 of the DEIR land use summary of adopted General Plan and related planning documents which were utilized during the environmental 7 review process. Cumulative impacts remain significant but will be reduced 11 to the extent feasible through implementation of mitigation measures. 4-24) The Draft EIR has concluded that approval of the Travertine Specific Plan will result in growth inducing impacts and may pose development pressures on adjacent lands. The Riverside County General Plan designates areas to the north, east and south of Travertine as subject to the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan. Final EIR #189 for the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan has indicated that intense urbanization within the La Quinta-Coachella sub -community is encouraged. In addition to the planned growth, the Jefferson Street alignment will also facilitate this growth to the east into Riverside County. If the Travertine Specific Plan and Jefferson Street extension is in place, development pressures on the smaller privately owned parcels to the west will no doubt increase. Specific mitigation measures have been proposed within the DEIR in order to mitigate direct as well as cumulative impacts where appropriate. Specific mitigation measures have been provided that 1) manage what could become unmanaged recreational impacts (e.g. alignment of the Boo Hoff Trail within the Jefferson Street right-of-way and warning signs along nearby roadways in an effort to make the residents aware of the biological resources and that unauthorized access is not permitted), 2) provide the utilization of native vegetation within the target golf and other common areas, 3) replacement of impacted wildlife habitat in more suitable areas (e.g. mitigation measure 3.8-4 for the desert tortoise), and 4) replace and relocate impacted plant species. However, specific mitigation measures for impacts to wildlife corridors and the degradation of watershed values have not been recommended in the DEIR since, a) no wildlife corridors have been delineated through the project sites, and b) to specify a watersheds "value" is overly broad in providing effective mitigation. The degradation of vegetation and watershed values is an anticipated result of the increase in the urban/wildland interface. This was found to be a significant impact in the DEIR. As stated previously, the site is not part of a WSA and is not designated as part of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. EW, 9737-C AB-12501-RESPON SES 4-25) The Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is only one of six mitigation measures in the Biology section and as stated in the EIR, the MSHCP would only mitigate impacts to the extent feasible. Impacts to wildlife species remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Please refer to pages 3.8-11 and -12 of the Draft EIR. 4-26) Comment noted. Refer to the Summary Topical Section regarding the implementation of mitigation measure in the event the MSHCP is delayed or not adopted in a timely manner. 4-27) Please refer to Response to Comment 4-2 and 4-15. 4-28) The Department's support of Alternatives 2 and 3 is noted. The City of La Quinta proposes the re -alignment of Jefferson Street, with or without the Travertine and Green Specific Plans. This would have growth inducing impacts on the surrounding land uses. Having this information available, a "Conservation Alternative" for these projects would be considered the no project (no development) alternative. Any request the Department has in regards to the permission of an appraiser from the Wildlife Conservation Board to visit the site and evaluate it for potential acquisition as a reserve must be requested directly to the City of La Quinta. As far as an Offsite Location Alternative, on page 8-3 of the DEIR paragraph 1 , "As set forth in the CEQA Guidelines section 15126 (d) (amended), an alternative location was not analyzed as part of this draft EIR due to the applicant's lack of ownership, or ability to easily acquire similar parcels within a reasonable distance form the proposed site. The reasonable distance as not restricted to the City of La Quinta boundary." 4-29) A wetlands delineation has been prepared for this project. The water course existing on the Travertine is proposed to become an integral feature of the golf course and is restricted to having box culverts as required by the Coachella Valley Water District. The water course on the Green property is not proposed to be impacted. Mitigation measure 6 on page 3.8-11 of the DEIR states: 4-9 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 6. The applicant shall obtain a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement for the California Department of Fish and Game and a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for any impact to the onsite blue line streams prior to issuance of grading permits. This agreement will be accompanied by a mitigation plan, and will meet the established requirements of the CDFG. 4-30) Refer to responses to comment 4-29. 4-31) The applicant must comply with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Habitat Conservation Plan prior to any habitat impacted. Refer to the Summary Topical Section regarding the implementation of mitigation measure in the event the MSHCP is delayed or not adopted in a timely manner. 4-32) The Draft EIR acknowledges that salvaging and transplanting native plants for landscaping and golf course areas will lessen impacts to sensitive species and habitats, but will not compensate for the loss of the rest of the natural vegetation. Plant communities are not replicated through transplanting. However, it is possible for a post development environment to have more native vegetation that the pre -development environment. Impacts to sensitive plants and plant communities are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. 4-33) Refer to the Summary Topical Response for the mitigation of impacts to the bighorn sheep. 4-34) The Chuckwalla Bench as stated in mitigation measure 4 on page 3.8-11, was listed as an example of a worthy location. We welcome other worthy location recommendations. 4-35) Comment noted. 446) Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 4-29. 4-37) Please refer to Response to Comment 4-2. No supplemental EIR is proposed for this development. Impacts to the desert tortoise have been mitigated to less than significant levels. 4-10 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 4-38) Refer to the Summary Topical Response section for mitigation pertaining to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep This mitigation will be reviewed and approved by the CDFG. Also please refer to Response to Comment 4-2. 4-39) Refer to Response to Comment 4-24. 4-40) Refer to Response to Comment 4-28. 4-41) Refer to Response to Comment 4-29. 4-42) Comment noted. We appreciate your time at our February 10, 1995 meeting. 4-43) Comment noted. 4-11 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 03/07/1995 14:30 6197-777155 OF --,� l7l INTA ,at W.: LETTER 5 aw. i MEMORANDUM T0: Community Development Department FROM: David M. Cosper Public Works Director!City Enginee DATE: March 7, 1995 SUBJECT: EIR for Specific Plans 94-025 & 026 (Green & Travertine) The Public Works Engineering Department requests consideration of the following comments on the Draft EIR for the referenced development - pa" Comment 3.2.1 Last sentence on page - Jefferson is currently discontinuous south of Avenue 54. 3.2.2 Avenue 52 west of Jefferson is a divided roadway. D 3.2.23 Section 3.2.4 (5) - The City suggested that this Paragraph be added as an alternative to the language in paragraphs (5) and (6) of the original submittal. Instead, this paragraph was substituted for the original (5) which read as follows: "To allow development of a portion of the Travertine Specific Plan prior to completion of the Jefferson Street southerly !oop connection to Avenue 62, Avenue 58 and Jefferson Street must be improved to a secondary crost- section from Madison Street to the proposed development." The above language should be reincorporated with the current paragraph (6), the current paragraph (5) should be identified as an alternative, and the two paragraphs switched. Also: In the current paragraph (5) - change "may,, to "shall" in the first sentence. In the current paragraph (6) - the Jefferson Street loop connects at Ave 62, not Ave 60. 5-1 5-2 5-3 83/07/1995 16:26 6197777155 CITY OF LA QuIriTp- PN3E 0: LETTER 5 cont l 3.4-6 We find no reference in the E1R of the City's P.M. 10 ordinance. The 5-4 paragraph "City of La Quinta General Plaro and Municipal Code," and/or Appendix C to which it refers, should at least mention the ordinance.. FB/fb Letter 5 City of La Quinta Public Works/Engineering Department, David M. Cosper, March 7, 1995 5-1) The last sentence of paragraph seven on page 3.2-1 has been changed as follows: Jefferson Street runs north/south and provides two travel lanes in the project vicinity. North of Avenue 50, Jefferson Street is a two-lane divided facility with 44 ± feet of pavement, a striped median and a speed of 55 mph. South of Avenue 50, Jefferson Street is a two-lane undivided roadway. Jefferson Street is currently discontinuous south of Avenue 54 . 5-2) Paragraph 4 on page 3.2-2 has been changed as follows: Avenue 52 is an easdvest two-lane undivided roadway. It is undivided east of Jefferson Street and divided west of Jefferson Street with 26 ± feet of pavement. The speed limit is 55 mph. Improvements, such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights do not exist along Avenue 52. The intersections at Jefferson Street and Monroe Street are controlled by four-way stops. ]5-3) The following mitigation measure number 5 has been renumbered and revised per the City of La Quinta Public Work/Engineering Departments comments: 65. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the first phase of the Travertine Specific Plan, Jefferson Street must be improved to a secondary cross-section from Madison Street at Avenue 58 westerly to the proposed development. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the final phase of the Specific Plan at buildout, the Travertine project proponent should contribute their fair share to an all-weather access connecting the southern loop of Jefferson Street to Madison Street at Avenue 60 58 and Avenue , or Monroe Street at Avenue 62, or both, as required by the City to accommodate the increased traffic loading. The fair share contribution shall be deposited with the Cityls 5-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 5 6. As an alternative to mitigation measure 5, dev of pme. the Travertine Specific Plan, d= project area mar shall be served in the initial development stages by be paved two- lane streets via the Jefferson Street alignment and the Madison Street alignment thereby creating a complete loop for transportation access. The Jefferson Street pavement from Avenue 58 to Madison Street at Avenue 62 will be installed in the alignment adopted by the City. In addition to new pavement on Madison Street between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, the existing pavement segment between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60 will be widened and overlaid to accommodate the increased traffic loading. This alternative can serve the Travertine development until 50% of the residential development or until the hotel is constructed, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, the remaining complement of street improvements will be installed. (T) 5-4) Mitigation measure 15 on page 3.4-16 of the DEIR requires that the project applicant comply with the La Quinta Air Quality Element and all provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code. This includes Ordinance 219 establishing dust control requirements for certain existing land uses, construction and demolition projects. 5-2 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 92/92/1995 99:37 c -- 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUINTA ti Desert NAGE 92 LETTER 6 43-500 Monterey Avenue " Y Palm Desert, California 92260 Usiie Mouriquand-Cherry, Associate Plannerall r �1, City of La Wnta P.O. Box 1504 La ,ta, CA 92253 (FrE 0 1 19.9.5 Subject: Travertine and Green Specific Plan DEIR t.) G LA OwNTA Dear Ms. Mouriquand-Cherry: PLANNING [P.PAIT E , Attached are copies of two letters: 1) Feb. 19, 1993, r&rz= Annexation etc, and 2) Nov. 14, 1994, regarding Travertine Specific Plan of rand Use. I hereby request inclusion of both plus this letter for comments on Travertine and Green Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. I will be unable to attend any Development Review Committee meeting on the matter in the near future as I will be out of the country until approximately May 1, so am submitting these letters In lieu of my presence. Please inform raze of any hearings that I may be able to attend. My letters speak of the resource values of Martine-- :fountain Rockslide and its surroundings, but nowhere In the DFIR are there any references to these or any other values. And, there can't be any mitigation of unacknowledged values, certainly not less than significant levelst On page 3.6-8 in Soils/Geology/Seismic for proposed Travertine development, referring to estate homes at base of Rocksiide, 1 wonder about the efficacy of "barrier improvements" that would be sufficient to protect these homes from a steep, 110 yard high, unstable mass of 40 foot wide boulders in the event of a major earthquake. In addition, I feel compelled to make a statement in regard to grading of land. (See Fig -3.6-2) It appears that essentially the entire .site would be graded in the proposed Travertine Development. All of the vegetation would be removed, all of the desert varnished alluvial Fan surface that took many thousands of years to form would be removed, all of the animal burrows would be eliminated, thus all of the biological habitat would be destroyed. Does it have to be this wrray? I live in Idyllwild, where It is common on quarter acre lots for half of the lot to remain undisturbed when a house is built and a septic system with leach field installed. Of course in Idyllwild, there is a forest to be preserved. But, does the desert surface and life have so little apparent value that it can all be bulldozed to simplify the grading process? And, if there is less grading, there is Iess energy consumption and less noise and dust production. On page 3.5-12, considering existing overdrafting of groundwater supplies in the lower v -alley aquifer, why does mitigation call for only 50% drought - tolerant landscaping materials? Shouldn't this figure be 100%? 1 think the 50% figure exists because most people aren't aware that fantastic landscaping can be done with the great variety of drought -tolerant landscaping material that is available. I am not in favor of Travertine Development, as proposed, for reasons which are obvious. Rather, I favor any alternative which would minimize disruption of the desert surface and maxiralZs the width of the "habitat conservation buffer"' to the south adjacent to the Rockslide_ To this end, I Desert Community College District - 6191346.8041 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 M 02/02/1995 09:37 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUiNTA PAGE 03 LETTER 6 conYd recommend fewer units in cluster configurations and propose a combined geologic resource/habitat conservation buffer that would extend somewhat 6-6 farther north on both the southwest and southeast corners of the project than cont' expressed in examples of alternative 2 (Fig 8.2-1) and alternative 3 (pig 8.3-1). See my letter of Nov. 14, 1994 for recommendations as to size of a Zone specifically for protection of the geologic resource. Sincerely. George L Meyer Professor of Geology L rVi, I Letter 6 College of the Desert, George L. Meyer, January 30, 1995 6-1) The request for inclusion of the February 19, 1993 and November 14, 1994 letter is hereby noted. The letter dated November 14, 1994 was included in the DER Appendices, refer to Appendix A. 6-2) The Martinez Mountain Rockslide is identified in four sections of the DEIR, they are: Section 3.8 Biology, Section 3.10 Cultural Resources, Section 3.6 Soils/Geology/Seismic, and Section 3.11 Recreation. The biology section idemifies and discusses the rockslide as habitat area of the bighorn sheep on page 3.8-4 (paragraph 2) and 3.8-8 (paragraph 2). Appropriate mitigation was identified which will provide a buffer between the toe of the slope and residential areas. The cultural resources section states on page 3.10-4 (paragraph 6) and 3.10-5 (paragraph 1) that no historical landmarks were found to be associated with the property. Thus, the rockslide will not be impacted from a cultural resources view. The geology/soils/seismic section on pages 3.6-4 (paragraph 2) and 3.6-8 (paragraphs 1 and 6) addresses the possibility of landslide from the Martinez rock formation and discusses the implications of landslides from this formation. Mitigation in the form of barrier improvements will mitigate these potential impacts. The recreation section identifies on pages 3.11-4 (paragraph 1) and 3.11-6 (paragraph 8), that trail access to the rockslide will be maintained and that this effort be coordinated through the Bureau of Land Management. 6-3) Mitigation measure 6 on page 3.6-10 proposes that preliminary slope stability investigations be completed as part of the geotechnical investigation and that specific measures are identified to reduce potential rockfall and slope failure hazards. Additionally as stated in the topical section of the FEIR, a 300' setback (with limited private or semi -private recreational uses) has been proposed as a means of reducing impacts to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Coincidentally, this setback will also aid in reducing impacts from potential landslides and rockfall from the Martinez Rockslide. 6-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 6-4) As stated in Section 3.8, page 3.8-7 Biology of the DEIR, the proposed Travertine project will remove all existing biological resources from at least half of the nonagricultural portion of the site and will eliminate the habitat for the wildlife species on the remainder of the site. This is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce biological impacts to the extent feasible with coordination required between the applicant and all applicable regulatory agencies. Refer to page 3.8-11 and 3.8-12 of the DEIR for a breakdown of those impacts which are mitigated and those which remain significant. 6-5) Mitigation measure 7 on page 3.6-12 provides for the preparation of a landscaping plan that is consistent with the City's Ordinance addressing water efficient landscaping.. This Ordinance requires that 50% of the landscaping be of drought -tolerant landscaping material. Any change in the policies or ordinances of the City would need to be initiated by the City of La Quinta. 6-6) Refinements to the project will decrease the potential impacts to the Martinez Rockslide and Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The plan refinement will provide a 300' setback, within which private and semi -private recreational uses will be permitted. This refinement will aid in reducing impacts to this habitat and the rockslide. The alternatives which have been proposed offer two alternative project scenarios. which meet the objectives of the project applicant, and provide a reduction in environmental effects associated with the proposed project. Refer to paragraphs 1 through 7 on Page 8-1 of the DEIR, to review the requirements in meeting the objectives of CEQA in evaluating Alternatives to the proposed project. To summarize, alternatives must be reasonable when compared to the proposed project or to the location of the project, and should feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. 6-2 9737-CAB-12501-RESPONSFS a 017f r 7 : 1J.J IIDPD-DDC V1i r Ur L -i,4 UuliviO4 rk= v_ LETTER 7 RILL IRRIGAII N OISiRICi COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION AVENUE 58 • P.O.BOX 1080 •LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253-1080 TELEPHONE (819) 3G8.5811 • FAX (519) 398-5848 January 30, 1995 Ms. Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Ms. Mouriquand-Cherry: Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report of Specific Plan 94-025 Specific Plan 94-026 Travertine and Green Developments FEB 1 1y� Thank you for giving Imperial Irrigation District (District) the opportunity to provide input concerning the Travertine and Green projects' impact to our system. We have carefully reviewed the DEIR, and have listed our recommendations for changes below. The first two items are portions of mitigation measures 8 and 9, and may be found on page 1-37, and are repeated on page 3.14-13. Mitigation Measure item 8 now reads: Necessary expansion of the on-site and off-site electric lines and substations shall be identified during the development planning stage. Please insert the word transmission so the statement will read: Necessary expansion of the on-site and off-site electric transmission lines and substations shall be identifced during the development planning stage. 7-1 Ms. Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry - 2 - Nfitigation Measure item 9 erroneously states: January 30, 1995 LETTER 7 A funding mechanism shall be established for the reimbursement to the developer for the extension costs as future connections are tied into the Specifrc Plan's electric lines. This funding mechanism shall be established with the City's Finance Department during the tentative tract map process. The District does not reimburse the Developer/Owner for the line extension charges. The Developer/Owner of the Travertine project is responsible for payment of: cnnt'(r' 1) the transmission line extension to the project. Presently, it is proposed to construct four miles of double -circuit 92kV transmission line westward' from Highway 86 along Avenue 62 to the Travertine site. This is estimated to cost $1,397,000, given an in-service date of 2001. (The District's Planning Department is analyzing this plan to ensure that it is compatible with the existing transmission grid.) The construction date is tentative, and may be accelerated or delayed based upon the progress of the development. 2) a substation site approximately two acres in size (300 feet by 300 feet). Previous communication with the planners indicated that a site may be provided adjacent to the proposed hotel. 3) all of the underground conduit and vault system (including any street light system). The Developer/Owner shall be responsible for maintaining these conduit systems until such time the District occupies the systems with cable. 4) all of the above -grade switch gear necessary to sectionalize the feeder system for this development. (Below -grade switches and transformers are not used by the District.) 5) all underground cable extension fees. At the present time, the cable ordy costs are approximately $13 per foot .for main feeder circuits and $6 per foot for branch circuits. Other costs shall be included with these cable only charges, however, they are determined by the specific requirements of the project. 6) any required environmental impact studies conducted by the District relating to these projects. `Previous contacts with property owners in this area generated objections to ttanstnission lines running in a north -south direction, as it would interfere with the scenic view of the mountains to the West. 7-2 02/17/1995 17:47 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUINTA PAGE 04 LETTER 7 cont'd Ms. Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry - 3, January 30, 1995 The cost figures mentioned above are only estimates, and may be subject to change. 7-2 Again, the Developer/Owner wM be responsible for all of the costs mentioned above, eont'd none of which will be reimbursed by the District. ne third item we would like corrected is found on page 3.14-12, Impacts and Mitigation Measures which states: According to Thomas Lyons, Senior Engineer with the Imperial Irrigation District, the Travertine project is estimated to have an electrical demand of 19 million volts annually (MVA), as a result... This statement should read: ... an electrical demand of 19 million volt amperes (tWVA), ... As with other industries, utilities employ some unique jargon; and we apologize for any confusion that may arise as a result. For clarification, one volt ampere is approximately equal to one watt. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (619) 398-5818. Sincerely, 414�1- //*,4� /I /- el -- THOMAS F. LYONS, JR., P.E. Engineer, Senior 'mss ac L NoW I s,nhb J. SWU 7-3 Letter 7 Imperial Irrigation District, Thomas F. Lyons, January 30, 1995 7-1) Mitigation measure 8 on page 3.14-13 has been revised per the request of Imperial Irrigation District (IID). This revision is shown as follows: 8. Necessary expansion of the on-site and off-site electric transmission lines and substations shall be identified during the development planning stage. The developer or future home builder shall consult with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to ensure adequate new facilities are provided with construction of each phase of the project. The developer or future homebuilder shall show proof of communication with IID to the Building and Safety Department, prior to final map approval. 7-2) Mitigation measure 9 on page 3.14-13 has been deleted as the IID does not reimburse developer/owners for the line extension charge. 9. If electric service is extended to the project site, the developer would be required to pay all extension costs from the existing line. the &-y-Clopez for the kV,'ts as future commctions are tied "Ato the Specific r s The applicant will coordinate with IID in establishing a credit mechanism as future connections are tied into the Specific plan's electric lines. 7-3) At the request of IID, paragraph 3 on page 3.14-12 has been corrected as follows: According to Thomas Lyons, Senior Engineer with the Imperial Irrigation District, the Travertine project is estimated to have an electrical demand of 19 million volts annually amperes (MVA), as a result, a new 92/12 kilovolt substation will have to be constructed in the vicinity of this project, along with the associated 92 -kV transmission lines to and from this substation. 7-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 035 01 1,395 15:35 619-7777155 C;ITv CF L- IDL:) ITA !- C LETTER 8 T RatASLISr.Eo :Ni :413 AS A ?lbStC aGiNCY COACH ELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX ion • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA ;12239 • i MPHONE 1.910) 3911MI WKCTON OFFICIft TEl,us CODER". PEEWCNT-#40MAS E. IEVY, 06MEAM MMI M-CMM£0: irGu+EER RAYMOND E. AI)1MA MIL VICE ►IIESUMT 9[RN "DINt s:JTToK SECKTM V JOW W. WAL1M oWEhWCOMAU16rMfTG:NERKMA11AWR OOWnl+r x WNW February 28. 1995 IEOW EA'''oWRR".LATrOR"&'s TKOOOK J. NSM File: 0126.2 0421.2 Jerry Herman, Director Community Development CITY QP L1lrlili�F, City of La Quinta 'R MNINGMPARTAfl Post Office Box 1504 La quint&, California 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Subject: Draft Environ:rental Impact Report for Specific Plan Nos. 94-025 and 94-025 T:avert'_ne and Green Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft environmental impact report. Our specific comments are enclosed. If you have any questions please call Alar. Harrell, engineering technician, extension 200. AH:1g/e4/herman Enclosure/l/as Yours very truly, oat Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 031U1I1935 15:35 61`3:?11157 Uf LA 1-ULP41,; UJ LETTER 8 COnt%.. Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Travertine and Green Specific Plans 1. Ceneral comments: A. The proposed completion of Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 as designed may conflict with the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) planned Avenue 62 (Dike 4) crater replenishment site. The water replenishment site and program are necessary components in mitigating tht lower valley's declining water table. The developer will 'have to integrate and/or participate in joint use for recharge purposes in areas that may lie within or impact the proposed development. B. The plans assume that Avenue 62 and Madison Street are completed thoroughfares. Although they are dedicated county roads, there are no roadways in place. C. At several locations in the specific plan and on various maps. the Coachella Branch of the All American. Canal is describad or shown as paralleling the eastern boundary of the Travertine property. In actuality, the canal ends at Lake Cahuilla, more than a mile north of the Travertine property. D. Due to location alone, these projects appear very likely to interfere with current recreational uses of the land and destroy both wildlife habitat and historical artifacts. 2. Summaa table. Some of these comment! will be duplicated in our responses to the stain body of the Plan(s)- A. lans). A. Section 1.5. page 1-4, and Table 1-1, page 1-6. Either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 appear to be preferable to the planned project due to lower impacts on the environment. S. Section 3.4.8. page 1-14. Management District's (SCAQMD's) 403.1. The applicable South Coast Air Quality rule for PM10 in the Coachella Valley is C. Section 3.5. page 1-18. The estimated water demand does not account for turf and landscape use. 8-1 8-2 I 8-3 8-4 8-� W appear to] o 8-7 D. Section 3.5.6. page 1-19. Use of reclaimed water for irrigation will 8-8 require installation of a separate pipeline for this purpose. E. Section 3.5. page 1-20. Add Mitigation Measure No. 10: "Applicants 8-9 shall sign CVWD well metering agreement and racha:ge agreement." F. Section 3.8. page 1-26. Ic is virtually imposelble to "salvage" 8-10 native vegetation which has had many years to adapt its root structure to local conditions. Most plants will not aurvive transplanting. -1- LETTER 8 cont'd 3. S@ction 3.a, Analysis of Environmental Issues. I acts and Mitigation f Measures. A. Page 3.5-1, Existing Water Service. Next to last sentence should read 8-11 "Irrigation water is produced from private wells for irrigation of golf courses and agricultural areas in the City of La Quints." D. Existing demand: 1) Correct this information to reflect a design standard of 3.0 gprn 8-12 per unit. 2) Final paragraph. third sentence should reference "Imperial Dam" 1 8-13 instead of "Imperial Reservoir." 3) Page 3.5.2, first paragraph, first full sentence, change "can be made available" to "will be required within I.A. No. l." Last 8-14 sentence should read "When the applicant requests..." and "...will be required." C. Groundwater supply: 1) Strika the first two paragraphs. The information is inaccurate 8-15 and confusing. 2) Third paragraph, first sentence: Delete the word "valley" and ] 8-16 end sentence with "City." 3) Fourth paragraph should read: The underground water supply for 8-17 the entire Coachella Valley has been astimated at 39.2 million acre-feet (af) in the first 1,000 feet below ground surface. D. Groundwater quality: 1) Second sentence, delete "within upper and lower aquifers." 8-18 2) Third and fourth sentences, delete. This inforTAtion is not correct. There is no reliable data to justify these statements. 4. Section 3.5.2, I acts. A. Travertine specific plan, page 3.5-4. 1) Water system: a) Insert "at developer':. expense" between "CVWD" and "With a 8-19 twen .y -four. " b) Last sentence, insert "proposed" before "demand generation rate." 2) Water supply/demand: a) First paragraph. second sentence: Revise figures to reflect 8-20 a 3.0 gpm per unit demand. 14 F -2- - ��/b1i lyy5 17: �7 bl`Jt t t 1177 UI!'i UI- La 1-IjINIA Lr.! 1 EK ts dont. a ! i, b) Third sentence should read, "CvWD will require one well site per 70 acres and one well per 350 dwelling units." Delete remainder of sentence. 8-20 C) Fourth sentence: Insert "sites" at and of sentence. ; COCl. e d) Fifth sentence: Delete "only 5" and insert "5-7." e) Second paragraph, first sentence: Delete "3 to." f) Add fifth sentence, oAdditionai off-site facilities will be required, including reservoirs, tranAmission mains, booster stations, and pressure reducing stations, all at developer's expense." g) Third paragraph: Change "can" to "will" and "should" to "shall." h) Page 3.5-6. insert between text and Table 3.5-1. The following water management plan shall be provided prior to approval of irrigation systems by CV'WD: (1) Determine build -out water requirements of site landscaping. (a) Identify and document all areas of irrigation. J) Maintained by municipality. ii) Maintained by CIND or homeowners association. iii) Maintained by let or homeowner. (b) Categorize areas of consideration by water needs. J) Distinguish between grass species. ii) Identify contrasting maintenance approach (i.e.. mowed versus ungtowed). iii) Separate landscape themes (a.g., oasis planting versus desert planting). (c) Project irrigation water requirements. i) By individual area. ii) By peak period flow demands (Spm). iii) By season. iv) By total annual volume. MIM 8 - LETTER S con#'d (2) Evaluate and implement a water management system and designate operations responsibility. (a) Homeowners association. (b) CVW'D. (c) Golf course area. (d) Municipality. i) Table 3.5-1. Many of the figures in the f3na1 column are incorrect. Change thea to reflect CVWD factor of 3.0 gpm per unit. Also correct f4otnQte 7 to show this figure. j) Page 3.5-7. first paragraph. The projected reservoir size is too small. Use CVWD design factor of 3.0 gpm per unit Plus fire flow for two hours and a 20 percent emergency factor. B. Green specific plan, page 3.5-8. 1} Water system. In third sentence. change "S -inch" to "12 -inch" "18- or in 8-26 both locations. In last sentence, change "18 -inch" to 24 -inch" and "12 -inch" to "12- or 18 -inch." 2) Water supply/demand. a) First paragraph, first sentence, use 4.0 gym per unit for these units. 8-27 b) second sentence. Use 5.0 gpm per unit for custom lots. C) Delete third sentence. The quarry shall not supply water to other entities. d) Second paragraph, insart "off-site" before "well sites" in facilities 8-28 two locations. Add sentence, "Additional off-site include reservoirs, transmission nains, will be required, to booster stations and pressure reducing stations, all at developer's expense. 8-29 5. Section 3.5.3 Cumulative ITRacts. In first sentence, replace "aut-of-state" wj th "supplemental." 6. Section 3.5.4 Mitigation measures= $-30 A. Item 4, insert "pressure reducing stations" after "lift stations." ] 8-31 B. Item 5. last sentence, delete "and the City." C. Item 9, page 3.5-13, add final senter_ce, "Developer must agree to oparated by CVWD and may 8-32 participate in a groundwate. replenishment program land for -water recharge facilities." be required to dedicate some ground MIC NJ/ V1! IZUJ 1J. J'J O17f f r f4 rJ tri 1 i Ur --i-i rrU L14IN 1 1'..JV Vr LETTER F3 nnnt'd 7. Section 3.6.2 impacts-, a e 3,6-8 firstparagraph- Trete is no potential EI-33 liquefaction in an area where groundwater depth is in excess of 100 feet below ground surface. This is9also trio in reference to seismicity for the Green specific plan (page 8. Stormwater cflrmnents. The following shall be incorporated into the stormwater section (,pages 3.7-1 to 3.7-8). 8-34 A. The proposed project is affected by stormwater runoff from canyons lying on the westerly flank of the Coachella Valley. g. The district operates and -maintains dikes 2 and 4 which lie to the north and east of this project. These dikes are regional stormwater protactlar� facilities which project lower valley pro; ernes from starmwat�er flows. The developer's engineer shall provide a hydrology report which addresses the impact on these facilities. This report shall address the following: 1) Retention of stormwater flows within the project(s). 2) Sediment transport during storm events and the removal and disposal of these sediments. 3) Operation and maintenance of internal stormwater facilities. 4) Compliance with federal, county or co=nunity requirements for construction within a floodplain. The hydrology report and grading plans shall be submitted to the district for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the city. AH:lg/e4Jtrave- M= 8-35 Letter 8 Coachella Valley Water District, Tom Levy, February 28, 1995 8-1) The proposed Jefferson Street Alignment will not adversely affect the planned Avenue 62 water replenishment site (Dike 4). The Jefferson Street Alignment is anticipated to be aligned between Section 33 and Section 4 before it approaches Avenue 62. As Dike 4 is south of Avenue 62 and east of the Travertine site, it will not be affected by the Jefferson Street Alignment. Mitigation measures 1 and 9 on pages 3.5-12 and 3.5-13 have been provided to ensure that the applicant participates in CVWD's groundwater recharge programs. As such, no further mitigation is proposed. 8-2) The Specific Plans show the final built out stage of Avenue 62 and Madison Street. However, their future completion will be a condition of approval of the Travertine and Green Specific Plans EIR. 8-3) The Coachella Branch of the All American Canal does terminate at Lake Cahuilla. All references to the All American Canal paralleling the eastern side of the Travertine site will be changed. 8-4) In response to this comment please refer to Sections 3.8 Biology, 3.10 Cultural Resources and 3.11 Recreation for a detailed explanation of the impacts related to each of these environmental topics and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts. 8-5) Refer to response to comment 6-6. Section 8.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project provides an explanation of the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines relative to Alternative analyses. In summary, alternatives must be reasonable when compared to the proposed project or to the location of the project, and should feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. 8-6) Comment noted. Mitigation measure 8 on page 3.4-15 and page 1-14 of the Summary Table remains unchanged as Rule 403.1 is a sub component of Rule 403. 8-7) Comment noted. Water calculations have been revised as necessary to include turf and landscaping. 8-1 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 8-8) CVWD's comment is noted. Mitigation measure 6 on page 1-19 states that the projects wastewater system will be designed to accommodate future onsite uses of reclaimed water. Review and approval of this plan will be required, ensuring that a separate pipeline is installed for reclaimed water irrigation. 8-9) The following mitigation measure has been added to page 1-20 and 3.5-13 as mitigation measure 10 in response to CVWD's comment: 10. Applicants shall sign CVWD's well metering agreement and recharge agreement. 8-10) Refer to response to comment 432 regarding the transplanting of salvageable plants. 8-11) The second to the last sentence on page 3.5-1 has been revised to reflect the suggested change. The 909 acre Travertine site currently consists of 680 acres of open space and approximately 229 acres of cultivated vineyards: Irrigation for the vineyard is provided by one water well located on site. The well presently provides minimal agricultural volumes for irrigation purposes. The 331 acre Green site consists of predominately hillside open space. Both projects are located within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which provides water services through a system -wide master plan. The system -wide master plan provides the City of La Quinta with potable water, pumped from an underground aquifer at 13 well locations within the City. These active wells are perforated at depths ranging from 500 feet to 900 feet. The potable water for the City is stored in five reservoirs, with the nearest reservoir to the project being Reservoir #6723 with a 500,000 gallon capacity, and is located in the northeastern portion of PGA West. The closest existing CVWD water service lines are located at the intersection of 58th Street and Madison Street. The CVWD potable water distribution system transports water via an underground water system with lines ranging in size from 6 to 36 inches. for irlig-36011 Of gol aglk"Siturai areas LU Ulve Of La Qui Irrigation water is produced from private wells for irrigation of golf courses and agricultural areas in the City of La Quinta. Water from the Colorado River is also used for irrigation purposes in the area. 8-2 9737 -CAB- 12501 -RESPONSES 3 r 8-12) Page 3.5-1 paragraph one under "Existing Water Service" has been revised to reflect a design standard of 3.0 gpm per unit. The City's total estimate water demand of approximately 1.87 million gallons per day (mgd) is based on an indoor use demand of 315 gallons per day (gpd), per unit. The City requires a minimum water supply of 350 gpd for single-family lots and 450 gallons per day for other types of lots. However, the CVWD utilizes X560 -gpd 3.0 gallons per minute (gpm), per unit, for indoor and outdoor requirements. Based on the higher demand per day, the e CVWD estimated consumption rate for the City is 8.93 mgd. 8-13) Page 3.5-1 paragraph two under Existing Demand has been revised as follows: Irrigation water is also provided by the CVWD and supplied to the City via the Coachella Canal. The canal extends through the City on the west side of Lake Cahuilla County Park and PGA West. Water to the canal is supplied from the Imperial Reservoir Dam on the Colorado River. The canal water benefit district in the City extends north of Avenue 52 and west of Washington Street north of the project site. Portion of the Travertine property are within Improvement District 1. Water from the Coachella Canal can be made available to be used for golf course and green belt irrigation purposes. In the event the applicant requests this irrigation water supply, additional facility improvement would be required. 8-14) The applicant is not proposing to utilize water from I.D.No.1, therefore, it should not be required. 8-15) Information pertaining to groundwater supply was incorporated in the EIR from the following sources: City of La Quinta General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and phone conversations with staff at CVWD. Groundwater supply information was provided to ensure an informative summary of the environment. This information is provided in an attempt to provide the decision makers with all available information in order that they may make an informed decision on the project. Therefore the first two paragraphs under Groundwater Supply were not stricken from the EIR. 8-3 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 8-16) Paragraph three on page 3.5-2 has been changed to delete the word "valley" however, "City" was not included as requested because it was not clear as to its proper location. The change is shown as follows: The lower fey aquifer is the only source of potable water to the City and has an existing supply of approximately 28.2 million af. 8-17) The fourth paragraph of page 3.5-2 has been changed as follows: The Affint 1,088 feet of , mately underground water supply for the entire Coachella Valley has been estimated at 39.2 million acre feet (af) in the first 1, 000 feet below ground surface. 8-18) Page 3.5-2 paragraph 7 has been revised to delete "within the upper and lower aquifers" from the second sentence. CVWD requested that the third and fourth sentence be deleted as there is no reliable data to justify these statements. This information was summarized from the City of La Quinta General Plan Environmental Impact report and similarly the last sentence on page 4-56 has been incorporated into the Travertine and Green EIR as shown below: Water quality within La Quinta is monitored by the CVWD. Good water quality vvitiffirthe pper and lowcr aquIlECTs can be found at depths of 500 feet, while poor to marginal water quality is found at depths of less than 200 feet. Threats to groundwater quality in the area include a high nitrate concentration plume extending south-easterly from Cathedral City towards La Quinta, within the upper valley aquifer. Additional threats to both the upper and lower aquifer groundwater quality include pesticides and fertilizers utilized for agricultural production, septic tanks, and new well construction which would require drilling through non -potable water sources to reach the lower potable sources. According to the City of La Quinta General Plan EIR page 4-56 (paragraph 1), "The CVWD has no data supporting the existence of a nitrate plume and stresses that pesticides and commercial fertilizers would likely be intercepted by the perched water table and not affect the supply of potable water. " REI 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 8-19) So noted. Page 3.5-4, paragraph two, has been changed as follows: The proposed Travertine project would develop 2,300 resort residential units on 481 acres; two 18 hole golf courses, one designed as a target course and the other fully landscaped, with a practice range and club house encompassing 363 acres; a 27.5 acre, 500 room hotel and conference center; 10 acres of commercial centers. Water service to the project site will be provided by the CVWD at developers expense with a twenty-four inch mainline within the Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 alignments. Within the project area, twelve inch lines will then feed off the main line to serve individual clusters of development. Figure 3.5-1 shows the proposed water service locations and Table 3.5-1 shows the proposed demand generation rate of each proposed use. 8-20) The third and fourth paragraphs on page 3.5-4 has been changed to reflect a 3.0 gpm per unit demand: Water demands were generated utilizing generation factors provided by the the City of La Quinta General Plan EIR. As shown in Table 3.5-1, the total water demand for Travertine project, utilizing CVWD generation factor of 1500 ga!/D�� 3.0 gpm/D U/day, would be approximately 5,566,M2 12, 052, 212 gpd at full buildout. CVWD will require one well site per 70 acres Of a Site OL and one active well per 490 350 dwelling units. ; whiche er provides die 6,catex number of . In the case of Travertine, CVWD could require approximately 13 wells sites . However, oaiy-5 5-7 may be active to service the development while the balance would remain inactive. CVWD would require these wells to be a minimum of 1000 feet apart. In order to space 5 --to 13 wells 1,000 feet apart, the applicant may be required to acquire additional well site locations off-site, as well as on-site. The precise location of these 13 wells has not been approved at this time and ultimate locations will be determined by CVWD. However, without knowing the location of any off-site wells, impacts as a result of off-site well locations cannot be specifically determined at this time. Potentially significant site disturbance impacts or drawdown effects on nearby wells could result from these unknown well locations off-site. 8-5 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 8-21) The following sentence has been added as the last sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 3.5-4: Additional off-site facilities may be required, including reservoirs, transmission mains, booster stations, and pressure reducing stations, will be - at developer's expense. 8-22) Refer to Response to Comment 4-14. The project is not proposing to use water from the Coachella Canal, therefore, no changes are necessary. 8-23) The following text will be inserted between the text and Table 3.5-1. The water management plan shall be provided prior to approval of irrigation systems by CVWD. 1. Determine build -out water requirements of site landscaping. a. Identify and document all areas of irrigation. i. Maintained by municipality. ii. Maintained by CVWD or homeowners association. iii. Maintained by lot or homeowner. b. Categorize areas of consideration by water needs. i. Distinguish between grass species. ii. Identify contrasting maintenance approach (i. e., mowed versus unmowed). iii. Separate landscape themes (e.g., oasis planting versus desert planting). C. Project irrigation water requirements. i. By individual area. ii. By peak period flow demands (gpm) . iii. By season. iv. By total annual volume. 2. Evaluate and implement a water management system and designate operations responsibility. a. Homeowners association. b. CVWD. c. Golf course area. d. Municipality. 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES it F r 8-24) Land Use Table 3.5-1 has been revised to reflect the generation factors provided by CVWD: TABLE 3.5-1 Travertine and Green Daily Water Demands Acres Dwelling Units AVG. Daily Demand (gPd) Travertine Residential 481.2 2,300 9, 936, 0002 Commercial 10 — 40,0003 Hotel/Resort 27.2 500 96,0004 Golf Courses 362.9 — 1,943 8575 Clubhouses 30,000sf, --- 26 4406 Tennis Club 10,000sf — 9,9157 TRAVERTINE ESTIMATED DEMAND: 12,052,212 Green Residential 277 1, 609, 9208 TOTAL ESTIMATED DEMAND: 13, 662,132 2. , i,509Vd, !992- CVWD response letter to the Travertine and Green DEIR dated 2128195, generation factor of 3.0 gpm. 3. Generation factors assume stores at 400 gaill, 000 s f. (100, 000 s f. total) (Water Supply Planning, David Prasifka, Table 1-6 Summary of Commercial and Institutional Water Uses, 1994). 4. Generation factors assume 120, 000s f. @ 800 gal/1, 000 s f. (Design -Data Book for Civil Engineers, Volume I, Elwyn E. Seelye, page I-10, 1960). 5. Generation factors assume 6 ac. ft. per year(the mean of CVWD direction of between 5-7 ac. ft.lyr.) for both golf courses. 6.Assumes approximately 200 members each clubhouse, 400 members ® 66.1 gpd(Water Supply Planning, David Prasifka, 1994). 7.Assumes 150 members a 66.1 gal. (Water Supply Planning, David Prasifka, 1994). 8. CVWD response to Travertine and Green DEIR 2128195, 267 units x 4.0 gpm and 10 units x 5.0 gpm. 8-7 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 8-25) Paragraph one on page 3.5-7 has been revised to accurately reflect the projected reservoir size. The Specific Plan indicates the need for a 2� 14 million gallon water reservo. tank to service the site for fire flow storage. However, no reservoir location is indicated in the Specific Plan. Therefore, potentially significant site disturbance impacts from this reservoir could occur. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. However, potentially significant impacts may arise due to an unknown number of off-site well and/or reservoir locations. 8-26) Only an 8 inch line exists in the Quarry development, as such only an 8 inch line will be connected to the 10 custom lots. However, the last sentence in paragraph 1, page 3.5-8 has been changed. The project would develop 277 resort homes with minimum 8,000 square foot lots. Of the 277 resort homes, 10 custom homes would be developed along the northwestern corner of the project adjacent to the Quarry development. The 10 custom lots would have water supplied through 8 - inch water lines, connecting to the existing 8 -inch water line in the Quarry Development. The remaining 267 dwelling units would be serviced by an 18- to 24 -inch water line within the Jefferson Street right-of-way with 12 - or 18- inch water lines extending through the development area. 8-27) Paragraph 2 on page 3.5-8 has been changed as follows: The project would require approximately 72500 1,609,920 gpd for the development of 277 units. The 10 custom lots would require approximately 730 72,000 gpd of adtihtiorml water. 'meter wateL . The remaining residential lots would require approximately 650,790 1,537,920 gpd which would be provided by wells. The nearest existing water lines, other than at the Quarry site, are located approximately 7 miles north of the site at Avenue 58 and Madison Street. Figure 3.5-2 shows the proposed water services for the project. 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES 0 r 8-28) The second paragraph on page 3.5-8 has been changed as follows: The project will be required by CVWD to provide four off-site well sites to serve the project. One well would be required to be active prior to the initial phase of construction. The precise locations of these four off-site wells have not been determined at this time and ultimate locations will be determined by CVWD. Similar to the Travertine project, without knowing the location of any off-site wells, impacts as a result of off-site well locations are not specifically known at this time. Potentially significant site disturbance impact or drawdown effects on nearby wells could occur at these locations off-site. Additional off-site facilities that may be required, to include reservoirs, transmission mains, booster stations and pressure reducing stations, will be at developer's expense. 8-29) Paragraph 6 on page 3.5-10 has been changed as follows: The Travertine and Green Specific Plans, together with other closely related past, present and future projects in the Coachella Valley, will result in reductions in the existing underground water supply which is currently in a state of overdraft, and will require further dependence on supplemental water supplies. The City of La Quinta General Plan EIR estimates that at buildout, the City would require 46.86 mgd of potable water. With the addition of the Travertine and Green Specific Plans, at buildout the City would require a total of 53.15 mgd of potable water. Since recharge information is not currently available for the lower aquifer, impacts to the water supply within the Coachella Valley are considered cumulatively significant. 8-30) Mitigation measure 4 on page 3.5-12 has been changed as follows: 4. All planned wells, reservoirs, lift stations, pressure reducing stations and booster pumping stations shall be designed to CVWD standards and reviewed by both the City and CVWD. The developer shall provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. Identified sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district, prior to final map approval. (T,G). 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES Az 8-31) Mitigation measure 5 on page 3.5-12 has been changed as follows: 5- .All proposed wells shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet away from each other and existing wells to minimize drawdowns from on or off the site wells. Well design and locations shall be reviewed and approved by CVWD and the eity prior to acceptance of facilities. (T,G) 8-32) Mitigation measure 9 on page 3.5-13 has been changed as follows: 9. Final site design shall be prepared in concert with the City of La Quinta and CVWD to implement strategies to supplement the amount of recharge to the underground aquifer through the use of site design techniques, and the utilization of tertiary treated wastewater and/or lower quality potable water, where applicable. The Engineering/Public Works Department and Coachella Valley Water District shall review and approve the final site design for its use of recharge techniques and tertiary treated water. Developer will agree to participate in a groundwater replenishment program operated by CVWD which may include dedicating some land for groundwater recharge facilities. (T, G) 8-33) CVWD's comment regarding the decreased potential _ for liquefaction in areas where groundwater depth is in excess of 100 feet is noted. The DEIR on page 3.6-8 (paragraph 1) refers to the projects proximity to fault zones in conjunction with the underlying geology of the region. As the DEIR analysis reviewed the regional aspects of seismic related impacts, the information is considered adequate and the DEIR remains unchanged. 8-34) Comment noted. Previously referenced on page 3.7-1 of the DEIR, first paragraph first sentence. 8-35) The following mitigation measure has been added to Section 3.7 Hydrology/Stormwater. 8. The applicant shall provide a hydrology report which addresses impact on dikes 2 and 4. The report should address the following: 1. Retention of stormwater flows within the project (s). 8-10 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES r 2. Sediment transport during storm events and the removal and disposal of these sediments. 3. Operation and maintenance of internal stormwater facilities. 4. Compliance with federal, county or community requirements for construction within a floodplain. This will be submitted to the CVWD for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. 8-11 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES LETTER 9 9?bbef? eiq. Wi'4m 'Frbst 4a c5b scerstes PgOF_SSIONAL SNG:NEEgB. P-ANNEAS 3 SUPVE'!CAS :March 10. 1995 Lai* Mouriquard-Cherry, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle 'Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 301,215 RP-: 'Travcrtine!Grecn Specif:L Plan Environmental Impact Report, dated Januarf 1995 Dear :Mrs. %, jouriquand-Cberry: On Behalf of our Clients, the La Quinta Ranch Par-necship. REF appreciate; the ogpartunity to review and co anent car tie subjecl document. -Via U Quanta Ranch Par.nership offtr this letter as forma= sou -port, in favor, of tht propovscd Travettine and Green Specific Plans. However. request clai; if;catia•^ on the following.' Mitigation Measurc 6. indicmis that "..the Travertirc project proponent should contribute their fair Share to ars all -wear c: acct =s connecting the southtrn locp of Jef`crsor: Street to Madison Strt-et at Avenue 60 and overlay 'he existing Madison Sueet paverntNII between Avenue 58 and Avenue 50 to accommodate the increased traffic loading...•' Tlsfs coodit€on does not app to apply to the Green prQ9erti;z, iso' -+ever, the rcfereucc to a "fair shaxe' contribution ter -s ly implies that othe. properties wW he regulrcd to conUibute. it is requested that clariScation be pro,,ided on ;vbat other properties make up the -fair share' contribution for this improwmeat before this conditi©n is approved. Mitigation Measure i. indicates that"...ihe applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in CV'xD regional water projects io br;ng needed water facilities to the site, and contribute water as&cssment fcµs required by tlrc C'VV D.•, '�.at0 NIQHwA" ! ! • PALMA Ce3SAT CAL.;CR'4!A %2240•a�!s • ;y 9)1a1 Teat • FrJt (0'9) 3aa!•43tS CF=ICE6 LOCAreO `riPotiomOUT CAuFCPNIA 9-1 9-2 LETTER 9 cont't Any heeded water fadUties should be dearly defined and identify what additional 9-2 surrotwdlag properies benefit. The "fair share' wading formula should also be defied. coifg I Mitigation Measure t. indicates that ''he Cary of La Quinta shall ensure, as proposed by the Coachella Valley Association of Cover; nests, that mitigation/ compensation funds shall be made available to the Coachella Valle;• multispecies planting process prior to any habitat impacting activities (grading pernit), due to this project. Such funds should be calculated on the basis of acseagc of habitat disvarbed, pursuant to a formula for fees which is equitably and uniformally applied throughout the Coachella Valley.' While CVAG s working toward the deveiopmeut of z Valley wide mWdspedes planttiag process. the "e altable and unZarm per icre' fee refe.=4 to has act bees defined in any detail, There are many unresolived issues that may very well prevent the multispecies planning process from ever being adopted. N14bat happen.; if a VaUey-wide multispecies planning process is never adopted? Mitigation Measures 3. and ;. indicate "...the applicant shall dedicate a multi-purpose trail easement within the Jefferson Street a4inmeat for prese•tiation of the Boo Hoff Trail; and "...the applicants shall dedlcate a hiking and CgLestrian trail slong the Jefferson alignment which connects to the Cirr and County Trail System." It is the belief of our CUeet, that any dcdiewlon of additional rigbt-of-way within the Jefferson Street alignment should credited in some fashion to any assessment formula related to the proposed Je►%tion Street improvements. Please feel free to contact me at (614) .1-16-748 1. i_ you have any gt;estiors, or if you reed clarification on our Clients positiom Sincerely, �� fuj�� LLOYD "NICK" NICKERSON. JR. Senior Director meyereir.ltr/la/ 9-' Letter 9 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Lloyd "Nick" Nickerson, March 10, 1995 9-1) Mitigation measure 6 which applies only to Travertine has been revised per the City of La Quinta. Refer to Response to Comment 5-3. 9-2) As the Travertine and Green projects will be built out in phases, it is difficult to define and identify what specific water facilities will be needed for the two projects. The DER has indicated the approximate size of the water lines for the project and has provided mitigation measures that will ensure that additional facilities such as reservoirs, transmission mains, booster stations, etc. are provided when needed. The "fairshare" funding formula, will be determined between the applicant and the CVWD during negotiations, prior to issuance of building permits. 9-3) As noted in this comment, CVAG and other Valley public agencies are working diligently towards development of a Valley -wide multi -species protection program. There is every reasonable expectation that such a program will be implemented. Refer to the topical summary section, page 4. 9-4) Comment noted. 9737 -CAB -12501 -RESPONSES