The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Resolution 2006-082 SilverRock MND AddendumRESOLUTION 2006-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2002-453 (SCH # 1999081020), A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER VERIFICATION FOR THE SILVERROCK RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO.: EA 06-568 APPLICANT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002; the Board of the, Redevelopment Agency of the City of La Quinta certified' Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Environmental Assessment. No. 2002-453, State Clearinghouse Number 1999081020 (the "MND"), for the acquisition of the 'property -located generally located north of Avenue 54, west of Jefferson Street, south of Avenue 52 and east of the Coral Reef Mountains (the "Ranch") and the subsequent development of the non -mountainous portion of the Ranch with public golf courses and resort uses (the "Ranch Project"); and WHEREAS, a portion of the Ranch Project has now been completed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 11 to day of July, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Environmental Assessment No. 2002-453 and a Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification, for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan, which plan establishes development plans, guidelines and regulations for the development of a golf course, hotel resort facilities and supporting commercial uses. (the "Project"), and which Specific Plan area: is located on a 546-acre portion of the Ranch, generally bordered by Avenue 5.2 on the north, Avenue 54 on the south; Jefferson Street on the East, and the Santa Rosa Mountains on the west, as- more particularly described in the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, following said hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to recommend City Council certify the Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration- of Environmental. Impact and Environmental Assessment No. 2002-453 and a Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Determination for the MND was filed on May 16, 2002. There are no changed circumstances, conditions,- or new information, which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21 166 in connection with the Project; and Resolution No. 2006-082 Addendum to EA 2002-463 / SllverRock Adopted: July 18, 2006 Page 2 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the MND has been prepared and the City has determined that the Project does not trigger the need for the preparation of an additional or subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15162 or Public Resources Code section 21166, in that the Project does not involve: 1) Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the MND which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on'the environment not analyzed in the MND; or 3) New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the MND substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following findings to justify certification of said Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Environmental Assessment No. 2002- 453: 1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by the MND or the Addendum. 2. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate plant or animal communities, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. in that no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the MND or the Addendum. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that in that no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the MND or the Addendum. Resolution No. 2006-082 Addendum to EA 2002-453 / silverRock Adopted: July 18, 2006 Page 4 WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following findings to justify approval of said Water Supply Assessment: 1. In accordance with California Water Code section 1091 1(c), the City hereby determines, based on the entire record, that projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council necessary to certify the Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2002-453 and that the City Council approve the Water Supply Assessment; and 2. That the City Council does hereby certify that is has independently reviewed and considered the Addendum and the MND, and do hereby approve the Addendum and the Water Supply Assessment for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 3. That the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City. 4. The Staff Report and the Powerpoint presented to the City Council on July 18, 2006, should be appended to and be considered part of the addendum. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 181h day of July, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Mayor Adolph NOES: Council Member Sniff ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DON ADOtPH, M r City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2006-082 Addendum to EA 2002-453 I SilverRock Adopted: July 18, 2006 Page 6 ATTEST: QEtEGRiEEK, MM Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: r M. KATHERINEWENSON, Cit ttorney City of La Quinta; California Addendum to The Ranch Project Mitigated Negative Declaration for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan State Clearinghouse No. 1999081020 Prepared for: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253-1504 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 Pasadena, California 91101 July 18, 2006 APPROVED RYA II 0 COUNCIL By__. DAB" RE.,SO# CASE NO.5�a TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................... ................ .......... ...... ,................................................................................... 1 ProjectBackground.................................................................................................................................. 1 Purposeof an Addendum........ ................................................... ............................................................. 5 Description of the Ranch Project as Evaluated in the Adopted Final Ranch MND .............................. 7 Description of the Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project .................................................. 7 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................................. 11 LandUse and Planning.....,.................................................................................................................... 11 Populationand Housing........................................................................................................................ 13 Geology& Soils ........................... ......... ........ ......................................................................................... .. 14 Water...................................................................................................................................................... 16 AirQuality................................................................................................................................................ 21 Transportationand Circulation............................................................................................................... 23 BiologicalResources ........................ ...... ........ .................. ...................................................................... 26 Energy and Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................. 30 Hazards................................................................................................................................................... 31 Noise....................................................................................................................................................... 32 PublicServices........................................................................................................................................ 36 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................................. 39 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................................,.... 45 CulturalResources................................................................................................................................. 47 Recreation............................................................................................................................................... 49 F APPENDICES Appendix A — Final MND for the Ranch Project Appendix B — Addendum Air Quality Analysis Appendix C — SilverRock Resort Traffic Evaluation Appendix D — CVWD Agreement Appendix E — Approved WSA and WSV LIST OF FIGURES 1. Regional Map............................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Specific Plan Area..................................................................................................................................... 4 3, Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area........ .......................................... 4. Planning Area Diagram............................................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF TABLES 1. Proposed Land Uses.............................................................................................................................. 24 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted in May 2002 by the City of La Quinta to evaluate the environmental effects of the acquisition and development of the Ranch Project site. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.2, the MND and the findings and determinations contained therein are conclusively presumed to be valid. The Ranch Project, as evaluated in the MND, consisted of the proposed acquisition of the project site for development of a master -planned, resort and the subsequent approval of related actions including the adoption of a Specific Plan, subdivision of the site and permits for individual development projects. Following adoption of the Final MND for the Ranch Project, the City of La Quinta acquired the majority of the Ranch Project site and developed one of the two public golf courses included in the project as described and evaluated in the Final MND. The Final MND for the Ranch Project is included in Appendix A. At this time the City is considering the approval of several discretionary actions to implement the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan (or "SRR SP"), including (i) adoption of the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan to guide the design and development of the resort uses planned for the site and the second public golf course, (ii) subdivision of the site and (iii) approval of a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City of La Quinta, which owns the site, and a developer of the resort uses. The purpose of this Addendum is to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed SRR SP, which consists of these actions, to determine whether any of the circumstances outlined in CEQA Guideline 15162 exist. PROJECT BACKGROUND The 546-acre SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Area (or "SRR SP Area") is located approximately 105 miles from the City of Los Angeles and the Pacific Coast and approximately 240 miles from the Phoenix/Scottsdale metropolitan region as shown on Figure 1. The SRR SP Area is located on the gently sloping floor of the Coachella Valley in the general vicinity of Palm Springs and is located within the corporate limits of the City of La Quinta in Riverside County. The City of La Quinta, a 31-square-mile municipality located in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley, was incorporated in 1982. The City is bounded on the west by mountainous land and the City of Indian Wells; on the east, by the City of Indio and unincorporated Riverside County; on the north by Riverside County; and federal and county lands to the south. r i r I I l Sfln Bernardino ny. M� I��rl��l I 1 werside County I Joshraga Tree National = O Norlh Palm Springs Monument I tzl- � I — Palmy Springs m ThPwm S SilverRock i Hidden Spdngs Specific \, \\ Ce,INdIV Plan Area ;. City Rancho 1 Mirage ( In7.nn Wells rl to ' \ \ _\ Bernardino I Coc ella L to l �— Lake Therm I :��imimal —^I IY Cahuilla , 4 I I Forest ,-� Saltonl f Sea 5.0 2.5 0 5.0 n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. - June 2006 FIGURE 1 Regional Ma 635-001.06/06 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The SSR SP Area is accessible from Interstate 10 by way of Jefferson Street. As shown in Figure 2, the SRR SP Area is generally bordered by Avenue 52 on the north, Avenue 54 on the south, Jefferson Street on the East, and the Santa Rosa Mountains on the west. The SRR SP Area is bisected by the All American Canal, which flows west from Jefferson Street and then turns south within the SRR SP Area. Surrounding uses include The Citrus residential and golf course community to the north of Avenue 52, The Hideaway residential and golf course community to the east of Jefferson Street, and the PGA West residential and golf course community to the south of Avenue 54. The SRR SP Area has been planned for development with golf course, hotel, retail and commercial and related uses for over 20 years. The SRR SP Area was originally part of the larger Oak Tree West Specific Plan, adopted in 1985. The Oak Tree West Specific Plan Area, which also included the area located north of Avenue 52 now developed as The Citrus community, allowed for the development of hotel, residential, retail and commercial uses and 45 holes of golf within this larger specific plan area. In 1998, a resort development project was proposed for the property that makes up the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Area. This project, called the Ranch Project, included two 18-hole golf courses along with hotel, retail, commercial and residential uses. The applicant for this project did not pursue approval of this project. In March 2002, the City adopted an update of the City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan and certified an EIR for the General Plan update (the "General Plan EIR"). The General Plan designated the majority of the SRR SP Area for Golf Course and Tourist Commercial uses, with the remaining portion designated as Open Space. The Golf Course land use designation allows both public and private golf courses along with associated ancillary uses, while the Tourist Commercial designation allows resort hotels, recreational uses, conference centers and ancillary retail shops and commercial uses. In May 2002, the City of La Quinta acquired the majority of the approximate 707-acre site evaluated in the original MND on the Ranch Project. The City acquired the flat portion of the Ranch site suitable for development, consisting of approximately 546 acres, but did not acquire the portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains located on the western portion of the Ranch site. 3 Country Club Dr. City of Palm Deseit Indian Wells Country Club City o Irvin Wells I Bermuda Dunes d Airport Bermuda Dunes r� V Q Country Club h[Yiyr� .m h_ n 'q ktl3 im Fred Waring Dr. lm Q Indian Springs ,�p'.� Country Club .51'1 r T Q% CIO -k7/ City of Indio 0 (A OS • vj • Avenue 50 fm s C La Rulnia N m City Hall Avenue 52 � Avenue 52 Avenue 54 SilverRock--i'r, J,C Specific Airport Blvd. Plan Area L =a Q u i CI rzi - m Iy I m o al a o 0 Lake m N CahUlla171 tLNOT TO SCALE bUUKCt: Impact sciences, Inc. - June 2006 FIGURE 2 Specific Plan Area 635-001.06/06 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The City of La Quinta acquired the portion of the Ranch site that makes up the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Area to achieve several objectives, including: • Implementation of the City's General Plan, • Provide public recreation opportunities by developing two public golf courses on the site, • Facilitate the development of public golf courses, resort and commercial uses that will generate recurring sources of revenues for the City in the form of transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. The City began construction of the SilverRock Resort Arnold Palmer Classic Golf Course in 2004 and the course opened to the public in spring 2005. This 18-hole public golf course, 7,753 yards in length, occupies approximately 200 acres of the SRR SP Area. Access to the Arnold Palmer Classic Golf Course is provided by SilverRock Way, which currently extends from Avenue 52 south into the SRR SP Area as shown in Figure 3, which provides an aerial photograph of the project site showing current conditions and surrounding uses. PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM Once a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared and adopted for a project, CEQA provides for the update of the information in the adopted MND to address changes to the project or changes to the circumstances under which the project will occur. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that no subsequent EIR or MND shall be prepared where the lead agency (in this case the City) determines that neither substantial project changes, substantial changed circumstances, nor new information have occurred. In such an event, the lead agency may prepare an Addendum to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration if only minor or technical changes or additions to the project occur. An Addendum to an adopted MND shall be prepared if some changes or additions are needed, but none of the conditions calling for a subsequent EIR has occurred. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a).) Based on the entire record before the City, this Addendum to the previously adopted Ranch Project MND has been prepared because: (1) no substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken will occur which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in 5 b t s Local` Road +9.--,. %pop CD } '? A J 4d4w' �.,A['� 4 u - ty-�'�'1� "ate•}--J • 1 ' . yr^ �` _'� '"+ '• �d,, �. '� A L �.�Awl , ,1[.`�' tl 500 250 0 500 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. — June 2006 FIGURE 3 Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan ArE 835-001.06/06 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project the severity of previously identified effects; and (3) no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) the project will .have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; (B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or, (D) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt these mitigation measures or alternatives. DESCRIPTION OF THE RANCH PROJECT AS EVALUATED IN THE ADOPTED FINAL RANCH MND The City of La Quinta was proposing to acquire the approximately 707-acre Ranch Project site at the time the Final MND was prepared and adopted and it was anticipated that the City would subsequently adopt a Specific Plan and approve related actions to implement the project including the subdivision of the site and the issuance of permits for individual development projects. Approximately 160 acres of the 707-acre site, consisting of a portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains, was to be preserved as natural open space. As described and evaluated in the adopted Final MND for The Ranch Project, the development program for the remainder of the site included two 18-hole public golf courses, a 25,000-square-foot clubhouse and a public 9-hole golf course. The resort uses described and evaluated in the MND included a 250-room hotel with a 10,000-square-foot conference center, 300 timeshare/fractional or condo/hotel units and 25,000 square feet of supporting retail and commercial uses. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SILVERROCK RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT The SilverRock Resort Specific Plan (SRR SP) does not constitute a substantial change to the Ranch Project analyzed in the MND because the proposed uses and development are substantially similar to the initial project. The SRR SP would permit the development of public golf courses, resort facilities, and supporting retail and commercial uses in a master -planned resort environment. The SRR SP would establish design and development criteria and permit the development of two high -quality public golf courses with supporting facilities, a public park, a hotel with a conference center, a resort hotel, a boutique hotel, a mixed -use resort retail village, and resort casitas. The SRR SP Area does not include the 160-acre portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains that was included as a part of the Ranch Project site. 7 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The SRR SP defines eight Planning Areas within the 546-acre SRR SP Area, as shown in Figure 4. The size and allowed uses in each Planning Area are described below: Planning Area 1: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include two 18-hole golf courses and supporting facilities, including a clubhouse, driving range, instructional facility, and a golf course maintenance facility. One 18-hole golf course, the Arnold Palmer Classic Course, currently exists in this Planning Area. Planning Area 1 consists of approximately 373 acres. Planning Area 2: This Planning Area includes the existing Ahmanson House, which will be preserved and maintained for use as a civic and cultural events facility. This Specific Plan permits the use of this existing facility and the development of additional facilities to include a restaurant with up to 300 seats, up to 10,000 square feet of conference facilities, and up to 80 guest rooms. Planning Area 2 consists of approximately 4 acres. Planning Area 3: The allowed use in this Planning Area is a boutique hotel containing a minimum of 200 keys, and a maximum of 260 keys. A portion of these units may be sold to individual owners/investors but based on market information, historical use patterns for such units and based on City requirements, it is not likely that these units will be used as primary permanent residences for these investor/owners. Planning Area 3 consists of approximately 13 acres. Planning Area 4: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include a resort hotel and resort casitas containing a maximum of 405 units that can be occupied separately with a maximum of 520 keys. A portion of these units may be sold to individual owners/investors but based on market information, historical use patterns for such units and based on City requirements, it is not likely that these units will be used as primary permanent residences for these investor/owners. Planning Area 4 consists of approximately 30 acres. Planning Area 5: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include a mixed -use resort retail village containing up to a maximum of 160,000 square feet. Planning Area 5 consists of approximately 9 acres. Planning Area 6: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include a hotel and resort casitas containing a maximum of 450 units that can be occupied separately with a maximum of 500 keys. A portion of these units may be sold to individual owners/investors but based on market information, historical use patterns for such units and based on City requirements, it is not likely that these units will be used as primary permanent residences for these investor/owners. Planning Area 6 consists of approximately 31 acres. 8 Avenue 52 Avenue 52 Local Road All American Canar N r U) C 0 to N N O t� 3 Legend: V` 0 Planning Area 1: Public Golf Course 0� C� Planning Area 2: Civic and Cultural Events Facilities Fir Planning Area 3: Boutique Hotel r 0 Planning Area 4: Resort Hotel and Resort Casitas _ Planning Area 5: Mixed -Use Resort Retail Village Avenue 54 0 Planning Area 6: Traditional Hotel and Resort Casitas 0 Planning Area 7: Public Park 0 Planning Area 8: Public Facilities 600 300 0 600 n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. —June 2006 FIGURE 4 Planning Area Diagram I 835-001.06/06 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project Planning Area 7. Planning Area 7 consists of approximately 35 acres to be used as public park. Planning Area 8: Planning Area consists of approximately 51 acres containing existing and planned public facilities including streets, the existing All American Canal and water well sites. The SRR SP also includes utility infrastructure improvements within the SRR SP Area to adequately serve the uses proposed as a part of the Specific Plan, and to ensure proper connectivity to regional utility infrastructure. These infrastructure improvements include changes to the following utilities and service facilities: water service, wastewater service, electricity, natural gas, stormwater drainage, telephone service, and cable television. These improvements are within the scope of the City's General Plan and are being included in this Addendum for CEQA impact review as a part of the proposed SRR SP. 10 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS LAND USE AND PLANNING Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The City of La Quinta General Plan designated the flat portion of the Ranch Project site as Golf Course (G), and Tourist Commercial (TC) and the portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains on the western portion of the site as Open Space (OS) with a Hillside Overlay. The zoning on the site was consistent with the General Plan land use designations. The Golf Course area was on the northern, northeastern and eastern portions of the site, while the Tourist Commercial area was situated in the interior of the site. A small portion of the site was also designated as Tourist Commercial along Jefferson Street, just north of where the All American Canal enters the site from the east. It should be noted that timeshare units are permitted in the Tourist Commercial land use category with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. As the proposed uses included in the Ranch Project were consistent with the General Plan land use designations, no significant land use impacts were identified. The General Plan update was approved and the General Plan EIR certified in 2002. The City's adopted Housing Element has been certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development as being compliant with state law. No portion of the Ranch Project site was designated with an.agricultural overlay. Additionally, no portion of the Ranch Project site was identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the State Department of Conservation Important Farmland Maps. Therefore, although small portions of the Ranch Project site were historically used for growing sod for golf courses, the development of the site with the uses allowed by the General Plan was not determined to result in significant impacts to agricultural resources. The Ranch Project site was primarily undeveloped at the time the MND was prepared and contained only a few scattered structures. Given the existing condition of the site and the existing surrounding uses, it was concluded that the Ranch Project would not disrupt or divide an existing community or impact existing low-income housing. It was determined that the development of the Ranch Project would implement the City of La Quinta General Plan. The Ranch Project MND found that the project would have less than significant impacts in regards to land use and planning. The MND concluded that there would be less than significant impacts related to consistency with general plan and zoning designations, agricultural resources and operations, 11 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project consistency with applicable environmental plans and policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, or compatibility with existing surrounding land uses in the vicinity, or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. No mitigation measures were identified in the Ranch Project MND related to land use and planning as no significant impacts were identified. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan The SRR SP Area is designated in the 2002 General Plan Update as Golf Course (G) and Tourist Commercial (TC). The specific uses proposed in the SRR SP would be consistent with these General Plan land use designations, the impacts of which have been previously analyzed in the MND and the General Plan EIR and are conclusive as to the findings and conclusions contained in those decisions. All uses would be planned in a manner that is consistent with the land use designations established in the General Plan. The planned golf courses, clubhouse, hotels, and ancillary retail commercial uses are all consistent with these two land use designations. It should be noted that timeshare units are permitted in the Tourist Commercial land use category with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Surrounding uses include The Citrus residential and golf course community to north of Avenue 52, The Hideaway residential and golf course community to the east of Jefferson Street, and the PGA West residential and golf course community to the south of Avenue 54. The SRR SP would permit golf course and resort uses that would be compatible with these existing surrounding golf and residential communities. The proposed golf courses would be developed along the site boundaries and would serve as a buffer between the proposed residential uses and the proposed resort hotels and retail uses. No significant impacts associated with land use compatibility would occur. The land use and planning impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those identified in the Ranch Project MND and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND, and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR and the Ranch Project MND. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe significant land use impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. 12 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project POPULATION AND HOUSING Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The Ranch Project did not include uses that would introduce land uses inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use designations adopted in March 2002. No portion of the Ranch Project site was designated for permanent residential use in the Ranch Project. The timeshare units were anticipated to attract visitors to the City as opposed to adding permanent residents to the City. As the planned uses were anticipated to be consistent with the land use designations for the site, growth attributable to the Ranch Project had already been accounted for in the most recent General Plan and General Plan EIR. Given that the timeshare or hotel/condo units were not anticipated to increase the permanent population of the City and that there were no existing residences on the Ranch Project site, the Ranch Project was not assessed to induce substantial growth in the area or displace existing housing. No impacts to population and housing were assessed. The Ranch Project MND concluded the project would not result in the local population projections being exceeded, induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure), or displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan The SRR SP would only allow land uses consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations for the site adopted in March 2002. No portion of the SRR SP Area would be designated for permanent/primary residential use under the SRR SP and the timeshare or hotel/condo units that may be developed pursuant to this project are not likely to be used as permanent and primary residences based on market information, historical use patterns for such units and based on City requirements. As a result, the SRR SP will not induce population growth in a manner that is different from the Ranch Project analyzed in the MND. Just as with the Ranch Project, market information and historic use patterns demonstrate that timeshare or hotel/condo units would attract visitors to the City as opposed to adding permanent residents to the City. These planned uses are consistent with the land use designations for the site. Therefore, growth attributable to the SRR SP has already been accounted for in the most recent General Plan and General Plan EIR. Public infrastructure required to serve the SRR SP exists in the local vicinity. Sewer and water system improvements included in the project have been designed by the Coachella Valley Water District to serve the planned uses and will not induce or allow additional growth in the area. Given that the timeshare units would not increase the permanent population of the City and that there are no 13 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project existing residences in the SRR SP Area, the SRR SP would not induce substantial growth in the area or displace existing housing. No impacts to population and housing would occur. Consequently, population and housing impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those of the Ranch Project and would have no impact. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR and the MND. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. GEOLOGY & SOILS Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND A citywide geotechnical analysis was conducted for the 2002 General Plan and General Plan EIR. As documented in the General Plan, the Ranch Project site is underlain by Quaternary Terrace Deposits. This soil type is predominately found along the basin floor and does not provide any major engineering concerns. As with any area in the southern California region, the Ranch Project site was determined to be subject to ground shaking during a seismic event. No evidence of an Alquist-Priolo zone, or active or potential active faulting was encountered anywhere within the General Plan boundaries. The Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) for the City of La Quinta is a 7.2 while the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) is an 8.0 when measured on the Richter Scale. Given the probability of ground shaking, it was determined that there was also a potential for liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement, as the soils on the Ranch Project site have the potential for hydroconsolidation with the addition of water. Furthermore, as the All American Canal bisects the Ranch Project site, the General Plan indicates that the canal is a levee with a potential liquefaction and lateral spreading hazard. As determined through a geotechnical investigation conducted for the Ranch Project site, groundwater was expected to be deeper than 60 feet as soil borings to depths of 50 feet did not encounter any trace of groundwater.l The absence of shallow groundwater indicates that the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement in the Ranch Project site was low. As there are no bodies of water or active volcanoes in the vicinity, the potential for seiches, tsunamis, and volcanoes was determined to be minimal. Loose soils observed on the site were assessed to have a potential for settlement if subjected to structural loads if left in their natural condition. These loose surficial soils were assessed to be subject to wind erosion and transport. Ground subsidence due to the lowering of the existing groundwater table was also considered Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Investigation, November 1999. , 14 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project unlikely as no such subsidence has occurred anywhere near the City of La Quinta. The presence of expansive soils in the City of La Quinta is common. The Ranch Project MND found the potential for significant impacts related to geology and soils. The MND found that there could be potentially significant impacts due to seismic grounding shaking. However, the MND concluded that compliance with the recommendations of design level geotechnical studies and applicable building codes would mitigate this potential impact to a less than significant level. This potential impact required the implementation of mitigation measures to ensure that the identified potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The MND concluded there would be less than significant impacts related to seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), landslides, mudflow, subsidence of land, and expansive soils upon incorporation of these mitigation measures. The MND found that the project would have no impacts related to fault rupture, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazards, erosion, changes in topography, unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, fill, unique geologic features, or physical features. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan As with the Ranch Project, the SRR SP would be subject to the same potential geology and soils impacts. As with any area in the southern California region, the SRR SP Area would be subject to ground shaking during a seismic event. No evidence of an Alquist-Priolo zone, or active or potential active faulting was encountered anywhere within the General Plan boundaries. Given the probability of ground shaking, there is also a potential for liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement, as the soils in the SRR SP Area have the potential for hydroconsolidation with the addition of water. Furthermore, as the All American Canal bisects the SRR SP Area, the General Plan indicates that the canal is a levee with a potential liquefaction and lateral spreading hazard. As determined through a geotechnical investigation conducted in the SRR SP Area, groundwater is expected to be deeper than 60 feet as soil borings to depths of 50 feet did not encounter any trace of groundwater.2 The absence of shallow groundwater indicates that the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement in the SRR SP Area is low. As there are no bodies of water or active volcanoes in the vicinity, the potential for seiches, tsunamis, and volcanoes is minimal. Loose soils observed on the site have a potential for settlement if subjected to structural loads if left in their present condition. These loose surficial soils are also subject to wind erosion and transport. Currently in the SRR SP Area the SilverRock Soil Stabilization Project being implemented to avoid the loss of loose soils. The SilverRock Soil Stabilization Project (i.e., Barley Project) includes stabilizing approximately 245 acres of undeveloped land within the SRR SP Area with 2 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Investigation, November 1999. 15 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project vegetation. The project involves minor grading, clearing and grubbing, planting of barley seed and supplying temporary irrigation in order to grow the seed for approximately 3 weeks. Once the barley is established the irrigation will be removed and the barley will stabilize the soil together for 2 to 3 years. This was done as a dust mitigation measure until the site is completely developed. Ground subsidence due to the lowering of the existing groundwater table is considered unlikely as no such subsidence has occurred anywhere near the City of La Quinta. The presence of expansive soils in the City of La Quinta is common. As the SRR SP would comply with site -specific engineering recommendations and modern construction techniques, geotechnical impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. Consequently, impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those identified for the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, previously identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. Prior to the design and construction of any structural improvements, a comprehensive design level geotechnical evaluations shall be prepared that includes subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Recommendations for grading/earthwork, surface and subsurface drainage, foundations, pavement structural sections, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation. 2. All buildings planned as a result of the SRR SP shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City of La Quinta. WATER Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The Ranch Project would have converted primarily vacant land into golf courses and related tourist retail and commercial uses. A site -specific water quality evaluation was prepared to analyze potential water quality issues associated with development of the site. As pervious soils would be developed as a result of project implementation, it was determined that there would have been a slight change in the absorption 16 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project rate, and drainage pattern of the site. Additionally, there could have been an increase in the amount of storm runoff from the site. Through site -specific mitigation measures, the increase in the amount of water runoff from the site was determined to be less than significant. The report prepared for the Ranch Project further determined that as the Ranch Project site was outside the 500-year flood area and that with the construction of on -site water detention basins, there would be no significant flood -related impacts.3 As no surface water bodies existed within the Ranch Project site, no impacts to surface water bodies were anticipated to occur. However, the golf courses proposed in the Ranch Project would have introduced small man-made water ponds and lakes that could have introduced a potential for landscaping products to impact the water quality. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the MND to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Finally, as no surface waters exist in the Ranch Project site, no significant impacts to rivers, streams, or dry washes were identified. Domestic and irrigation water is provided throughout La Quinta and the eastern Coachella Valley by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The CVWD serves an area of approximately 1,000 square miles within the Counties of Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego. The main source of potable water provided to La Quinta is from an underground aquifer beneath the valley. Irrigation water is supplied from this same aquifer and from the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal, and is consumed generally in the area from Indio and La Quinta south to the Salton Sea. According to the CVWD, there was ample water supply to serve the Ranch Project without substantially or adversely changing the quantity, quality, or flow of groundwater resources. It was determined that potable water could have been provided to the Ranch Project site by the CVWD through the existing 12-inch water main located in Jefferson Street and 18-inch lines in Avenue 52. It was also recommended that when possible, non -potable water supplies would be utilized for construction purposes. This reduces the overall demand for potable water. During the construction phases of development, non -potable water would be used to suppress dust generated by earthmoving activities, the operation of vehicles on dirt surfaces, and exposed dirt surfaces. It was recommended that this water would be obtained from the All American Canal. Water for irrigation of the golf course and landscape setbacks (the vast majority of water demand by the Ranch Project) was to be obtained from the All American Canal. In a continued effort to reduce the total amount of water either used or wasted, specific water conservation measures for both landscaping and irrigation, and plumbing controls were recommended as conditions on the connection of the project to CVWD facilities. In addition to these CVWD conditions, other measures were recommended to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. 3 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Wafer Quality Evaluation, June 2000. J, 17 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The Ranch Project MND found that the project had potentially significant impacts unless mitigated in regards to hydrology and water quality. The MND found that there could be potentially significant impacts regarding changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff as well as the potential for discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity). These potential impacts required mitigation measures to ensure that the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The MND found that the project would have less than significant impacts in regards to the exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding, change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations and impacts to groundwater quality. The MND found that the project would have no impacts in regards to changes in the amount of surface water in a water body, changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, altering the direction or rate of flow of groundwater, and the substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan The SRR SP would convert the remaining vacant portions of the SRR SP Area into golf course and resort uses. Impacts would be the same as those previously identified and analyzed in the Ranch MND for conversion of the site into golf courses and resort uses. The increased intensity of uses in the SRR SP, as compared to the Ranch MND, would result in nominal increase in water demand. There would be a slight change in the absorption rate, and drainage pattern of the site. This slight change can be accommodated on and adjacent to the existing and proposed golf courses within the SRR SP Area, and would not have an impact on off -site drainage as a result. Additionally, there would be an increase in the amount of storm runoff from the site. With on -site drainage improvements, the increase in the amount of runoff from the site would be less than significant. As previously stated, existing and proposed golf courses within the SRR SP have the sufficient capacity to accommodate drainage without off -site drainage impacts. The CVWD Board approved a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and Water Supply Verification (WSV) for the SRR SP pursuant to Water Code section 10901 and Government Code Section 66473.7. As required by CEQA, this CVWD document is included in Appendix E. The WSA determined that the SRR SP would have a demand of 2,361 AFY. This demand had been previously included and analyzed in the CVWD's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and was also analyzed in the 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) as well as the EIR for the CVWMP, which EIR and record is hereby incorporated by reference. Water supply for the project as well as for existing and planned future uses is provided by the Aquifer, the Colorado River, the State Water Project and water transfer from the 18 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project MWD, as further discussed in the WSA and WSV. Based on this, the WSA and WSV concludes that the CVWD has the current and future water supply necessary to provide water for the SRR SP and other existing and planned future uses that will be served by CVWD. According to the CVWD, there is ample water supply to serve the proposed project, existing uses and planned future uses without substantially or adversely changing the quantity, quality, or flow of groundwater resources. Based on the WSA, the WSV, the UWMP, the CVWMP and its EIR and the records for such CVWD approvals, the City concludes in its independent evaluation based on the substantial evidence in the record that existing and planned future water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project in addition to existing and planned future uses. The City of La Quinta has entered into a Domestic Water and Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement (Agreement) with the CVWD for the SRR SP Area, included in Appendix D. This Agreement requires that several local improvements be made to the water delivery system to provide service to the SRR SP Area. Proposed water infrastructure improvements to be made as part of the SRR SP include an 18" water main in SilverRock Way from the existing Ahmanson House to Avenue 54, an 18" water main to run west from SilverRock Way to Jefferson Street in the Jefferson Street Access Road, two water well sites, and a pressure reducing/boosting station. Sewer improvements to be made as part of the SRR SP include a 12" sewer main in SilverRock Way from the existing Ahmanson House to Avenue 54, a 27" sewer main to run west SilverRock Way to Jefferson Street in the Jefferson Street Access Road, a 27" sewer main to connect to the 12" sewer main in SilverRock Way to an existing pump station. In addition to these CVWD conditions, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, no significant water related impacts would occur. Water and wastewater infrastructure improvements included in the Agreement would require utility mains to be constructed in the southern portion of the SRR SP Area, which is bisected by the All American Canal. These mains would be constructed to run beneath the All American Canal, which is approximately 8 feet deep. Designed sewer mains would be installed through bored casings that would be at least 3 feet beneath the canal bottom. This sewer main design would not require special sewer requirements from the CVWD. Water mains would be designed to run at bridge level. All utility infrastructure improvement designs would comply with established CVWD standards and would be subject to CVWD review and approval. The impacts of the SRR SP would be the same as those identified for the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings and conclusions contained in the 19 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project General Plan EIR No new information, changed circumstances or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. At such time that non -potable water sources become available to the SRR SP Area, the SRR SP shall be connected to this resource and utilize the non -potable water for irrigation purposes. 2. During construction activities, water trucks are to acquire water from non -potable water sources, such as reclaimed water and/or canal water. 3. A hydrology master plan shall be prepared for the SRR SP. Further, a hydrology study shall be prepared for the hydrology master plan and submitted to the City of La Quinta for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. This study shall demonstrate that the project would construct storm drainage and hydrologic improvements, such as on -site stormwater retention basins, that conform to the City`s master hydrology and storm drain improvement program as well as implement regional and local requirements, policies, and programs. 4. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized as a means of reducing water consumption. 5. Prior to the initiation of any construction activity on the project site, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct construction activities under the general NPDES construction permit shall be filed. Under the conditions of this NPDES permit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Monitoring Plan are required. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES program requirements. 6. Any existing groundwater wells located on the site that are no longer in use shall be abandoned- in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Prior to operation of the golf course, the golf course operator shall prepare a Golf Course Management Plan that includes an irrigation plan, water usage plan, and chemical management plan in order to reduce, to the extent feasible, golf course irrigation runoff and percolation into the groundwater basin. 8. Design of new roads, golf courses, man-made ponds, common landscape areas, storm water basins, and other facilities shall incorporate proper engineering controls to channel storm and irrigation runoff into detention/retention facilities that are sized to accommodate design year storms and that incorporate filtration systems or other devices to reduce the potential for herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to percolate to groundwater or surface water runoff. 20 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project AIR QUALITY Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND Construction and operational air quality modeling was completed based on the size of the Ranch Project site and the types of uses planned for development. Air quality emissions for the Ranch Project were not projected to exceed any air quality emission significance thresholds after mitigation. All the planned uses for the Ranch Project were fairly typical land uses found throughout the City. Air quality modeling and analysis was conducted for the proposed uses in the Ranch Project MND. None of the uses posed any special concern with regards to harmful or odorous pollutants that could negatively affect sensitive receptors located outside the Ranch Project site boundaries. Given the size and scale of the Ranch Project, which consisted largely of open space golf course uses, the Ranch Project was not found to have any noticeable effect on local climate and atmospheric conditions. The MND also found that the project would have no impacts due to the alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature causing any change in climate or creating objectionable odors. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan At this time, a portion of the Specific Plan Area is developed with the Arnold Palmer Classic Golf Course and has already been subject to environmental analysis. To minimize dust emissions from the undeveloped portions of the site, the City has stabilized approximately 245 acres of undeveloped land within the SRR SP Area by planting barley, which will stabilize the soil together for 2 to 3 years. Air pollutant emissions associated with uses and activities that would be permitted by the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan were estimated using the URBEMIS2002 air quality model. Air quality modeling worksheets are included in Appendix B. Model inputs were based on the size of the SRR SP Area and the amount and types of uses that would be permitted. While the proposed SRR SP would permit a greater intensity of the tourist commercial uses than analyzed in the Ranch Project MND, model results indicate that project construction and operation would generate pollutant levels below SCAQMD thresholds, with the exception of VOC emissions during painting of the proposed structures. However, the URBEMIS2002 model estimates emissions based on the assumption that painting of all proposed structures would occur concurrently. As construction, including painting of individual structures, would be phased with construction and, therefore, would occur over time, the model overestimates the daily VOC emissions associated with such activities. This impact, therefore, is considered less than significant. It is important to note that while the greater intensity of hotel and retail uses that would be permitted under the proposed SRR SP, and would result in a greater number of daily vehicle trips, than was analyzed in the 21 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project Ranch MND, the resort nature of the SRR SP Area in its entirety will result in a high rate of internal trip capture, as resort guests will stay for extended periods and use the golf course, retail, restaurant, and other resort amenities. As a result, the resort nature of the allowed uses in the SRR SP would be conducive to patrons to stay at hotel and resort casitas developments within the SRR SP Area, for extended periods of time. These stays within the SRR SP would result in the allowed uses to be enjoyed, without new daily trips being generated. This daily vehicle trip reduction is reflected in project air pollutant emissions estimates. The SRR SP would incorporate the same mitigation measures as the Ranch Project MND in order to reduce any air quality impacts to the fullest extent feasible. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. Construction equipment shall be phased and operated in a manner to ensure the lowest construction -related pollutant emission levels practical, and shall require the use of water trucks, temporary irrigation systems and other measures which will limit fugitive dust emissions during site disturbance and construction. 2. Air quality control measures identified in the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan shall be implemented. 3. A PM10 Management Plan for construction operations shall be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plan shall include dust management controls such as: • Water site and equipment morning and evening • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering • Pave construction roads, where appropriate • Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction related traffic congestion: • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic disturbance • Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes • Provide flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project • Schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak traffic hours • Provide rideshare incentives to construction personnel 4. Solar or low emission water heaters shall be used to reduce natural gas consumption and emissions. 5. Energy -efficient appliances shall be used to reduce energy consumption and emissions. 6. Shade trees shall be provided in close proximity to structures to reduce building heating/cooling needs. 7. Energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners shall be used to reduce energy consumption and emissions. 8. Sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows shall be used to reduce thermal gain or loss. 9. Automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient lighting shall be used to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. 10. Light-colored roofing materials, as opposed to dark roofing materials, shall be used to reduce thermal gain. 11. Bus stops shall be positioned at locations on and adjacent to the site to be determined in coordination with the bus transit service provider that will serve the project area. Bus stops should be generally located 1/4-mile walking distance from Timeshare units. 12. The golf course shall design on -site circulation plans for clubhouse parking to reduce vehicle queuing. 13. To reduce VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings, water -based or low-VOC coatings shall be used and applied with spray equipment with high transfer efficiency and/or the need for paints and solvents should be reduced by using pre -coated building materials or naturally colored building materials. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The Ranch Project as evaluated in the MND included golf course and resort uses consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations for the site. Traffic analysis was prepared for the Ranch Project. Based on trip generation rates for the planned uses, the traffic analysis prepared for the Ranch Project MND estimated that a total of 6,383 daily trips would be generated, as shown in Table 1. As concluded in the traffic analysis, all of the study roadway intersections would operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. Implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. 23 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MAID for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project Table 1 Proposed Land Uses uany Land Use _ QuantiV Trips Golf Course 45 holes 1,608 Resort Hotel 250 rooms 2,000 Timeshare Units 300 units 1,758 Specialty Retail 25,000 sq. ft. 1,017 Total 6,383 Source: RKJK & Associates, Inc., The Ranch Project Change, Supplemental Traffic Evaluation, March 2002. No master plan or specific plans for individual development projects were available at the time the Ranch MND was prepared. For purposes of analysis, the MND traffic analysis assumed the Ranch Project would have be designed and developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and City's Municipal Code. These regulatory documents dictate and govern guidelines and standards for the design of proposed developments. Specifically, requirements for site access, parking and circulation as well as alternative modes of transportation are defined. The Ranch Project MND identified potentially significant transportation and circulation impacts. Measures to mitigate these impacts were implemented and include the installation of a traffic signal at the intersections of SilverRock Way at Avenue 52, the Jefferson Street entry road at Jefferson Street, and Avenue 54 at Jefferson Street when warranted. The MND found that the project would have less than significant impacts related to: hazards and safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), inadequate emergency access to nearby uses, insufficient parking capacity on site or off site, and hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. The MND also concluded the project would have no impacts in regards to conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) and rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan The SRR SP would allow the continued development of the project site with golf course and resort uses consistent with the General Plan and the Ranch Project as analyzed in the MND. Since the adoption of the MND, the three traffic signals identified as mitigation measures have been installed. 24 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project An updated traffic evaluation was completed to determine if the type and amount of uses that would be permitted by the proposed SRR SP would result in potentially new or more severe significant traffic impacts than those identified in the Ranch MND.4 This document is included in Appendix C. The City's current General Plan was adopted in 2002 as was the General Plan EIR, which analyzed traffic and circulation impacts for buildout of the SRR SP Area consistent with the General Plan's land use designations, which designations are consistent with the SRR SP. As part of the General Plan Circulation Element, extensive long-range travel demand modeling was completed to identify the circulation system required to support the buildout of the uses allowed by the City's Land Use Element. This model divides the City into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in order to measure and project trip generation by land uses in all portions of the City. The SRR SP is located in TAZs 943, 961, and 965. The land uses allowed in these TAZs are consistent with the allowed uses in the SRR SP. The traffic model used in the Circulation Element around the TAZs indicates that these zones will generate a total of 40,330 trips per day. After balancing of the internal interactions within the zones, a total of 31,202 trips per day were assigned to the roadway network from these zones and were analyzed in the General Plan EIR. While the type of uses allowed by the proposed SRR SP would be consistent with the General Plan and traffic analysis prepared for General Plan EIR, the permitted intensity of these uses would be greater than previously assumed in the Ranch MND. Based upon applicable trip generation rates, the full buildout of the uses that would be permitted by the SRR SP could generate up to (i.e., worst -case) approximately 20,020 trips per day with 1,420 AM peak hour trips and 1,830 PM peak hour trips, if internal trips are not accounted for. This worst case estimate is not realistic and overstates actual trip generation because it double counts some trips as many of the resort hotel, golf and retail village trips would be between these different uses and would stay within the Specific Plan Area for this reason. A comparison of this worst -case project trip generation estimate and the generation rates established by the General Plan traffic model indicates that the General Plan EIR traffic model assumed the generation of approximately 11,181 more trips (11,181 = 31,202-20,021) than the SRR SP. Accordingly, the planned General Plan Circulation Element roadway network had already been found able to accommodate traffic generated by the SRR SP and no new significant impacts would occur. While the intensity of resort and retail uses, and the amount of traffic generated by these uses, would be greater than the amount assessed in the Ranch MND, no new or more severe significant traffic impacts would result because the surrounding roadway network has the capacity to accommodate this traffic and this traffic's impacts have been previously analyzed during the General Plan update process. 4 Silver Rock Resort Traffic Evaluation, Urban Crossroads, May 17, 2006. 25 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The proposed Specific Plan includes a Parking Management Program that would establish parking standards to ensure adequate parking for the uses permitted by the SRR SP. Additionally, individual development projects within the SRR SP Area would be designed and developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and City's Municipal Code. These regulatory documents dictate and govern guidelines and standards for the design of proposed developments. Plans for individual development projects would be reviewed for conformance with applicable regulations and be subject to approval by the City. There is, therefore, no substantial change in the level of impacts from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The flat portion of the Ranch Project site had historically been used for agricultural purposes and the majority of this non -mountainous portion of site consisted of disturbed non-native vegetation. Five vegetation communities were identified consisting of disturbed vegetation, agricultural lands, tamarisk groves, desert saltbush scrub, and mesquite hummocks. The majority of the Ranch Project site, approximately, 440 acres, consisted of disturbed areas containing abandoned citrus groves sod fields, and ranch related buildings. Approximately 40 acres of the Ranch Project site were used to grow turf for golf course use. Tamarisk groves occupied approximately 8 acres of the Ranch Project site. Native plant communities on the Ranch Project site were limited to approximately 8 acres of desert saltbush scrub and 3.4 acres of mesquite hummocks. A series of biological surveys have been conducted on the Ranch Project site since 1999. General biological surveys were conducted in March and April of 1999. Focused surveys for Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, flat -tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel, Palm Springs pocket mouse, Coachella Valley grasshopper and peninsular bighorn sheep were conducted based on the recommendation of the USFWS and CDFG in 1999. None off these species were observed on the site. Focused surveys for sensitive wildlife species known to be in the area wetlands were conducted in July and August of 2000. All other sensitive species were surveyed for in conjunction with these surveys or the previous surveys. 26 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project One species of special -concern, a Loggerhead shrike, was observed on the site during the 1999 surveys. A second special -status species, the black -tailed gnatcatchers, was observed on an adjacent site during surveys 1999 and, for this reason, was considered to have a high potential to be present on the Ranch Project site. Suitable habitat for these two species comprised very few acres and as the Ranch Project site was not likely to sustain a large population of either species, the potential impact to these two bird species was not identified as significant The Santa Rosa Mountains historically provided habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep, a state- and federally -listed Endangered species. Additional focused surveys performed in 1999 found no evidence of bighorn sheep in the vicinity of the Ranch Project site. The USFWS has defined the "essential habitat' of the peninsular bighorn sheep in this area to include the Santa Rosa Mountains down to the toe -of -slope. As no development was proposed to infringe above the toe -of -slope, no portion of the Ranch Project site would have been developed in the essential peninsular bighorn sheep habitat. Nonetheless, standard measures were included for the Ranch Project should peninsular bighorn sheep come on to the Ranch Project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures was found to mitigate any potential significant impacts to bighorn sheep. Seven special -status plant species were known to occur in the general Ranch Project site vicinity. A special -status plant survey was completed on the Ranch Project site in April 2000. No individuals or populations of Coachella Valley milk -vetch were found during these focused surveys. In addition, no other special -status plant species were observed during surveys. One special -status vegetation community was identified within the Ranch Project site. Mesquite hummocks, classified by CDFG as "partially stabilized desert sand fields," are considered a sensitive habitat type. This vegetation community is ranked "Threatened" by the CDFG. Two mesquite hummocks occupied approximately 3.5 acres of the Ranch Project site. These two hummocks had been degraded by trash dumping and off -road vehicle activity. However, the loss of 3.5 acres of this habitat was assessed to be adverse and was considered a potentially significant impact. With the implementation of mitigation measures, this impact was found to be less than significant. The wetland delineation did not identify any natural drainage features on the site subject meeting the definition of wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers or California Department of Fish & Game. The Ranch Project site is surrounded on two sides by mostly developed land, consisting of residences, agricultural crops, and fallow or abandoned cropland. The Santa Rosa Mountains bordering the western edge of the Ranch Project site constituted a large, natural open space. There was one area adjacent to and east of the Ranch Project site that contained some native scrub habitat at the time the MND was 27 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project prepared. This area was not directly connected to any large open spaces and native habitat adjacent to it was patchy and disjunctive. Therefore, the Ranch Project site was not identified or considered as a wildlife movement corridor between large open spaces. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan As discussed above, the 546-acre SRR SP Area has historically been used for agricultural purposes and comprehensive biological surveys conducted of the site did not result in the identification of significant impacts to any sensitive wildlife or plant species. One special -status vegetation community was identified within the SRR SP Area. Mesquite hummocks, classified by CDFG as "partially stabilized desert sand fields," are considered a sensitive habitat type and impacts to the mesquite hummocks on site was identified as a significant impact. The mitigation measure for this impact in the Ranch Project MND required the City to enter into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU provided for the provision of financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 3.4 acres of mesquite hummock in the Willow Hole area or in another area where the habitat is contiguous and large preserves already protect much of this habitat type. Impacts to the mesquite hummocks on the site were mitigated by implementation of this measure. As discussed above in the Introduction section, since the date the MND was prepared, the entire site was mass graded and the Arnold Palmer Classic Golf Course has been built on the most western portion of the site along the edge of the Santa Rosa Mountains. In addition, as discussed above in the Air Quality section, the majority of the remainder of the site has recently been planted with barley as a dust control reduction measure. Standard measures were included in the Ranch MND should peninsular bighorn sheep come on to the Ranch Project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would mitigate any potential impacts to bighorn sheep to a less than significant level. City staff is currently working with the USFWS and CDFG regarding recent peninsular bighorn sheep sightings on and adjacent to the SRR SP Area. If needed, a peninsular bighorn sheep perimeter fence may be installed. Impacts to biological resources associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those identified for the Ranch Project because the type of development and permitted uses would be substantially the same as previously analyzed in the MND. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions 28 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project, are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. A mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan has been prepared to protect peninsular Bighorn Sheep, and other wildlife, from entering the non -mountainous portion of the SRR SP Area proposed for development. This concept plan illustrates a continuous buffer to the toe -of -slope in areas where development could occur adjacent to the mountain edge. The concept plan delineates the location, acreage and native plant species envisioned for the mitigation area. This plan shall be incorporated into the project design and shall be subject to review by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. A copy of this mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan is available for review at the City of La Quinta Community Development Department. 2. If Bighorn Sheep enter into the SRR SP Area, an 8-foot fence (or the functional equivalent) between the development and the hillside shall be constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If determined necessary, the City shall construct temporary fencing while permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which Bighorn Sheep can be entangled. If the Department transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to the hillside, the Department shall reserve an easement sufficient for the construction of fencing if needed in the future. 3. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the SRR SP Area, and shall be kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where applicable. 4. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG. 5. A construction plan shall be prepared and provide, to the extent practicable, construction activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and construction activities any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period from January 1s' through June 30tn 6. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside. 7. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the hillside. 8. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic plans such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees may remain. 9. All swimming pools located in the SRR SP Area shall be fenced pursuant to City regulations. 10. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the SRR SP will not be harmful to wildlife. 29 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND Energy services are provided to the City of La Quinta from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The IID operates six substations, which serve the City. As stated in the certified General Plan EIR, the IID has stated that they would be able to supply electricity to future developments. All buildings constructed as a result of the Ranch Project were required to conform to Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code, which requires energy efficient envelop construction, equipment and fixtures. Landscaping and irrigation plans were recommended to be reviewed to ensure implementation of water efficient measures and drought tolerant plants. Furthermore, development of the Ranch Project was planned to be consistent with the General Plan. Impacts associated with the increased demand on electricity and energy resources were addressed in the General Plan EIR. As the Ranch Project was anticipated to conform to all standard energy efficient building codes, no significant impacts to energy consumption were found to occur. Most of the developable areas in the City are located in areas with a minimal presence of significant mineral deposits, and no impacts to mineral resources were identified in the MND for the Ranch Project. Non-renewable resources, such as natural gas, petroleum products, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper and other metals, sand and gravel are considered to be commodities which are available in a finite supply. The processes that created these resources occur over a long period of time. Therefore, the replacement of these resources was not anticipated to occur over the life of the Ranch Project. To varying degrees, these materials were all readily available and some materials, such as sand and gravel, are abundant. Other commodities, such as metals, natural gas, and petroleum products, were also readily available, but are finite in supply. If not consumed by the Ranch Project, these resources were likely to be committed to other projects in the region intended to meet the anticipated growth outlined in the General Plan. Furthermore, the investment of resources in the Ranch Project would have been typical of. the level of investment normally required for a project of similar scale. Provided that all standard building codes, including energy conservation standards, are followed, no wasteful use of non-renewable resources was anticipated or identified in the MND. The Ranch Project MND concluded the project would have less than significant impacts in regards to energy and mineral resources and no mitigation measures were identified. 30 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan As discussed above, the IID has stated that they would be able to supply electricity to future developments, including the resort and related uses that would be allowed by the proposed SRR SP. Impacts associated with the increased demand on electricity and energy resources have been addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the uses proposed in the SRR SP are consistent with the City's General Plan. As all future development permitted by the SRR SP would conform to standard energy efficient building codes, no significant impacts to energy consumption would occur. If not consumed by this SRR SP, non-renewable resources, such as natural gas, petroleum products, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper and other metals, sand and gravel, would likely be committed to other projects in the region intended to meet the anticipated growth outlined in the General Plan. Furthermore, the investment of resources in the SRR SP Project would be typical of the level of investment normally required for a project of similar scale. Provided that all standard building codes, including energy conservation standards, are followed, no wasteful use of non-renewable resources is anticipated. Energy and mineral resources impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those identified for the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. HAZARDS Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The Ranch Project included the proposed development of golf courses, a hotel, timeshare units, and associated commercial uses. None of the planned uses posed a substantial risk of explosion or release of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the planned uses did not pose any health hazard or potential health hazard. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the entire Ranch Project site to determine if any on or off site locations presented any specific hazard related impacts to the planned development of 31 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project the Ranch Project site.5 As concluded in the reports, no contamination of off -site locations was identified that could impact the Ranch Project site. The abandoned single-family residence located on site was investigated. It was determined that asbestos was present in some of the building materials. With the proper demolition techniques, no impacts were anticipated to result from demolition.6 Additionally, very low concentrations of benzene, toluene, and lead were detected at the former location of 2 underground storage tanks. However, as these concentrations were very low and the underground tanks were removed and closed by the appropriate regulatory agency at that time, no further study or investigation was warranted.? The Ranch Project was not anticipated to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, as the Ranch Project would not obstruct the existing or planned circulation network. Impacts associated with hazards were assessed to be less than significant. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan The SRR SP would permit the development of golf courses, hotel and casita units, and associated commercial uses. These types of uses were previously analyzed in the MND. None of these planned uses would pose a substantial risk of explosion or release of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the planned uses would not pose any health hazard or potential health hazard. The existing structures present on the site at the time the MND was prepared, including the abandoned single-family residence and related agricultural buildings, have been demolished. Impacts associated with hazards would remain less than significant with the SRR SP. NOISE Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND Although the specific design had not been prepared for the Ranch Project, it was anticipated to be planned and developed consistent with the General Plan. As provided in the General Plan, the golf course uses were planned to be located along the Ranch Project site boundaries with the Tourist Commercial uses, and consequently any use that would generate any noticeable noise to be located in 5 The Phase I site investigation was prepared for the entire site through two separate reports. One for the portion of the site north of the Coachella Canal, while the second report was prepared on the portion of the site south of the Coachella Canal. Both reports were prepared in February 2001. 6 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Environmental Site Assessment South Ranch Property, February 2001. 7 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Environmental Site Assessment North Ranch Property, February 2001. 32 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project the interior of the site. The planned golf courses were planned to effectively serve as a buffer between the outside noise environment and the planned uses such as the hotel and timeshare or condo/hotel units. All project development was planned to be constructed to incorporate modern noise attenuation construction methods for the planned structures. It was anticipated that through consistent planning and development with the General Plan and the implementation of the following mitigation measures, noise impacts would be less than significant. The majority of the development that was proposed in the Ranch Project was planned to occur at the interior of the site, as the Ranch Project site edges would be built with the planned golf courses. Therefore, the closest homes to the construction area would have only be subject to golf course construction, as opposed to heavy infrastructure and structural construction. Additionally, the residential subdivision to the north was shielded from the Ranch Project site by a solid masonry wall that would substantially reduce construction noise levels at the existing residences. It was anticipated that a person who was home during the day and who is noise sensitive may have found the short-term noise conditions annoying; however, given that construction activities would have been short term and, in this case, construction noise would not have introduced adjacent uses to sever noise levels and consequently, no significant construction noise impacts were anticipated. None of thee adjacent properties to the Ranch Project site represented a use that would generate severe noise levels. Additionally, given that the proposed golf uses would have been developed on the project edges, this would have served as a substantial buffer from adjacent noise sources. Further, this edge treatment would have served to attenuate noise levels from the uses proposed at the interior of the site to uses off site. In was anticipated that the Ranch Project would not have introduced land uses that would have generated severe noise levels. No significant impacts associated with exposing people to severe noise levels were anticipated to occur as a result of the Ranch Project. The Ranch Project MND identified potentially significant noise impacts. The MND found that there could be potentially significant impacts regarding an increase in existing noise levels. Mitigation measures were imposed to ensure that the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. The MND found that the project would have no impacts in regards to the exposure of people to severe noise levels. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan A citywide roadway noise analysis was completed in connection with the General Plan EIR. Noise monitoring was conducted adjacent to the SRR SP Area at the intersection of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The calculated CNEL level was 67.4dB(A) measured 100 feet from the centerline. Additionally 33 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project roadway volumes were modeled to calculate noise contours for both existing and future buildout conditions on roadways throughout the planning area and adjacent to the SRR SP Area. Currently, Jefferson Street, south of Avenue 48 experiences a 65dB(A) noise contour 84 feet from the centerline. Future buildout roadway noise levels were also calculated along the same segments. The future buildout noise environment along this roadway segment was identical to the existing conditions. The planned golf courses would effectively buffer the proposed resort uses from roadway noise levels from Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. These noise sensitive uses would be located well outside the 65 dB(A) noise contours projected for these roadways in the General Plan citywide noise analysis. Construction noise would occur throughout the period required to fully develop the uses permitted by the Specific Plan. Noise intensive construction activities would include grading; and construction of internal roadways and related sewer, water and other utility improvements. These activities typically involve the use of heavy equipment, such as scrapers, tractors, loaders, and concrete mixers. Trucks would be used to deliver equipment and building materials, and to haul away waste materials. Construction of buildings within the Planning Areas would involve less heavy equipment but would still generate noise from use of smaller equipment, such as jackhammers, pneumatic tools, saws, and hammers. This equipment would generate both steady state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the SRR SP Area. Existing surrounding uses include residential and golf course communities to the north, east and south of the SRR SP Area. Similar to the Ranch Project a majority of the building construction for the resort and retail village uses would occur in the interior of the site, as the two planned golf courses are located on the outside portions of the site. The Hideaway residential and golf community, to the east of the project site, is bordered by a large landscaped earthen berm. The Citrus residential and golf community to the north is shielded from the SRR SP Area by a solid masonry wall. Landscape areas and walls also buffer the PGA West Community to the south. The substantial distances between the locations where building construction will take place and the existing walls and berms that serve as noise barriers will substantially reduce construction noise levels at these surrounding residential uses. A person who is home during the day in these adjacent neighborhoods may find the short-term noise conditions annoying; however, given that construction activities are short term in nature, and in this case, severe construction noise levels would not be experienced, construction noise impacts would not be significant. Mitigation measures identified in the Ranch Project MND will assure that noise from construction will remain at a level of insignificance. The SRR SP would increase the amount of vehicle trips generated compared to that of the Ranch Project. As noted in the traffic and circulation discussion, the traffic associated with project uses has 34 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. A comparison of the trip generation estimates between the trip generation model used in the City's General Plan and SRR SP indicates that the General Plan EIR traffic model was assumed to generate approximately 11,181 more trips (11,181 = 31,202-20,021) than the SRR SP. One of the two allowed 18-hole golf courses in the SRR SP is currently built within the SRR SP Area. It is important to note that project level analysis reflects a conservative estimate due to the model trips representing the externally routed traffic and the project trips representing driveway estimates.e The number of trips estimated to be generated by the SRR SP would be well below the projections for the SRR SP Area in the City's General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. As stated earlier, surrounding uses include a residential subdivision to the north, vacant land to the east, the PGA West golf course residential community to the south and mountains to the west. None of these adjacent properties represent a use that would generate severe noise levels. Additionally, given that the proposed golf uses would be developed on the SRR SP Area edges, this would serve as a substantial buffer from adjacent noise sources. Further, this edge treatment would serve to attenuate noise levels from the use proposed at the interior of the site to uses off site. The SRR SP would not introduce land uses that would generate severe noise levels. No significant impacts associated with exposing people to severe noise levels would occur as a result of the SRR SP. Consequently, impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those that were previously analyzed in the Ranch Project MND and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. Between May 1 and September 30, all construction activities in the SRR SP Area shall only occur between the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. Between October 1 and April 30, all construction activity in the SRR SP Area shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. All operational activities of the SRR SP shall also be subject to the Noise Ordinance of the City as well. 8 SilverRock Resort Traffic Evaluation, Urban Crossroads, May 17, 2006. J 35 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project 2. All construction equipment operating in the SRR SP Area shall be fitted with well -maintained functional mufflers to limit noise emissions. 3. To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and hauling routes shall be located away from existing residences. 4. The design, selection, and placement of the mechanical equipment for various buildings shall include consideration of the potential noise impact they may have on uses within the SRR SP Area. 5. Silencers and/or barriers shall be provided where necessary at outdoor equipment, such as cooling towers, air cooled condensers and refrigeration compressors/condenser units, and at the air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation systems. PUBLIC SERVICES Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The certified EIR for the General Plan analyzed fire service and the potential demand on fire service through buildout of the General Plan area. Fire service is provided to the City of La Quinta by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD). Although fire service would ultimately serve the entire buildout planning area, each individual project is subject to review by the RCFD to ensure that adequate fire services would be provided to the project at the time of development. Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts to fire service were assessed to be less than significant. The certified EIR for the General Plan analyzed police protection and the potential demand on police protection through buildout of the General Plan area. Police protection is provided Jo the City of La Quinta by the Riverside County Sheriff Department (RCSD). As buildout of the planning area continues, the demand on sheriff services in the City of La Quinta will continue to increase. Eventually, without increased staffing and equipment, the police protection provided by the RCSD would no longer be adequate. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts to police protection were anticipated to be less than significant. Two public school districts serve the City of La Quinta, which are the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). As no part of the Ranch Project would have introduced permanent residents, no additional students would have been added to the DSUSD. Although the payment of applicable school fees would be required, no significant impacts to schools were anticipated to occur. 36 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The La Quinta Public Library is a branch of the Riverside County Library System. As discussed above, the Ranch Project would not have introduced any permanent residences at buildout. Consequently, there would not have been any additional demand on public library services as library services are typically required and provided to the residents of that particular jurisdiction. Any applicable developer fees would have been paid prior to the issuance of building permits. No significant library service impacts were anticipated to occur. The Ranch Project MND found that the project had potentially significant impacts unless mitigated in regards to public services. The MND found that there could be potentially significant impacts regarding fire and police protection services. These potential impacts required mitigation measures to ensure that the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The MND found that the project would have less than significant impacts in regards to schools and the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. The MND found that the project would have no impacts in regards to other governmental services. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan The certified EIR for the General Plan analyzed fire service and the potential demand on fire service from the buildout of uses allowed by the General Plan. The paramedic service provider for the City of La Quinta is American Medical Response (AMR). AMR works in conjunction with local fire departments, police departments, and other public agencies to provide paramedic services. Fire service is provided to the City of La Quinta through the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD). The RCFD currently is rated a 4 in terms of the Insurance Service Office (ISO) Ratings, of which a 1 is the highest score and a 10 is the lowest score. These ratings are based on response times, safety standards, staffing levels, and building code standards. The average response time for the City's station is approximately 5 minutes. As development continues throughout the General Plan area, increased demand would be placed on the existing fire services. Individual development projects are reviewed by the RCFD to ensure that adequate fire services would be provided to the project at the time of development. Impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those identified for the Ranch Project and as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No new or substantially greater significant fire service impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. The Certified EIR for the General Plan analyzed police protection and the potential demand on police protection through buildout of the General Plan area. Police protection is provided to the City of La Quinta through the Riverside County Sheriff Department (RCSD). The RCSD currently maintains an average response time of 5 minutes. There are currently 3 sheriff units assigned to the City of La Quinta, 37 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project each with 1 or 2 deputies depending on the time of day. As buildout of the planning area continues, the demand on sheriff services in the City of La Quinta will continue to increase and additional resources will be provided to meet the increased demands. Currently, two public school districts serve the City of La Quinta: the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). As the SRR SP would permit hotel, timeshare, hotel/condo and resort casitas units that would not introduce permanent residents, no additional students would be added to the DSUSD. The timeshare or hotel/condo units that may be developed pursuant to this project are not likely to be used as permanent and primary residences based on market information, historical use patterns for such units and based on City requirements. Although the payment of applicable school fees would be required, no significant impacts to schools would occur. As a result, the SRR SP is consistent with the Ranch Project analyzed in the MND. The La Quinta Public Library is a branch of the Riverside County Library System. This library has been renovated and expanded since the Ranch Project MND was certified. As discussed above, the SRR SP would not introduce any permanent residences. The timeshare or hotel/condo units that may be developed pursuant to this project are not likely to be used as permanent and primary residences based on market information, historical use patterns for such units and based on City requirements. Consequently, there would be minimal additional demand on public library services. No significant library service impacts would occur. Impacts associated with the SRR SP on public services would be the same as those identified for the Ranch Project. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. The Riverside County Fire Department, in its review of new development proposals, shall evaluate project plans and the Department's ability to provide proper fire protection. This review shall include, but shall not be limited to, internal circulation, project directories, street names, and numbering systems. New developments shall comply with all City and Fire Department standards. 38 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project 2. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department shall review new development proposals in order to evaluate project plans and the Department's ability to provide adequate police protection. This review should include, but not be limited to internal circulation, project directories, street names, and numbering systems. New developments shall comply with all established City and Sheriff standards. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND Energy services are provided to the City of La Quinta from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), while The Gas Company provides natural gas service. The IID operates six substations that serve the City. As stated in the General Plan EIR, the IID will be able to supply electricity to future developments. All buildings constructed as a result of the Ranch Project would have been required to conform to Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code, which requires energy efficient envelop construction, equipment and fixtures. Therefore, impacts were assessed to be less than significant. The City requires that all new development finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the MND, impacts were assessed to be less than significant with regards to electrical and natural gas service. Based on the General Plan EIR, Verizon has indicated that it is capable of providing telephone services to the City through buildout as it is planning to expand the existing facilities. Time Warner renegotiates the franchise agreement with the City every 15 years, the most recent of which was approved in 1996. Time Warner has indicated that it will be able to service the entire planning area through buildout. The City requires that all new development finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND, impacts were assessed to be less than significant with regards to communication systems. The CVWD is responsible for both water and wastewater treatment in the City of La Quinta. The City requires that all new development finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND, impacts were anticipated to be less than significant with regards to wastewater service. 39 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The City of La Quinta is situated in a low desert basin with a subtropical desert climate averaging 4 to 6 inches of rainfall per year. The 'wet' season is typically between December and March. Although average rainfall is minimal in the entire basin, occasional rain and thunderstorms have been known to occur which result in flash -flooding situations. The CVWD is the regional authority responsible for the management of storm waters within the Coachella Valley, while the City is responsible for storm water management within the City boundaries. Although never officially adopted, the City has prepared a storm water management plan that has been used to direct future management plans and policies. The City's network of storm water drainage pipes range in size from 18 to 60 inches in diameter. In addition to maintaining the existing storm water drainage network, the City requires that all new developments construct on -site retention basins with a 100-year storm capacity. As documented in the General Plan EIR, the Ranch Project site was not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor was it within a 500-year floodplain.9 As the site was primarily vacant and undeveloped, project implementation would have resulted in the increase in impervious surfaces. However, as the Ranch Project would introduce two golf courses, there was ample opportunity to design the site so that it could have effectively managed anticipated storm events. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND, impacts related drainage would have been reduced to a less than significant level. The City of La Quinta and the County of Riverside have a contract with Waste Management of the Desert for the collection and transport of solid waste to landfill sites. At the time the Certified General Plan EIR was prepared, Waste Management Services of the Desert transported solid waste generated in the City to the Edom Hill Landfill in the City of Indio. The Edom Hill Landfill is permitted to accept up to 2,651 tons per day, with a remaining capacity of approximately 1.5 million cubic yards. The Edom Hill Landfill site has an expected closure date of January 1, 2020.10 Currently the City of La Quinta achieves a 54 percent waste diversion rate.11 It should be noted that since the General Plan EIR was prepared, additional landfill sites have been identified as available to accept solid waste from the City. Specifically, Azusa Land Reclamation Co, Lamb Canyon Disposal Site, and the Spadra Sanitary Landfill are all available for waste disposal from the Ranch Project site.12 With the development of the proposed uses, total solid waste generated from the City was expected to increase; however, given that additional landfill sites was available for solid waste acceptance, and with continued waste diversion programs, solid waste impacts associated with the Ranch Project were anticipated to be less than significant. 9 La Quinta General Plan EIR, July 2001 and Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Water Quality Evaluation, June 2000. 10 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/. 11 Most recent board approved data, 1998 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 hftp://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/. 12 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/. 40 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The Ranch Project MND found that the project had potentially significant impacts on utilities and service systems unless mitigated. Specifically, the MND found that there could be potentially significant impacts related to power and natural gas, sewer service, and solid waste disposal. These potential impacts required mitigation measures to ensure that the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The MND found that the project would have less than significant impacts in regards to communications systems, water supply, and storm water drainage. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Energy services are provided to the City of La Quinta from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), while The Gas Company provides natural gas service. The IID operates six substations that serve the City. As stated in the Certified General Plan EIR, the IID will be able to supply electricity to future developments. All buildings constructed as a result of the SRR SP would be required to conform to Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code, which requires energy efficient envelop construction, equipment and fixtures. Gas is transmitted to the planning area through 36-inch pipelines north of Interstate 10. These transmission lines are split up into various supply lines, which in turn are split again into distribution lines that provide gas to individual structures throughout the City. The Gas Company has indicated that they can accommodate new service to planned developments within the Planning Area through continued interaction with developers.13 The City requires that all new development shall finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts would be less than significant with regards to electrical and natural gas service. Telephone service in the City of La Quinta is provided by Verizon California while cable service is provided by Time Warner. Based on the General Plan EIR, Verizon has indicated that it is capable of providing telephone services to the City through buildout as it is planning to expand the existing facilities. Time Warner renegotiates the franchise agreement with the City every 15 years, the most recent of which was approved in 1996. Time Warner has indicated that it will be able to service the entire planning area through buildout. The City requires that all new development shall finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts would be less than significant with regards to communication systems. 13 La Quinta General Plan EIR, Certified March 20, 2001. 41 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The CVWD's responsible for both water and wastewater treatment in the City of La Quinta. The CVWD currently maintains a network of sewer trunk lines throughout the City ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. An 18-force main is located adjacent to the SRR SP Area in the Jefferson Street right-of- way. Wastewater is transported to one of two treatment facilities operated by the CVWD. One facility, located at Madison Street and Avenue 38, treats approximately 2 million gallons per day, while the second facility, the Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant located on Avenue 63, currently treats approximately 4 million gallons per day. These facilities have the capacity to treat approximately 2.5 million and 5.8 million gallons per day, respectively. The Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant would treat wastewater generated from the SRR SP Area, as all wastewater in the City of La Quinta generated south of Miles Avenue is transported to this facility. With a current capacity of approximately 1.8 million gallons per day, and an expected 20 percent increase in capacity over the next year, the Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant could adequately serve the SRR SP.14 The City requires that all new development finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts would be less than significant with regards to wastewater service. The City of La Quinta has entered into a Domestic Water and Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement (Agreement) with the CVWD for the SRR SP Area, included in Appendix D. This Agreement requires that several local improvements be made to the water delivery system to provide service to the SRR SP Area. Proposed water infrastructure improvements to be made as part of the SRR SP include an 18" water main in SilverRock Way from the existing Ahmanson House to Avenue 54, an 18" water main to run west from SilverRock Way to Jefferson Street in the Jefferson Street Access Road, two water well sites, and a pressure reducing/boosting station. Proposed sewer improvements to be made as part of the SRR SP include a 12" sewer main in SilverRock Way from the existing Ahmanson House to Avenue 54, a 27" sewer main to run west SilverRock Way to Jefferson Street in the Jefferson Street Access Road, a 27" sewer main to connect to the 12" sewer main in SilverRock Way to an existing pump station. Furthermore, this Agreement calls for Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the infrastructure improvement designs and construction in order to avoid potentially adverse impacts due to the construction of these improvements. These improvements will all be constructed in new or existing streets and no significant impacts will result for this reason. Water and wastewater infrastructure improvements included in the Agreement would require utility mains to be constructed in the southern portion of the SRR SP Area, which is bisected by the All American Canal. These mains would be constructed to run beneath the All American Canal, which is approximately 14 La Quinta General Plan EIR, Certified March 20, 2002. 42 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project 8 feet deep. Designed sewer mains would be installed through bored casings that would be at least 3 feet beneath the canal bottom. This sewer main design would not require special sewer requirements from the CVWD. Water mains would be designed to run at bridge level. All utility infrastructure improvement designs would comply with established CVWD standards and would be subject to CVWD review and approval. The City of La Quinta is situated in a low desert basin with a subtropical desert climate averaging 4 to 6 inches of rainfall per year. The 'wet' season is typically between December and March. Although average rainfall is minimal in the entire basin, occasional rain and thunderstorms have been known to occur which result in flash -flooding situations. These flash floods are typically contained within washes extending from higher elevations and floodplains adjacent to river courses. Of particular importance to safety during flash floods is when the floods inundate the alluvial fans extending from the local mountains. Developments adjacent to the alluvial fans are susceptible to storm water runoff that contains high dirt and rock content. These flooding situations have proven to be significant hazards. Another cause for flooding is when local snow-capped mountains experience drastic temperature changes, which in turn result in an increased rate of snow melting. The CVWD is the regional authority responsible for the management of storm waters within the Coachella Valley, while the City is responsible for storm water management within the City boundaries. Although never officially adopted, the City has prepared a storm water management plan that has been used to direct future management plans and policies. The City's network of storm water drainage pipes range in size from 18 to 60 inches in diameter. In addition to maintaining the existing storm water drainage network, the City requires that all new developments construct on -site retention basins with a 100-year storm capacity. As documented in the Certified General Plan EIR, the SRR SP Area is not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor is it within a 500-year floodplain.15 As the SRR SP Area is primarily vacant and undeveloped, project implementation would result in the increase in impervious surfaces. However, as the SRR SP would introduce two golf courses, there is ample opportunity to design the site so that it could effectively manage anticipated storm events. This was done to protect the first golf course from future flooding. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts related drainage would be reduced to a less than significant level. After the certification of the Ranch Project MND, a major storm drain improvement construction project was initiated adjacent to the SRR SP Area. The improvements include installing approximately 2,200 feet of reinforced concrete storm drain pipe within Avenue 52 along the SRR SP Area northerly property frontage in order to extend the Calle Rondo storm drain from the northwesterly corner of the site to a point 15 La Quinta General Plan EIR, July 2001 and Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Water Quality Evaluation, June 2000. 43 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project just past the Avenue 52/SilverRock Way entrance and then back onto the resort property in to the second golf course envelope. There the runoff water will be incorporated into the water features of the proposed second golf course. The City of La Quinta and the County of Riverside have a contract with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC for the collection and transport of solid waste to landfill sites. The service agreement between the City of La Quinta and Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC is negotiated every five years. At the time the Certified General Plan EIR was prepared, Waste Management Services of the Desert transported solid waste generated in the City to the Edom Hill Landfill in the City of Indio. Since then the Edom Hill Landfill has closed. The Edom Hill Transfer Station is now in operation and accepts solid waste from the City. All waste received at the Edom Hill Transfer Station is transferred to three landfills; Lambs Canyon Landfill near Beaumont, Badlands Landfill near Moreno Valley, and El Sobrante Landfill near Corona. In addition, the Azusa Land Reclamation Co and the Spadra Sanitary Landfill are available for waste disposal from the SRR SP Area. With the development of the proposed uses in the SRR SP, total solid waste generated from the City would be expected to increase; however, given that additional landfill sites are available for solid waste acceptance, and with continued waste diversion programs, solid waste impacts associated with the SRR SP would be less than significant. Consequently, impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those of the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. The most efficient furnaces, water heaters, pool heaters and other equipment that use natural gas shall be used in SRR SP construction. The use of kitchen appliances that use natural gas and alternative, renewable energy sources, including solar and wind turbine technologies shall also be used to the greatest extent feasible. 2. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which addresses energy conservation in all proposed uses, shall be strictly enforced in project design and construction. 3. All planned uses shall be connected to the citywide sewer system. 4. A recycling program shall be developed for all proposed uses. Recycling provisions for commercial and business establishments should include separate recycling bins. Items to be recycled at 44 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project commercial establishments may include white paper, computer legal paper, cardboard, and glass and aluminum cans. 5. Professional landscaping services from companies which compost green waste shall be utilized. 6. The SRR SP's fair share of public utilities, infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed uses shall be determined through consultation with the City Department of Public Works and paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. 7. Any existing or historic septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. AESTHETICS Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND Although no site -specific plans had been developed, the Ranch Project would have been designed and developed to be consistent with the General Plan and City Municipal Code. Again, these guidelines determine appropriate size, scale, treatment, heights, and setbacks required for projects with specific land use designations and zoning classifications. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND and approval of Site Development Permits by the Community Development Department, impacts associated with visual resources were anticipated to be less than significant. The Ranch Project MND found that the proposed project had potentially significant impacts unless mitigated, in regards to aesthetics. Potential impacts related to the project having a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect required mitigation measures to reduce the impacts identified to less than significant levels. Aesthetic impacts as identified in the MND on scenic vistas or a scenic highway by the project were assessed to be less than significant. The MND also found that the project would have no impacts due to the creation of light and glare. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan As documented in the General Plan EIR, the City's most valuable visual resources are the local mountains against the contrasting expansive valley floor. Local peaks range in upper elevations from 8,000 to 11,000 feet above sea level. The Santa Rosa Mountains, which exist adjacent to the SRR SP Area on the western property boundary, rise up to about 1,600 feet above sea level. Of other visual importance directly related to the SRR SP Area vicinity are image corridors and how they relate to the surrounding circulation network. Specifically, Jefferson Street is identified as a primary image corridor, while Avenue 52 is a secondary image corridor and Avenue 54 is an agrarian image corridor. Roadways 45 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project with these classifications are required to be improved and maintained according to the City's Municipal Code. Specifically, setbacks, landscaping materials and signage are all treatments that are regulated through the municipal code. The SRR SP would be required to improve and maintain portions of these roadways. Additionally, design standards require that developments adjacent to the steep Santa Rosa Mountains must maintain views from adjacent locations off site. These design standards specifically deal with building height, setbacks, scale, and architectural treatments. Although no site -specific plans have been developed, the project would be designed and developed consistent with the General Plan and City Municipal Code. Again, these guidelines determine appropriate size, scale, treatment, heights, and setbacks required for projects with specific land use designations and zoning classifications. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified below and approval of Site Development Permits by the Community Development Department, impacts associated with visual resources would be less than significant. Consequently, impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those of the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project are applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. 1. Landscape designs and materials that complement the native desert environment shall be utilized in project design and construction. 2. Overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded to the greatest extent possible through the establishment of an undergrounding program and guidelines subject to the review of the City Engineer and Public Works Department. 3. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum height, number of fixtures, and intensity needed to provide sufficient security and identification in each development, making every reasonable effort to protect the community's night skies. 4. Signage shall be limited to the locations, sizes, and maintenance requirements necessary to provide functional identification. 5. Safe, convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, screened outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, protected and enhanced outdoor seating areas, appropriate lighting levels, limited signage, and landscaping designs that preserve and enhance visual resources shall be included in the design of any commercial area on the Project Site. 46 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project 6. Development proposed along designated scenic highways, roadways and corridors shall be reviewed for compatibility with the natural and built environments to assure maximum viewshed protection and pedestrian and vehicular activity. 7. All grading and development proposed within scenic viewsheds shall be regulated to minimize adverse impacts to these viewsheds. All grading, development, and landscaping plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. CULTURAL RESOURCES Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND A citywide cultural investigation was conducted for the preparation of the General Plan EIR in August 2000. Due to the location of the City on an ancient lake shoreline, the City of La Quinta contains some of the densest concentrations of archeological sites in California. Given the sensitive nature of the Ranch Project site, impacts to other undiscovered isolates could occur during earth disturbing construction work. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. According to a site -specific study, no structures on the Ranch Project site was determined to have historic landmark status. Build -out of uses of the Ranch Project would have required earthwork for creation of development pads, land contouring to establish drainage patterns, and trenching to install utilities. Based on the results of the site -specific Phase I survey, the Ranch Project would not have significantly impacted known resources on site. However, given the general sensitivity of the surrounding area, and that the eight isolates found are located in proximity to a recorded site (CA-RIV-2842), the Ranch Project had the potential to impact previously unidentified subsurface resources. Mitigation was identified in the MND to reduce this potential impact below a level considered significant. The Ranch Project MND found that the project had potentially significant impacts unless mitigated in regards to cultural resources. The MND found that there could be potentially significant impacts on the disturbance of paleontological and archaeological resources due to the proposed project. These potential impacts required mitigation measures to ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Ranch Project MND found that there would be no potential impacts on historic resources, the potential of physical change, which would affect unique cultural values, and the restricting of existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 47 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan A citywide cultural investigation was conducted for the preparation of the General Plan EIR in August 2000. Due to the location of the City on an ancient lake shoreline, the City of La Quinta contains some of the densest concentrations of archeological sites in California. In order to address site -specific historic and cultural issues, a historic and cultural study was prepared for the SRR SP Area in September 1999.16 During the preparation of the Phase I cultural resource investigation, eight isolated finds (isolates) were identified within the study area. By definition, isolates are not necessarily significant. However, six of the isolates that were recovered were associated with an archaeological site (CA-RIV-2842) located outside the SRR SP Area. The finding of these six isolates indicates that deposits associated with this untested site may still be present. The area associated with these six isolates should be considered archaeologically sensitive. A seventh isolate was found in the northern end of the SRR SP Area. This isolate may have been brought to the surface by root action or the removal of trees, indicating a potential for buried deposits. The eighth isolate was found within the flood zone of the All American Canal. No other items were found in association with this isolate. Given the sensitive nature of the SRR SP Area, impacts to other undiscovered isolates could occur during earth disturbing construction work. With the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Two sets of structures are present on the SRR SP Area. The first is the Kennedy residential complex, which was built after 1950 by previous owners of the property, also known as the Ahmanson House. The Ahmanson House is not a historic landmark, according to the site -specific study conducted. Build -out of uses would require earthwork for creation of development pads, land contouring to establish drainage patterns, and trenching to install utilities. Based on the results of the site -specific Phase I survey, the SRR SP would not significantly impact known resources on site. However, given the general sensitivity of the surrounding area, and that the eight isolates found are located in proximity to a recorded site (CA-RIV-2842), the SRR SP has the potential to impact previously unidentified subsurface resources. Mitigation has been identified to reduce this potential impact below a level considered significant. Consequently, impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those of the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions 16 A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of "The Ranch" Project Area Located in the Community of La Quinta County of Riverside, California, McKenna et al., September 1999. 48 Draft Addendum to The Ranch MND for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure, identified in the adopted Final MND for the Ranch Project is applicable to the proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan. I . During any ground altering activities associated with grading or construction, including demolition of existing modern structures and facilities, the area being graded shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor. The monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities impacting potentially significant cultural resources until the resources can be evaluated for significance and cleared or mitigated. The monitoring program shall also include consultation with the local Native American representatives (e.g., Torres -Martinez and/or Morongo Reservations). RECREATION Summary of Findings in the Ranch Project MND The Ranch Project included proposed uses that would have introduced two public golf courses, as well as a 9-hole public course offering a junior golf program. Therefore, the Ranch Project would have provided additional public recreational services without increasing the City's population, which would have been considered a beneficial impact of the project. The Ranch Project would not have increased the demand for neighborhood or regional park facilities, nor would it have affected existing recreational opportunities. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational facilities were assessed to occur. The Ranch Project MND found that the project had less than significant impacts in regards to recreation. The MND found that there would be less than significant impacts regarding existing recreational opportunities being affected. The MND found that the project would have no impacts in regards to an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other facilities. Analysis of Proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan With the exception of Lake Cahuilla County Park, the City of La Quinta is responsible for providing and maintaining public parks within the City. Existing public parks within the City include the Fritz Burns Park, the Francis Hack Park, Seasons Park, Adams Park, the Eisenhower Park in the Cove, the Desert Pride Park, the Community Park and the Avenue 50 Sports Complex. 49 DraftAddendum to The Ranch AMD for the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Project The State of California passed legislation (Section 66477 of the Government Code), which allows a city to pass an ordinance to require, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, the dedication of land or the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes. This legislation, commonly called the "Quimby Act," establishes a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 population as the amount of land necessary to meet the requirement for the provision of Neighborhood and Community Park land. The City of La Quinta requires 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents of new development pursuant to the Quimby Act. Given the nature of the proposed uses, the SRR SP would not generate any permanent residents for which additional park acreage is required. Additionally, the SRR SP would introduce 2 public golf courses, and approximately 35 acres of public park space. Therefore, the SRR SP would provide additional public recreational services without increasing the City's population, which could be considered a beneficial impact of the SRR SP. The SRR SP would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional park facilities, nor would it affect existing recreational opportunities. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational facilities would occur. Consequently, recreation impacts associated with the SRR SP would be the same as those of the Ranch Project and would be less than significant. There is, therefore, no substantial change from the project that was subject to the MND and the SRR SP is consistent with the determinations, findings, and conclusions contained in the General Plan EIR. No new information, changed circumstances, or more severe impacts would occur with the implementation of the SRR SP. 50 CITY OF LA QUINTA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: The Ranch/SilverRock Resort SCH No.: 1999081020 APPROVAL DATE: May 15th, 2002/July 18th, 2006 The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is the intent of this program to (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures; (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) utilize existing review processes wherever feasible. The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated in to the approval for this project in order to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City of La Quinta's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Geology The soils at the site Prior to the design and construction of any structural Receipt of site City of La Quinta Prior to the have the potential improvements, a comprehensive design level specific issuance of any for geotechnical evaluations shall be prepared that geotechnical/ grading permits hydroconsolidation includes subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. engineering with the addition of Recommendations for grading/earthwork, surface and plans for the water subsurface drainage, foundations, pavement structural Project sections, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation. The Project Site All buildings planned as a result of the Proposed Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the would be subject to Project shall be constructed in conformance with the construction issuance of any ground shaking Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City of La plans building permits during a seismic Quinta. event. Water The project would During construction activities, water trucks are to Field City of La Quinta Ongoing during use potable water acquire water from non -potable water sources, such as inspection construction for dust reclaimed water and/or canal water. suppression instead of reclaimed water Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Cumulative use of At such time that non -potable water sources become Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the potable water for available to the project site, the project shall connect landscape and and Coachella issuance of irrigation would to this resource and utilize the non -potable water for project plans Valley Water building permits. incrementally irrigation purposes. to identify the District contribute to the ability to demand on water connect to supplies non -potable water sources in the future Drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized as a Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the means of reducing water consumption. landscape and issuance of project plans building permits The project will A hydrology master plan shall be prepared for the Receipt of site City of La Quinta Prior to the result in changes to Project Specific Plan. Further, a hydrology study shall hydrology issuance of grading absorption rates, be prepared to support the hydrology master plan. master plan permits drainage patterns, This study shall demonstrate that the project would and study for or the rate and construct storm drainage and hydrologic the Project amount of surface improvements, such as on -site stormwater retention runoff basins, that conform to the City`s master hydrology and storm drain improvement program as well as implement regional and local requirements, policies and programs. Prior to the initiation of any construction activity on the Provide NOI Regional Water Prior to the project site, a Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm Water and Quality Control issuance of any Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Monitoring verification Board grading permits Plan will be filed with the RWQCB under the general that it was NPDES construction permit. The SWPPP shall include sent to Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with RWQCB the NPDES program requirements. Any existing groundwater wells located on the site that Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the are no longer in use shall be abandoned in accordance construction issuance of any with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations prior plans grading permits to the issuance of building permits. -2- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Design of new roads, golf courses, man-made ponds, Review of site, City of La Quinta Prior to the common landscape areas, storm water basins, and storm issuance of grading other facilities shall incorporate proper engineering drainage and permits controls to channel storm and irrigation runoff into landscape detention/retention facilities that are sized to plans accommodate design year storms and that incorporate filtration systems or other devices to reduce the potential for herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to percolate to groundwater or surface water runoff. Water from golf Prior to operation of the golf course, the golf course Receipt of City of La Quinta Prior to the course operation operator shall prepare a Golf Course Management Plan Golf Course issuance of would contain that includes an irrigation plan, water usage plan, and Management operation permit pollutants that chemical management plan in order to reduce, to the Plan impact extent feasible, golf course irrigation runoff and groundwater percolation into the groundwater basin. quality Air Quality Construction Construction equipment shall be phased and operated Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of activity generates in a manner to ensure the lowest construction -related construction grading permit vehicular air quality pollutant emission levels practical, and shall require the management pollutants use of water trucks, temporary irrigation systems and plan other measures which will limit fugitive dust emissions during site disturbance and construction. The following measures shall be implemented to Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the reduce construction related traffic congestion: construction issuance of grading • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic management permit disturbance plan • Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes • Provide flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary • Schedule operations affecting roadways for off- peak traffic hours • Provide rideshare incentives to construction personnel -3- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Emissions of PM10 A PM10 Management Plan for construction operations Review of dust City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of would exceed the shall be submitted prior to the issuance of grading control plan grading permit thresholds of permits. The plan shall include dust management significance during controls such as: construction • Water site and equipment morning and evening • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering • Pave construction roads, where appropriate • Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site Air quality control measures identified in the Coachella Review of dust City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan shall be control plan grading permit implemented. To reduce VOC emissions associated with architectural Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of coatings, water -based or low-VOC coatings shall be construction building permit used and applied with spray equipment with high management transfer efficiency and/or the need for paints and plan solvents should be reduced by using pre -coated building materials or naturally colored building materials. -4- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Operation of the Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of proposed project solar or low emission water heaters to reduce natural construction occupancy permit would result in gas consumption and emissions. and site plans increased air pollutant Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize emissions. built-in energy -efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Shade trees shall be provided in close proximity to Timeshare, hotel and golf facility structures to reduce building heating/cooling needs. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall be constructed using special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows to reduce thermal gain or loss. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient lighting (including parking areas) to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall use light- colored roofing materials in residential construction as opposed to dark roofing materials. Bus stops shall be positioned at locations on and Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of adjacent to the site to be determined in coordination construction grading permit with the bus transit service provider that will serve the and site plans project area. Bus stops should be generally located 1/4 mile walking distance from Timeshare units. The golf course shall design on -site circulation plans for Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of clubhouse parking to reduce vehicle queuing. construction grading permit and site plans -5- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Transporta Increases in local A traffic signal shall be installed at the Project entrance Warrant study City of La Quinta Ongoing tion and roadway volumes and Avenue 52, the Project entrance and Jefferson Circulation would Street and at the intersection of Avenue 54 and incrementally Jefferson Street when and if they are warranted. The decrease developer of the site shall be responsible for payment intersection LOS of a fair share of the cost of installing these signals. Biological During construction Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the Resources and landscaping fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used during the Construction issuance of grading activities, impacts construction and operation of the Project Site will not and permits to common wildlife be harmful to wildlife. Landscaping would occur plan During construction A construction plan shall be prepared and Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the and operation, demonstrate, to the extent practicable, construction Construction issuance of grading there is a potential activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided plan permits impact to adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and Peninsular bighorn construction activities any blasting or pile -driving near sheep and other the hillside will not occur during the period from Jan. 1 wildlife through June 30th. Potential impact to The landscape plan shall include only plants that are Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of Peninsular bighorn non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic plans such as tamarisk project building permit sheep from and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees may landscape increased human remain. plan presence on Project Site I2 Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks A mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan Review of City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of has been prepared to protect peninsular big horn construction, grading permit sheep, and other wildlife, from entering the non- landscape and mountainous portion of the site proposed for site plan development. This concept plan illustrates a continuos (Agency shall, buffer to the toe -of -slope in areas where development to the extent could occur adjacent to the mountain edge. The practical, concept plan delineates the location, acreage and widen the native plant species envisioned for the mitigation area. narrowest This plan shall be incorporated into the project design points of the and shall be subject to review by the City prior to the buffer areas issuance of grading permits. A copy of this mountain to minimize toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan is available the impacts for review at the City of La Quinta Community on the hillside) Development Department. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot The Agency City of La Quinta Ongoing fence (or the functional equivalent) between the shall development and the hillside shall be constructed. The guarantee to gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If pay determined necessary, the City shall construct the design and temporary fencing while permanent fencing is construction constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which costs for the Bighorn Sheep can be entangled. If the Agency transfer fencing, and or disposes of any of the property adjacent to the that if the hillside, the Agency shall reserve an easement sufficient property for the construction of fencing if needed in the future. is transferred, it shall require that the subsequent owner bond or posts sufficient security for the completion of the fence should it arise in the future. -7- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the Review of City of La Quinta Ongoing project area, and shall be kept away from the hillside landscape and areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where signage plan applicable. Access into the hillside area from the site will be Review of site City of La Quinta, Prior to issuance of discouraged through the use of signs or barricades, if and signage CDFG, USFWS occupancy permit necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail plan system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG. There is a potential The final design of the project shall insure that road and Review of site City of La Quinta Prior to the impact from driveways are designed to minimize headlight shine and issuance of grading nighttime light on from vehicles onto the hillside. construction permit wildlife plan There is a potential In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass Review of site City of La Quinta Prior to the impact from glare shall be used in new construction. Exterior building and issuance of and exterior lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior lighting construction building permit lighting on wildlife shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity plan and aimed away from the hillside. All swimming pools located on the Project Site shall be Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the fenced pursuant to City regulations. construction issuance of grading plan permit Potential impact to Prior to any construction or site preparation activities Verification of City of La Quinta, Prior to the mesquite hummock that would impact the 3.4 acres of mesquite hummock, receipt of CDFG issuance of grading habitat the agency or project developer shall enter into a financial permit Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and security an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose instrument is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of and copy of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU the MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 3.4 acres of mesquite hummock in the Willow Hole area or in another area where the habitat is contiguous and large preserves already protect much of this habitat type. The exact location and cost shall be determined through consultation with CDFG and the selected organization. W Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Potential impact to Prior to the commencement of on -site grading, a 404 Receipt of City of La Quinta, Prior to the areas under the permit shall be obtained, if legally required, for required CDFG, ACOE issuance of grading jurisdiction of the alteration of areas under the ACOE jurisdiction. In permits permit ACOE and the CDFG addition, if development activities are to take place within streambeds or drainages under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, a streambed alteration agreement shall first be obtained, if legally required. Hazards Exposure to Prior to the demolition or renovation of the on -site Proof that a City of La Quinta Prior to the asbestos is a single family residence, asbestos containing materials qualified issuance of significant impact (ACM) shall be removed in accordance with current demolition demolition permit regulatory guidelines. team has been retained Noise Construction noise Between May 1 and September 30, all construction Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the would impact local activities on the project site shall only occur between construction issuance of grading residents and the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through plans permit sensitive receptors Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. Between October 1 and April 30, all construction activity on the project site shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. All operational activities of the Project shall also be subject to the Noise Ordinance of the City as well. All construction equipment operating in the planning Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the area shall be fitted with well -maintained functional construction issuance of grading mufflers to limit noise emissions. plans permit, ongoing throughout construction To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the hauling routes shall be located away from existing construction issuance of grading residences. plans permit The design, selection and placement of the mechanical Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the equipment for various buildings shall include construction issuance of consideration of the potential noise impact they may plans building permit have on uses within the development site. -9- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Silencers and/or barriers shall be provided where Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the necessary at outdoor equipment, such as cooling construction issuance of towers, air cooled condensers and refrigeration plans building permit compressors/condenser units, and at the air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation systems. Public The proposed The Riverside County Fire Department, in its review of Review of site Riverside County Prior to the Services project would new development proposals, shall evaluate project and landscape Fire Department issuance of grading incrementally plans and the Department's ability to provide proper plan and City of La permit increase demand fire protection. This review shall include, but shall not Quinta for service on the be limited to, internal circulation, project directories, Riverside County street names, and numbering systems. New Fire Department developments shall comply with all City and Fire Department standards. The proposed The Riverside County Sheriff's Department shall review Review of site Riverside County Prior to the project would new development proposals in order to evaluate and landscape Sheriff issuance of grading incrementally project plans and the Department's ability to provide plan Department and permit increase demand adequate police protection. This review should City of La Quinta for service on the include, but not be limited to internal circulation, Riverside County project directories, street names, and numbering Sheriff Department systems. New developments shall comply with all established City and Sheriff standards. Utilities The project would The most efficient furnaces, water heaters, pool Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the and result in an heaters and other equipment that use natural gas shall construction issuance of Service incremental be used in project construction. The use of kitchen plan building permits Systems increase in appliances that use natural gas and alternative, electrical demand renewable energy sources, including solar and wind turbine technologies shall also be used to the greatest extent feasible. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the addresses energy conservation in all proposed uses construction issuance of shall be strictly enforced in project design and plan building permits construction. The use of septic All planned uses shall be connected to the city-wide Review of Coachella Valley Prior to issuance of systems in the City sewer system. construction Water District grading permit could result in plan potential impacts -10- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Any existing or historic septic systems located on the Review of Coachella Valley Prior to issuance of site shall be abandoned in accordance with Federal, construction Water District and grading permit State, and local laws and regulations prior to the plan City of La Quinta issuance of building permits. The incremental A recycling program shall be developed for all Receipt of City of La Quinta Prior to the increase in solid proposed uses. Recycling provisions for commercial recycling issuance of waste generation and business establishments should include separate program occupancy permit could result in recycling bins. Items to be recycled at commercial potential impacts establishments may include white paper, computer legal paper, cardboard, glass and aluminum cans. Professional landscaping services from companies Verification City of La Quinta Prior to the which compost green waste shall be utilized. that a issuance of qualified occupancy permit landscaping service has been retained The incremental The Projects fair share of public utilities, infrastructure Verification of City of La Quinta Prior to the demand from the and improvements required to properly service the receipt of issuance of grading project on utility proposed uses shall be determined through financial permit systems could consultation with the City Department of Public Works security result in potential and paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. instrument. impacts Aesthetics The project area is Landscape designs and materials that complement the Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the adjacent to a scenic native desert environment shall be utilized in project landscape and issuance of grading area. Development design and construction. design plans permit would alter the aesthetic nature of the area Overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded to the Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the greatest extent possible through the establishment of design and Public Works and issuance of grading an undergrounding program and guidelines subject to site plans City Engineer permit the review of the City Engineer and Public Works Department. Signage shall be limited to the locations, sizes, and Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the maintenance requirements necessary to provide design plan issuance of grading functional identification. permit -11- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Safe, convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the screened outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly landscape and issuance of areas, protected and enhanced outdoor seating areas, design plans building permit appropriate lighting levels, limited signage, and landscaping designs that preserve and enhance visual resources shall be included in the design of any commercial area on the Project Site. Development proposed along designated scenic Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the highways, roadways and corridors shall be reviewed for landscape and issuance of grading compatibility with the natural and built environments design plans permit to assure maximum viewshed protection and pedestrian and vehicular activity. All grading and development proposed within scenic Review of City of La Quinta Prior to the viewsheds, shall be regulated to minimize adverse landscape and issuance of grading impacts to these viewsheds. All grading, development design plans permit and landscaping plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. The project would Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum Review of City of La Quinta, Prior to the introduce new height, number of fixtures, and intensity needed to design and Riverside County issuance of sources of light and provide sufficient security and identification in each site plans Sheriff building permit glare that would development, making every reasonable effort to Department alter the existing protect the community's night skies. nighttime environment Cultural There is potential During any ground altering activities associated with Verification City of La Quinta Prior to issuance of Resources for discovery of project grading or construction, including demolition of that a grading permit unidentified existing modern structures and facilities, the project qualified subsurface cultural area shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological historical resources during monitor. The monitor shall have the authority to halt consultant has future ground any activities impacting potentially significant cultural been retained altering activities resources until the resources can be evaluated for significance and cleared or mitigated. The monitoring program shall also include consultation with the local Native American representatives (e.g., Torres -Martinez and/or Morongo Reservations). -12- J I APPENDIX A Final MND for the Ranch Project JI I FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SCH No.1999081020 THE RANCH Prepared for: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Prepared By: Impact Sciences, Inc. 30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210 Agoura Bills, California 91301 May 2002 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1.0-1 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS................:.......................................................... 2.0-1 Letter 1. Southern California Association of Governments, April 24, 2002 .......................... 2.0-2 Letter 2. Riverside County Sheriff Department, April 19, 2002.......................................... 2.0-4 Letter 3. Desert Sands Unified School District, April 5, 2002............................................. 2.0-6 Letter 4. The Gas Company, April 23, 2002...................................................................... 2.0-8 Letter 5. Pope & Associates, April 30, 2002.......................................................................2.0-11 Letter 6.Judith Schenkman, April 28, 2002........................................................................2.0-17 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION....................................................................... s.u-1 INITIALSTUDY ................................ .............................................................................. 4.0-1 H The Ranch Final - May 2002 1.0 INTRODUCTION In compliance with Section 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this document has been prepared so the lead agency may consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration along with any written comments received on the Project during the public review period which began on April 3, 2002 and ended cn May 3, 2002. CEQA § 15073.5 states that if any of the comments received contain substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may actually produce a significant environmental impact, the Lead Agency would be required to either: 1. Find a way to mitigate the impact(s) to a level of insignificance and then re -circulate the revised document; or 2. Prepare an EIR Based on the comments that were received cn the Project, no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may actually produce a significant environmental impact was identified. This document has been organized in a format that provides easy access for the reader to the most important information related to the key issues associated with this Proposed Project. The format of this document and the general contents of each section are provided below to assist the reader. Sections following this introduction are organized as follows: Section 2.0 Responses to Written Comments Section 3.0 Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 4.0 Initial Study 1.0-1 The Ranch Finn! — May 2002 2.0 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS INTRODUCTION This section presents written comments received cn the Mitigated Negative Declaration received by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Responses for each comment are provided as discussed in Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines. Comments contained within each letter identified by sequential numbers located in the right hand margin of each comment letter. A written response has been prepared for each numbered comment. Provided below is a list of all written correspondence received by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration: IRegional Agencies 1. Southern California Association of Governments, April 24, 2002 Local Agencies 2. Riverside County Sheriff Department, April 19, 2002 !' 3. Desert Sands Unified School District, April 5, 2002 4. The Gas Company, April 23, 2002 5 Pope & Associates, April 30, 2002 6. Judith Schenkman, April 28, 2002 I The comments received and responses to the comments are presented below. 1 I JI 2.0-1 The Ranch Final — May 2002 Letter No. 1 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Mile Office 828 West seventh Street 12th Ftoot At Los Angeles, Califeornia 90017.3435 1 (219) 236•t800 f (M3) 236.182$ WWWACOR,crosov often: lrsadral: fup„n••x )oa Wltsl/, W.IUIy nI La ldruydw Flnl rit. /IsiW.ai: C.II..1,"M r NV �..ou+, La Alld.ks a.C"d V.a rm4m: otayod TO TW 1kw 10". dtu • iW.." TIN fr.,ldtAl. Ways, X.. V•n. 10 AWMLL- ItrlpdeW C6.7: hank up" top-W CA rr Im, iws•li. Cas:ItY Y,'4 ,u taAw,l - t•..,.tl • zwTa a. a, Lw AArrvr Calcify IS.r,1 Alld+m. fora Whirl - I4+..s 14feov+l. Crdtll v. Cr-r wit. doll IW h, . A, Im AAL.I" • PW1-1 kl—N. llnutr,ad - Casa, DMtsL, Nritr"Al • Ja A• Cltnu . RulL C.;-M Im A.11ild • 1nr G.er*tu. IS AATs)r, • I.lr c,4-mil, Inns 146tL • )"+ HAA lot An/rl,l • Imtm Xlk-, iM AnLtlts Dc, N..4_,JM4bCt • liar a:aLk,,. Lu. A.tr6 • y..,lpe. term.. Ill jqubck • Lwnu+� ►'ri7 rr, 14-116" • &—r In,wl1'W, IAui k.sh V.,A MkCsINF r,aw.rrr ' G.dr N,.rllnx•^Sii La. (,nfr;p S„5rr 14WOY, dwa.na • tin ,a't.oaaor. s,a,, uwu,. - NO 1411W a, IM A.Vi" • Ala TadW., tor. Myth. • 10 prry, W Atnktb • UaM /rot, R- Ills. • Work W&V Th nw, La. Anfdltl • Id Ulu lire Ael" ca..l J„ A,hai,:lunw,u.Rrl3ranlo+C.Al— •. U. Lytlr,. Matt flirt 141.•, A))0Mb1& ldt,r SyW.41'. F itll! ' Ia.l W4ib.. L„ Mr, ,I M pW • 041110 R:ws, l.u. MtReM owl. airy. I:dldr/ lath, 0,M1. Colony Roo Yu, W. Ah moor • Ralph 3iur, H-ngt(ta beKh • Art Ya,r., &-'A ea btalt CoNa4 Q." )Ars. • I:.dNyA D.Yu.ud, I,,— W.PW • TLAaw Dinh, Nit to" • All, Dots, La P.Ln, • Attlay WC-6m, A.MIMIn 8t. M.y, Wu . TM Iudpewar, N-pn Il,stk amnla cowry. Wb lwt.l, rirnr,dt Calory Ror. Lo,rridl,-1b,a.ldr • Crq %--. Litho*,, CN, - P_ mberu, T AW'.L IM Audo" Canal • C1wW IVNt+. ►ox.au V.pry dw 8"Aamise Cary, Inn Wltib, Su he Au (;.Vmy • SW Nsuadr,. FMIIH. CVLumIQa . D_A luhballo, ftV&Wu • Lr An. Oanw. Gland To— • Rnb I1'AWL Vl.ta,•Aho - Cw.rlA Noma Toby, Q. AlIL • ludtta V.Lr.. Fill d.r"W IM %orlon Cq%aAgL IVdy m1kch. Yt Wn C-1 - Iilto kovia, Si- Wllry • Dome a ►au., tie QVtaaWCma •Taulyumit. hen Mebo nt al,adds CwYrq Tie rndwt COawWIM► R.hln Imo, lkmrt 1k.w,. Cottttry Tnalpo,wtu. C.-dwsolsu dW Don, Lm'Wity April 24, 2002 Mr. Jerry Herman Community Development Director City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-096 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120020188 Specific Plan W M "The Roew b* Dear Mr. Herman; Thank you for submitting the Specific Plan Plan 85-006 "The Ranch" to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant p(qects. SCAG reviews file consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is baser! on SCAG's responsibilities as a regions planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and projed sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Specific Plan Plan 35.006 "The Ranch", and have determined that the proposed Projed is not regionally signiftard per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Envirvnntental Quaft Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15205). Therefore, the proposed Projed does not warrant comments at this tirrte. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed •Project we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 1. 2002 Irltergovemmental Review Clearinghouse Report for pudic review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used irrt M correspondence with SCAG, conoemkV ttris Project. C01`re:5p0noa►rx SnIOL c oe WIM to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you havtt any q,resbOnL plem contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. sincerely, J Y M. AICP • enior flan , ntergovemmental Review I r r III r tll) Mlruad rA R.wJd hr. lit I/IW), at 2.0 Responses to Written Comments I I 1 1. Letter from the Southern California Association of Governments, October 17, 2001 Response 1 This comment states that the project was not determined as regionally significant, and for this reason, SCAG, a regional planning agency, has no comments. 2.0-3 The Ranch Final — May 2002 •i r `J D i Lr! J 1; J •rP- Letter No. 2P� ro, i) F" v P" 1 c) P jj i roe ;\j or i E; i DATE: April 3, 2002 TO: Distribution Y,ist FROM Jerry Herman City of La Quinta SUBJECT: NOTICE OF AVAII,ABILTY OF DRAFT INITIAL STUD'YlMITIGATED NTEGATIVE I DECLARATION FOR THE RANCH PROJECT The City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, acting as Lead Agency, has filed a'1o'uce of Con -micron" of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Ranch Projcet. This document has be:.r_ prepared in, accordance with, and pursuant to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended; Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.; and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State C>QA Guidelines), California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Chapter 15000 et seq. T ie 30-day public review period for this document opens on April 3, 2002 and closes on Mai 3, 2-2002. PLEASE SUBMIT ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS BY May 3, 2002. Please send your WRITTEN comments on this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, California 92253 r Attn: Jerry Ferman, Community Development Director If you have any questions, please contact Jerry Herman at (760) 777-7125 or j:ihzrsv-y :►:�s.vrg. Thank you fo your participati n in the environmental review of this project. b�elC Department has no comments regarding this plan. � 1 in Indio Sheriff's Office F 2.0 Responses to Written Comments I 2. Letter from Riverside County Sheriff Department, April 19, 2002 Response 1 This comment states that the document has been reviewed and the Riverside County Sheriff Department does not have any comments. 2.0-5 The Ranch Final — May 2002 Letter No. 3 •4 'proto �I RWI00010400. Desert Sands Unified School District rWe%" WELLS ,a 47-950 Dune Palms Road • is Quints. California 92253 • (760) 777.4200 0 Lr 01}1MMA +� IIIp1O dry' April 5, 2002 'Ow' Mr. Jerry Herman Community Development Director City of La Quint& Community Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Request for Comments: Ranch Project Dear Mr. Herman: This is in response to your request for input on the above referenced project and its effect on public schools - All actions toward Commercial development will potentially result in an impact on our school system. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for Desert Sands Unified School District- The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state and federal 1 budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools. As you are aware, there is a school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. Thank you. Sincerely{ Peggy yes, Director Facilities Services PR/cros 7 7 1 7 7 2.0 Responses to Written Comments 3. Letter From Desert Sands Unified School District, April 5, 2002 Response 1 The conclusion that the payment of development impact fees mitigates the impact of the new students generated directly or indirectly by the proposed project is based on currently applicable State law. Government Code Section 65996 deems development fees to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation." One of the reasons for this statement in the Government Code is that development fees are only one of the sources of funding available to school districts for school facilities. The Desert Sands Unified School District was correct in their comment that the project would be subject to school development fees at the time building permits are issued. 2.0-7 The Ranch Final — May 2002 Letter No. 4 t Swtrwn c.L:tar is Gas cv-w► The Gas Company, ?tc-a-::..A A Sempra Energy'oo►npany April 23, 2002 Gas Co. Ref. No. 02-173-OG r City of La Quints Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Jerry Herman T Re: The Ranch Project Jefferson St. and Ave_ 52, La Quints Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above -referenced project. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any sign"*can; impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission a: the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual r' commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, TF:e Soutwhern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the Califomia Pubic U".:Es Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. 1 Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions,I under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance wit" re.:se conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served oy Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any parjcu;a� home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. v b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and , a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-2000. Sincerely, 4SteADunivin 11 Technical Supervisor 11 --,I 11 u 11 u u JI I I 11 2.0 Responses to Written Comments r 4. Letter from the Gas Company, April 23, 2002 Response 1 11 1 This comment from the Gas Company states that they are in agreement with the conclusion made in the Initial Study that gas service can be provided to the proposed project without any significant impact on the environment. ri ri ri ri a a 2.0-10 The Ranch Final — May 2002 1 Letter No. 5 PO -PE &:ASSOC I%TES 1. A Yrnfumu0ul ArrnuncurCy l•:orpnrmuu .01 Oration P'.1'opc, C.P.A. 11 April 30, 2002 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 1' 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director 11 Re: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ranch Project I' As noticed in your memo dated April 3, 2002 I wish to respond to several issues addressed in the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. 1 am a party of interest I! since I have a residence at 79630 Citrus Street La Quinta, California. In general terms I am not opposed to the development and particularly am pleasW «-ith the I� concept of having the golf course area immediately adjacent to Avenue 52, Jefferson Street, and 1 Avenue 54. As a result of this overall plan it appears that the construction and occupancy related to the project itself will be buffered from the neighborhood by the golf course. Also in general terms I am concerned that the intent to make the course a public course W111 2 exacerbate traffic congestion much more significantly than a private course development and I ' assess that such differential has not been identified in this declaration. I There are two areas of the initial study that warrant review and further consideration. These areas are as follows: 1 j Air Quality My experience has boon that the mitigation measures utilized on developments of this nature are inadequate to lessen the amount of dirt subject to disbursal by winds around the adjacent areas. In particular, there should be a reporting 3 � mechanism in place to insure that the entire area is watered doum three tunts a day. In addition the golf course should be developed and sodded, or seeded. prior to the construction phase of the building complexes encircled by such 2 course. This would lesson the disbursal of dirt carried by the %%inds to adjacent community areas. (166i San vicentP Blvd. - Suite 700 - Los Angeles,- Toleptione 310.442-9100 • Facsirnile 310-41:2-;:., w Jerry Herman City of La Quinta Community Development Department April 30, 2002 Page 2 2) Traffic/Circulation I challenge the daily trips calculation for the golf course given that it is 45 holes and it is intended to be for public use. I note in the mitigation measures on pace 15 a reference to a traffic signal installed at the project entrance and Avenue 52; 4 however, I see no evidence of the precise location of such entrance on the Figure 3 map of Existing General Plan Use Designations. Please advise as to where it is intended that this road be entranced, and also whether or not it is temporan, in nature. I am extremely concerned with regard to the traffic impact of this project and have the following comments and or suggestions with regard to traffic in the general area: A) Signage on Washington should direct at Avenue 50 a left hand turn for people driving south on Washington Avenue on their way to PGA West, and other community areas that should be accessed off Jefferson and Avenue 54. This would reduce the amount of traffic -dead ending on Washington Avenue at 5 Avenue 52 thus lessening traffic congestion on Avenue 52, which at the present time is only two lanes in certain areas between Washington and Jefferson. B) A light should be place at the entrance to the Citrus development at Avenue 52 between Washington and Jefferson. This would have the effect of traffic 6 calming and reducing noise from Avenue 52. C) No entrance way should be put in place on Avenue 52 since it is contemplated 7 that the golf course will completely cover the adjacent land on the Avenue 52 side of the proposed development. D) Four laneing of Avenue 52 should continence immediately so that it is critirely 18 four laned from Washington to Jefferson. E) There should be rethinking on the round -about at Jefferson and $2nd as Aith � g increased traffic this intersection approach could become problematic. F) More rigorous enforcement of speed limits should be done on Jefferson and Avenue 52 in order to combat excessive speeding, particularly in the hours 10 from 5AM to SAM in the morning and 4PM to 7PM at night. Jerry Herman City of .La Quinta ' Community Development Department April 30, 2002 Page 3 1 would request that additional documents be provided to me as they become available so that I � 11 might further track the issues associated with this development. Tim& you very much for allowing inc, to give my comment with respect to the plan as documented at this time. Very Y trul Yours, Graham R. Pope it 1 11 1 2.0 Responses to Written Comments 5. Letter from Pope & Associates, April 30, 2002 Response 1 I I This comment is in agreement with the buffering effects of the golf courses between the planned structures and the surrounding uses described in the Initial Study. The comment has been incorporated into the record so the lead agency may consider it. Response 2 The trip generation calculations of the March 29, 2002 Supplemental Traffic Impact Evaluation prepared by RKJK & Associates are based upon golf course facilities intended for public use. The project entrance and Avenue 52 intersection has been evaluated at a location opposite the entrance to the Citrus development. The project entrance and Avenue 52 intersection location is indicated on the traffic study exhibits contained in the August 7, 2000 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by RKJK & Associates for a previous, more intense land use proposal for The Ranch property (as referenced in the March 29, 2002 evaluation prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc.). However, the exact location of this intersection could change as detailed site plans are prepared for the project. Response 3 As required by CEQA Guidelines § 15074, the lead agency is required to adopt, "a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." Mitigation measures that specifically address dust and particulate matter air quality emissions generated from the project site have been included in the Initial Study and have been incorporated into the Project. Furthermore, these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan that the Agency would be required to adopt. These measures have been provided below for your convenience. Please refer to Section VI of the Initial Study for a more detailed air quality discussion. 2.0-14 The Ranch Final — May 2002 1 2.0 Responses to Written Comments 1. Air quality control measures identified in the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan shall be implemented. 2. A PM10 Management Plan for construction operations shall be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plan shall include dust management controls such as: • Water site and equipment morning and evening Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering 1 . Pave construction roads, where appropriate • Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site IResponse 4 Please refer to response #2 for a discussion of the traffic study assumptions regarding trip generation rates of the proposed golf courses. Response 5 The suggested signage is not required, but the comment is part of the record and will be made available to the decision -makers so that they may make an independent judgement and consider the whole of the record. JResponse 6 For evaluation purposes, the project entrance and Avenue 52 intersection has been assumed to be located opposite the entrance to the Citrus development. The installation of a traffic signal will therefore ' occur if the project entrance from Avenue 52 remains at the location opposite the Citrus development. However, the exact location of this intersection could change as detailed site plans are prepared for the project. Response 7 I' Refer to responses #2 and #6 for a description of the traffic study assumptions regarding access to Avenue 1, 52. Detailed site plans have not yet been prepared for the project land uses. 2.0-15 The Ranch IFinal — May 2002 2.0 Responses to Written Comments Fl Response 8 U r Avenues 52 and Jefferson Street adjacent to the project site are to be improved as needed to complete General Plan half -section width requirements in conjunction with development. Response 9 n The roundabout has been designed to accommodate future traffic volumes. However, the City will monitor traffic conditions as part of their routine maintenance and operational responsibilities. Response 10 The Riverside County Sheriff currently patrols and monitors the circulation system throughout the City of La Quinta. This comment will become part of the record. No further response is required given that the comment does not question the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response 11 This comment will become part of the record No further response is required given that the comment does not question the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2.0-16 The Ranch Final — May 2002 1 April 28, 2002 P 1 1 a 11 II r.1 Judith Schenkmen -,3540 Avenida Villsr 4,� L La OulrtW Caloomia 9222W dome Phom 770-8233 C-fy. 4p � smail judit =Gdc.tt.com Honorable Mayor and Council Members 78495 CaUe Tonpico La Quints, California 92253 Letter No. 6 R_rr`;r;=[, CITY -NTA C^TY "RANCH PROJECT' INITIAL STUDYNITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I have read the infomiAtion provided tbus far and have several Cotnrmcnts. laving not seen an economic rtport I cannot comment on the Casts involved regarding an acceptable rase of rctwn for invesuneut for the city. 1 feel that this is sign ks at information which should be clearly stated for public review. 1 would hope that thisrusset available in a timely fashion. So many of our Ci tY's Qep°C°is including public works are currently st d. I would hope that any further nods, affecting them for example, will be covered should the project imPinge upon their budges. i suggest that the public golf courses which wiU be available to resort, hotel, and timeshs+rr users be made available to 1A Quints residents in a fashion similar to tbat of the city of Indian wells and the Emwralda Hotel and Resat. What are the current (acts in regards to "timeshares"? Are awy a viable sale and resale cntiry in the & rrso t�'S problems have ems rgcd from there is the past'? Are the aftits and the project being coin in such a uv.- thX total condominium convenion ran be done? What information u available in regards to mwxa� both i ial and long term ?'What arc the costa for the project mail"nince? I appreciate your attention to these questions, as they affect both current and future residents of La Quinta. Jud'Wi Schenlmran Copy to: jenny Herman, Community Development Director 2.0 Responses to Written Comments t 1 I 6. Letter from Judith Schenkman, April 28, 2002 Response 1 II No further response is required given that the comment pertains to economic issues and does not question the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response 2 The public nature of the planned golf courses indicates that they would be made available to the public. No further response is required. Response 3 No further response is required given that the comment pertains to economic issues and does not question the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 210-18 The Ranch Final — May 2002 3.0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 1 The Ranch Final — May 2002 LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION ICASE NUM13ER: Specific Plan 85-006 "The Ranch" APPLICANT: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency jADDRESS: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Community Development Department . 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (Agency) is proposing to acquire the 707-acre site, 1 including 182-acres of mountainous land to be preserved as permanent open space, located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The acquisition of the 525-acres of non - mountainous property would be by purchase agreement while the acquisition of the 182-acres of mountainous land would be by dedication or donation. The non -mountainous portion of the site would be developed with public golf courses and resort uses consistent with the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map Designations for the site. The Project Site is designated under the i2002 General Plan Update for golf course uses with tourist commercial uses in the center of the site. The golf course designation allows both public and private golf courses with their associated ancillary uses, while the tourist commercial designation allows resort hotels, jrecreational uses, conference centers and ancillary retail shops. The tourist commercial designation also allows Timeshare units with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. tThe Proposed Project includes two 18-hole public golf courses with a 25,000 square foot clubhouse as well as a 9-hole public golf course which would accommodate a junior golf program. The proposed resort uses would include a 250-room hotel with a 10,000 square foot conference center, 300 Timeshare fractional or condo hotel units (Timeshare) and 25,000 square feet of ancillary commercial uses. The Agency is proposing to acquire the Project Site at this time. Subsequent discretionary actions required to develop the site include adoption of a Specific Plan, a zone change to make the zoning designations consistent with the General Plan land use designations, a Conditional Use Permit for the 300 Timeshare units, a Site Development Permit and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site to accommodate the proposed uses. Additional design features to be incorporated into the project include passive park space, trails, and view corridors. The existing Pelz short game golf school may remain. No development is planned on the 182 acres of the Coral Reef Mountains located on the western portion of the Project Site. PROJECT LOCATION: The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles of both mountainous and desert terrain land area in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. La Quinta is a community of which nearly 13 square miles consist of protected mountain open space, parkland or golf course open space designations. La Quinta is located within the Coachella Valley portion of central Riverside County, in southern California. This area forms the northwest 1 extension of the Colorado Desert in southeastern California. It is characterized by arid, sparsely vegetated desert land. The valley floor is composed generally of sandy soils that were deposited through the effects of water and wind erosion. Westerly winds are persistent, and contribute to extensive erosion and the formation of blowsand activity and sand dunes. Vehicular access to the Coachella Valley is provided by the Interstate 10 Freeway, providing an east -west linkage between the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the west, and the desert areas to the east. The proposed project is located in the southeastern area of the City. The site boundaries include Jefferson Street to the east, Avenue 54 to the south, Avenue 52 to the north, and the Coral Reef Mountains to the west. Land uses in the project vicinity include a custom home residential subdivision to the north, undeveloped properties to the east approved for the development of golf course and residential uses, the 1,650-acre PGA West golf and residential community to the south and mountains to the west. On the basis of the Initial Study prepared for the project, it has been determined that the project would not have a potential for a significant effect on the environment; or the project has been modified to incorporate the mitigation measures listed below so that it would not have a potentially significant effect on the environment. A copy of said Initial Study is attached. Other materials which constitute the basis upon which the decision to adopt this (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is to be based is available for review at the: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 760.777.7125 This document constitutes a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. 1. SEE MITIGATION MEASURES SHEET ON PAGE 4 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: (any public agency which has discretionary approval power over the project). City of La Quinta TRUSTEE AGENCIES: (could include California Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California). California Department of Fish and Game United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2 1► o t Gros+ ' • i ' i r kin! A Public Hearing will be held in the City of La Quinta Council Chambers, 78-495 C'alle Tampico, La uinta California, on (DATE) at May 15, 2002 p.m. to consider this project. At that time, any interested person is welcome to attend and be heard on this matter. Prior to the Public Hearing, the public is invited to submit written comments on this (Mitigated) Negative Declaration to: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 760.777.7125 Please refer to the Case Number listed above. Development 1 1 1 II JI 3 Date: April 2, 2002 Mitigation Measures Prior to the design and construction of any structural improvements, a comprehensive design level Commendations evaluations shall be prepared that includes subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Recommendations for grading/earthwork, surface and subsurface drainage, foundations, pavement structural sections, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation. Al buildings lanned as a result of the Proposed Project shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City of La Quinta. At such time that non -potable water sources become available to the project site, the project shall be connected to this resource and utilize the non -potable water for irrigation purposes. During construction activities, water trucks are to acquire water from non -potable water sources, such as reclaimed water and/or canal water. A hydrolo y master plan shall be prepared for the Project Specific Plan. Further, a hydrology study shall be prepared or the hydrology master plan and submitted to the City of La Quinta for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. This study shall demonstrate that the ,project would construct storm drainage and hydrologic improvements, such as on -site stormwater retention basins, that conform to the City's master hydrology and storm drain improvement program as well as implement regional and local requirements, policies and programs. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized as a means of reducing water consumption. Prior to the initiation of any construction activity on the project site, a NPDES peunit from the RWQCB shall be filed for. A Notice of Intent (NO]), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Monitoring Plan are requirements of the NPDES permit. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES program requirements. Any existing groundwater wells located on the site that are no longer in use shall be abandoned in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to operation of the golf course, the golf course operator shall prepare a Golf Course Management Plan that includes an irrigation plan, water usage plan, and chemical management plan in order to reduce, to the extent feasible, golf course irrigation runoff and percolation into the groundwater basin. Design of new roads, golf courses, man-made ponds, common landscape areas, storm water basins, and other facilities shall incorporate proper engineenng controls to channel storm and irrigation runoff into detention/retention facilities that are sized to accommodate design year storms and that incor orate filtration systems or other devices to reduce the potential for herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, andother contaminants to percolate to groundwater or surface water runoff. Construction equipment shall be phased and operated in a manner to ensure the lowest construction -related pollutant emission levels practical, and shall require the use of water trucks, temporary irrigation systems and other measures which will limit fugitive dust emissions during site disturbance and construction. Air quality control measures identified in the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan shall be implemented. A PM10 Management Plan for construction operations shall be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plan shall include dust management controls such as: Water site and equipment morning and evening • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering Pave construction roads, where appropriate Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction related traffic congestion: • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic disturbance Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes Provide flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary Schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak traffic hours Provide rideshare incentives to construction personnel Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize solar or low emission water heaters to reduce natural gas consumption and emissions. 4 L Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize built-in energy -efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Shade trees shall be provided in close proximity to Timeshare, hotel and golf facility structures to reduce building heating/cooling needs. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall be constructed using special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows to reduce thermal gain or loss. Timeshare and 0olf facility construction shall utilize automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient lighting (including parking areas) to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall use light-colored roofing materials in residential construction as opposed to dark roofing materials. Bus stops shall be positioned at locations on and adjacent to the site to be determined in coordination with the bus transit service provider that will serve the project area. Bus stops should be generally located 1 /4 mile walking distance from Timeshare units. The golf course shall design on -site circulation plans for clubhouse parking to reduce vehicle queuing. A traffic signal shall be installed at the Project entrance and Avenue 52, the Project entrance and Jefferson Street and at the intersection of Avenue 54 and Jefferson Street when and if they are warranted. The developer of the site shall be responsible for payment of a fair share of the cost of installing these signals. A mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan has been prepared to protect peninsular big horn sheep, and other wildlife, from entering the non -mountainous portion of the site proposed for development. This concept plan illustrates a continuos buffer to the toe -of -slope in areas where development could Occur adjacent to the mountain edge. The concept plan delineates the location, acreage and native plant species envisioned for the mitigation area, This plan shall be incorporated into the project design and shall be subject to review by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. A copy of this mountain to'--of-slope buffer/mitigation concept plan is available for review at the City of La Quinta Community Development Department. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the functional equivalent) between the development and the hillside shall be constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If determined necessary+, the City shall construct temporary fencing while permanent fencing is eonstructed. The fence shall not contain gads in which Bi horn Sheep can be entang.led. If the Agency transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to the Vil]side, the Agency shad reserve an easement sufficient for the construction of fencing if needed in the future. I' Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall be kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where applicable. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG. J' A construction plan shall be prepared and provide, to the extent practicable, construction activities that ernit excessive noise will be avoided adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and construction activities any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period from Jan. 1 through June 3flth, The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -flare glass shall be used in new construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the hillside. I' Prior to any construction or site preparation activities that would impact the 3.4 acres of mesquite hurnmock, the agency orproject developer shall enter into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purJiose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 3.4 acres of mesquite hummock in the Willow Hole area or in I' another area where the habitat is contiguous and large preserves already protect much of this habitat type. J The exact location and cost shall be determined through consultation with CDFG and the selected organization. J' The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic plans such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees may remain. All swimming pools located on the Project Site shall be fenced pursuant to City regulations. Prior to the commencement of on -site grading, a 404 permit shall be obtained, if legally required, for alteration of areas under the ACOE jurisdiction. In addition, if development activities are to take place within streambeds or drainages under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, a streambed alteration agreement shall first be obtained, if legally required. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not be harmful to wildlife. Prior to the demolition or renovation of the on -site single family residence, asbestos containing materials (ACM) shall be removed in accordance with current regulatory guidelines. Between Ma 1 and September 30, all construction activities on the project site shall only occur between the hours of 6:00 AM andp7.00 PM Monday thmugh Fridayy, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays: between October 1 and A pril 30, all construction activity on the project site shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. All operational activities of the Project shall also be subject to the Noise Ordinance of the City as well. All construction equipment operating in the planning area shall be fitted with well -maintained functional mufflers to limit noise emissions. To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and hauling routes shall be located away from existing residences. The design, selection and placement of the mechanical equipment for various buildings shall include consideration of the potential noise impact they may have on uses within the development site. Silencers and/or barriers shall be provided where necessary at outdoor equipment, such as cooling towers, air cooled condensers and refrigeration compressors/condenser units, and at the air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation systems. The Riverside County Fire Department, in its review of new development proposals, shall evaluate project lans and the Department's ability to provide proper fire protection. This review shall include, but shall not Ce limited to, internal circulation, project directories, street names, and numbering systems. New developments shall comply with all City and Fire Department standards. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department shall review new development proposals in order to evaluate pproject plans and the Department's ability to provide adequate police protection. This review should include, laut not be limited to internal circulation, project directories, street names, and numbering systems. New developments shall comply with all established City and Sheriff standards. The most efficient furnaces, water heaters, pool heaters and other equipment that use natural gas shall be used in project construction. The use of kitchen appliances that use natural gas and alternative, renewable energy sources, including solar and wind turbine te6nologies shall also be used to the greatest extent feasible. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which addresses energy conservation in all proposed uses shall be strictly enforced in project design and construction. All planned uses shall be connected to the city-wide sewer system. A recycling program shall be developed for all proposed uses. Recycling provisions for commercial and business establishments should .include separate recycling bins. Items to be recycled at commercial establishments may include white paper, computer legal paper, cardboard, glass and aluminum cans. Professional landscaping services from companies which compost green waste shall be utilized. The Projects fair share of public utilities, infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed uses shall be determined through consultation with the City Department of Public Works and paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. Any existing or historic septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. Landscape designs and materials that complement the native desert environment shall be utilized in project design and construction. R Overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded to the greatest extent possible through the establishment of an undergrounding program and guidelines subject to the review of the City Engineer and Public Works Department. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum height, number of fixtures, and intensity needed to provide sufficient security and identification in each development, making every reasonable effort to protect the community's night skies. Signage shall be limited to the locations, sizes, and maintenance requirements necessary to provide functional identification. Safe, convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, screened outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, protected and enhanced outdoor seating areas, appropriate lighting levels, limited sipage, and landscapin designs that reserve and enhance visual resources shall -be included in the design of any commercial area on the Project Site. Development proposed along designated scenic highways, roadways and corridors shall be reviewed for compatibility with the natural and built environments to assure maximum viewshed protection and pedestrian and vehicular activity. All gradingg and development proposed within scenic viewsheds, shall be regulated to minimize adverse impacts to these viewsheds. All grading, development and landscaping plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. During any ground altering activities associated with project grading or construction, including demolition of existing modern structures and facilities, the protect area shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor. The monitor shall have the authority toalt Any activities impacting potentially significant cultural resources until the resources can be evaluated for si nificance and cleared or mitigated. the monitoring program shall also include consultation with theocal Native American representatives (e.g., Torres and/or Morongo Reservations). A 11 tj 4.0 INITIAL STUDY t I I r ri ri ri 4.0-1 The Ranch Final — May 2002 a 11 C� k 11 1 LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INITIAL STUDY 1. INTRODUCTION The Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended, the Guidelines for 7 lenientation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), and the City of La Quinta Environmental uidelines. Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the lead agency, in this case the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, c. Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant, and d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of a project's environmental effects. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. According to Section 15063 b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if the lead agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall do one of the following: 1. Prepare an EIR, 2. Use a previously prepared EIR which the lead agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand, or 3. Determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. The lead agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration. The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study 2. PROJECT INFORMATION Case No(s)JProject Title: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning: County Assessor's Information: 770-200-009 thru 010 770-260-017 772-150-001 thru 005 772-290-001 thru 007, and -009 thru 013 772-310-002 thru 007, and -009 thru 013 The Ranch Tourist Commercial (TC), Golf Course (G), Open Space (OS) Low Density Residential (RL), Commercial Office (CO), Open Space (OS) Map Book No. 770 List of other agencies whose approval is required: City of La Quinta (e.g., permits, financial approval, participating agreement) Site Description: (Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil . stability, plants and animals, historical or scenic aspects.) The Project Site consists of 707 acres of land, of which 182 acres is a portion of the Coral Reef Mountains with steep terrain. The non -mountainous portion of the project site, located west of Jefferson Street and south of Avenue 52, has historically been used for agricultural purposes, including citrus orchards. The majority of the site is now fallow agricultural land. All agricultural plants have been removed from the site. Vegetation communities on the site include a small amount of native vegetation, fallow agricultural land, and disturbed vegetation. The areas of native vegetation on the site have been disturbed by a number of human activities including off -road vehicle (ORV) usage, trash Bumping, and equestrian activity. Existing structures on site include 3 small office/maintenance buildings, 1 of which is abandoned, an abandoned single-family home and two vacant trailers. A small area in the western part of the site along the base of the Coral Reef Mountains is the home to the Dave Pelz Short Game School for Golf with its associated administrative building. The Coachella Canal divides the Project Site into two separate areas. The canal enters the site from the east and then turns south halfway through the site. As it reaches the Coral Reef Mountains, it wraps around the toe of the slope and exits the Project Site when it crosses 540' Street at the southern boundary. Surrounding Properties: (Describe the surrounding properties and the effect the proposed project will have on the area.) The regional location of the City of La Quinta is illustrated in Figure 1. The City encompasses approximate1 31 square miles of both mountainous and desert terrain land area in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. La Quinta is a community of which nearly 13 square miles consist of protected mountain open space, parkland or golf course open space designations. La Quinta is located within the Coachella Valley portion of central Riverside County, to southern Ca ifornia. This area forms the northwest extension of the Colorado Desert in southeastern California. It is characterized by arid, sparsely vegetated desert land. The valley floor is composed generally of sandy soils that were deposited through the effects of water and wind erosion. Westerly winds are persistent, and contribute to extensive erosion and the formation of blowsand activity and sand dunes. Vehicular access to the Coachella Valley is provided by the Interstate 10 Freeway, providing an east -west linkage between the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the west, and the desert areas to the east. Figure 2 illustrates the local vicinity of the Project Site. The proposed project is located in the southeastern area of the City. The site boundaries include Jefferson Street to the east, Avenue 54 to the south, Avenue 52 to the north, and the Coral Reef Mountains to the west. Land uses in the project vicinity include a custom home residential subdivision to the north, undeveloped properties to the east approved for the development of golf course and residential uses, the 1,650-acre PGA West golf and residential community to the south and mountains to the west. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Community Development Department 78-495 Cade Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Project Description: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation.) The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (Agency) is proposing to acquire the 707-acre site, including 182-acres of mountainous land to be preserved as permanent open space, located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The acquisition of the 525-acres of non -mountainous property would be by purchase agreement while the ac uisition of the 182-acres of mountainous land would be b dedication or donation. The non -mountainous portion of the site would be developed with public golf courses andyresort uses consistent with the La Quinta General flan Land Use Map Designations for the site. As shown in Figure 34, the Project Site is designated under the 2002 General Plan Update for golf course uses with tourist commercial uses in the center of the site. The golf course designation The Ranch April 2, 2002 1 A 11 11 5 mi. 2.5 mi. 0 mi. 5 mi. L 1 FIGUREI IRegional Location 223-09.03/02 11 6000' 3000' 0' 6000' n FIGUREZ 1 Project Site Vicinity 223-09.03/02 AM L 11 11 1 SOURCE: CH, qf" &e . r.—I f . EA bh 21 Cq M la Chino G.-I Pun (ReCanme O d), MMU 20. 2002 ...... L. OT FI©uRt� ' - Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Initial Study allows both public and private golf courses with their associated ancillary uses, while the tourist commercial designation allows resort hotels, recreational uses, conference centers and ancillary retail shops. The tourist commercial designation also allows Timeshare units with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, The Proposed Project includes two 18-hole public golf courses with a 25,000 square foot clubhouse as well as a 9-hole public golf course which would accommodate a junior golf program. The proposed resort uses would include a 250- room hotel with a 10,000 square foot conference center, 300 Timeshare fractional or condo hotel units (Timeshare) and 25,000 square feet of ancillary commercial uses. The Agency is proposing to acquire the Project Site at this time. Subsequent discretionary actions required to develop the site include adoption of a Specific Plan, a zone change to make the zoning designations consistent with the General Plan land use designations, a Conditional Use Permit for the 300 Timeshare units, a Site Development Permit and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site to accommodate the proposed uses. Additional design features to be incorporated into the pro#ect include passive park space, trails, and view corridors. The existing PeIz short game golf school no remain. o development is planned on the 182 acres of the Coral Reef Mountains located on the western portion of the Project Site. Site History: The Origfinal Specific flan was adopted in March 1985 with a Miti ated Negative Declaration (SCH#: 85050112) and was called the Oak Tree West Specific Plan (Specific Plan 85-006.1. This plan called for a 200 unit Hotel (18 Hole Public Golf Course), 45 Holes of Golf (Including 18 Hole Public Course), 2,145 Dwelling Units on 1,020 acres, a 25,000 square -foot golf club house, a 200,000 square -foot office/commercial center on 3.5 acres, and 115 acres of open space. Since the adoption of the original specific plan, three amendments to the specific plan have occurred. The first amendment (resolution 98-115), a negative declaration was approved in October 1989, the second amendment (resolution 98-13) was categgorical exempt from CRQA and ado pled in February 1998, while the third and most recent amendment (resolution 98-85), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, was adopted in July 1998. This amendment added two new development sites to the Specific Plan area. One 2-acre site (formerly CVWD reservoir site) in the northwest corner of the plan area, with one 3-acre site on Avenue 54, 1,500 feet from Jefferson Street. As a result of this amendment, the Specific Plan allowed for the development of 588 acres of Low Density Residential uses, 400 acres of golf courses, 3.5 acres as office commercial uses and 175.5 acres of open space for a total developable area of 1,167 acres. This acreage total included land that was named'The Citrus.' It should be noted that The Citrus was originally a part of the Oaik Tree West Specific Plan. All land within The Citrus has been developed consistent with the approvals for Specific Plan 85-006 - Oak Tree West and is no longer included as part of the Project Site. The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study 3. DETERMINATION Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated; as indicated by the analysis on the following pages. aLand Use and Planning ® Transportation/Circulation ® Public Services Population and Housing ® Biological Resources ® Utilities and Service Systems r;71 Geophysical Energy and Mineral Resources 11 ram, l Aesthetics I®� Water " Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise ElRecreation V N Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination. The basis of this initial evaluation: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be .a 1171 VN significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The pproject MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [`T1 LJ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has I —I LJ been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been by measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the following pages, if the I' addressed mitigation effect is a "potentially significant impact" or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a have been analyzed adequately I significant effect in this case because all potentially si nificant effects (a) in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and %) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. COMMENTS: I' [I Devvlopment 7 Date: Aril 2, 2002 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanation of Evaluations: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the imp, simply does not appply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact"` answer s7lould be explained where it is based on roject-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole of the action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ® ❑ b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or El ❑ ❑ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ ❑ Elvicinity? d Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or ❑ ❑ ❑ minority community)? Documentation: a-c) As shown on Figure 3, the Project Site is designated on the 2002 General Plan Update as Golf Course (G), Tourist Commercial (TC) and Open Space (OS) with a Hillside Overlay that exists over the portion of the site containing the Coral Reef Mountains. Although the non -mountainous portions of the site are currently zoned as Low Density Residential (RQ and Commercial Office (CO), the Project includes a zone charge that would change the zoning classifications to Tourist Commercial ('TC) and Golf Course Q. This would result in the zoning of the site being consistent with the General Plan land use designations. The Golf Course area exists on the northern, northeastern and eastern ,portions of the site, while the Tourist Commercial area is situated in the interior of the site. A small portion of the site is also designated as Tourist Commercial along Jefferson Street, just north of where the Coachella Canal enters the site from the east. All uses would be planned in a manner that is consistent with the land use designations established in the General Plan. The planned golf courses, clubhouse, hotel with conference center, and ancillary commercial uses are all consistent with the two land use designations. It should be noted that Timeshare units are permitted in the Tourist Commercial land use category with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The nearest surrounding uses are a residential subdivision to the north and PGA Wes# located to the south The Pro osed Project would develop land uses that are similar to those in PGA West to the south and recently approvedpfor the property to the east of the site. The pproposed olf courses would be developed along the site boundaries and would act as a buffer to all surroun( img uses. o significant impacts assvctated with land use conflicts would occur. d) As documented in the 2002 General Plan, the Project Site is designated as Golf Course and Tourist Commercial. No portion of the site is designated with an agricultural overlay. Additionally, no portion of the site has been identified as Prime Farn-landl Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the State Department of Conservation Important Farmland Maps.' Therefore, although small portions of the site are used for growing sod for golf courses, development of the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources. 1 Taken from the Department of Conservation Website, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/. The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study e) The Project Site is primarily undeveloped aside from a few scattered structures. There is no existing established. commu* within the project boundaries. Furthermore, the Project Site is presently in an undeveloped state, bordered to the north, east and south by residential and golf course uses with invited commercial land use designations. Development of the Proposed Project would not disrupt or divide an existing commxmity or low income housing.Development of the Project Site, as proposed, would implement the City of La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts would occur. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official or local population projections? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Documentation: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact ElEl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑1771 a-c) The Proposed Project would introduce land uses consistent with the General Plan Land Use desirt tions for the site adopted in March 2002. No portion of the site is designated for residential use under the Project. Timeshare units, planned as part of the Project, would not be permanent residences. The Timeshare units would attract visitors to the city as opposed to adding permanent residents to the City. As the planned uses would be consistent with the land use designations for the site, growth attributable to the proposed project has already been accounted for in the most recent General Plan and -Certified EIR. Public infrastructure required to serve the project exists in the local vicinity. No infrastructure extensions would be required as a result of Project implementation. Given that the Timeshare units would not increase the permanent population of the City and that there are no existing residences on the Project. Site, the project would not induce substantial growth in the area or displace existing housing. No impacts to population and housing would occur. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Fault rupture? O b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? j j I g Subsidence of the land? L1 h. Expansive soils? i. Unique geologic or physical features? El ❑ Documentat"son: a-i) A City-wide geotechnical analysis was recently conducted for the 2002 General Plan and Certified EIR. As documented in the General Plan, the site is underlain by Quaternary Terrace Deposits. This soil type is predominately found along the basin floor and does not provide any major engineering concerns. As with any area in the southern California region, the Project Site would be subject to,and shaking dun' a seismic event. No evidence of an Alquist-Psriolo zone, or active or potential active fauZtin was encountered anywhere within the General Plan boundaries. The Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) For the City of La Quinta is a 7.2 while the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) is an 8.0 when measured on the Richter Scale. Given the probability of ground shaking, there is also a potential for liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement, as the soils at the site have the potential for hydroconsolidation with the addition of water. Furthermore, as the Coachella Canal bisects the property, the General Plan indicates that the canal is a levee with a potential liquefaction and lateral spreading hazard. As determined through a geotechnical investigation conducted on the Project Site, groundwater is expected to be deeper than 60 feet as soil borings to depths of 50 feet did not encounter any trace of groundwater.' The absence of shallow groundwater indicates that the potential for liquefaction and seismically -induced settlement at the Project Site is low. As there are no bodies of water or active volcanoes in the vicinity, the potential for seiches, tsunamis and volcanoes is minimal. Loose soils observed on the site have a potential for settlement if subjected to structural loads if left in their present condition. These loose surficial soils are also subject to wind erosion and transport. Ground subsidence due to the lowering of the existingroundwater table is considered unlikely as no such subsidence has occurred anywhere near the City of La 8uinta. The presence of expansive soils in the City of La Quinta is common. As the project would comply with site specific engineering recommendations and modern construction techniques, geotechnical impacts would be Tess than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures Prior to the design and construction of any structural improvements, a comprehensive design level geotechnical evaluations shall be prepared that includes subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Recommendations for &rading/earthwork, surface and subsurface drainage, foundations, pavement structural sections, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation. Al buildin s lanned as a result of the Proposed Project shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Mode, as adopted by the City of La Quinta. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Investigation, November 1999. 10 The Ranch April 2, 2002 0 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: SiImpact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? El 11 b. Exposure of people or property to water -related a ® U hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d. Chan es in the amount of surface water in any water a body. El 19 e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 a El X water movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through El interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g, Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? El rh. Impacts to groundwater quality? Ei a X El i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? El El 0 NZI Documentation: a-d) The proposed pro]'ect would convert primarily vacant land into a developed urbanized setting. A site specific water duality evaluation was prepared to analyze potential water quality issues associated with development of the site, As pervious soils would be developed as a result of pro ect implementation, there would be a slight change in the absorption rate, and drainage pattern of the site. Additionally, there would be an increase in the amount of storm runoff from the site. Through site -specific mitigation measures, the increase in the amount of water runoff from the site would be less than significant. The report further determined that as the Project Site is outside the 500-year flood area and would develop on -site water detention basins, there would not be any significant flood -related impacts' As no surface water bodies existing within the Project Site, no impacts to surface water bodies would occur. However, the prtiect would introduceran-made small water ponds and lakes that introduces a potential for landscapin& products to impact the water quality. Mitigation measures Iwould reduce this ' tential impact to less than significant. Finally, as no surface waters exist on the site, no rivers, streams or dry washes would be significantly impacted as a result of project development. e-i) Domestic and irri ation water is provided throughout La Quinta and the eastern Coachella Valley by the Coachella Valley'ater District (CVWD). The CVWD serves an area of l' approximately 1,000 square miles within the Counties of Riverside, Imperial and San Diego. The main source o1 potable water ,provided to La Quints is from an underground aquifer beneath the valley. Irrigation water is supplied from this saute aquifer and from the Colorado I{iver via the Coachella Canal, and is consumed ggenerallyy in the area From Indio and La Quinta south to the Salton Sea, The CVWD was contacted in March 2402' in order to determine the 1' availability of water service for the Project Site and whether or not it could supply the proposed uses. J According to the CVWD, there is ample water su ply to serve the proposed project without substantially or adversely changing the quantity, quality or flow o groundwater resources. This is consistent with the findings of the water quality evaluation completed for the Project Sites Potable water would be provided to the project byy then through the existing 12-inch water main located in Jefferson Street and 18-inch lines in Avenue 1, 52. When possible, non -potable water supplies would be utilized for construction purposes. This reduces the overall demand for astable water. Duringg the eonstruction phases of development, non -potable water would be used to suppress dust generated by earthmoving activities, the operation of vehicles on dirt surfaces, and exposed dirt surfaces. This water would be obtained from the Coachella Canal. Water for irrigation of the golf course and landscape setbacks would be obtained from the Coachella Canal. In a continued effort to reduce the 1, total amount of water either used or wasted, specific water conservation measures for both landscaping and 1 3 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Water Quality Evaluation, June 2000. 4 Jim Zimmerman, Development Service Supervisor, Coachella Valley Water District, March 2002. 5 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Water Quality Evaluation, June 2000. 11 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study irrigation, and plumbing controls may be identified and placed as conditions on the connection of the project to the CVWD's facilities. In addition to these CVWD conditions, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, no significant water related impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures At such time that non -potable water sources become available to the project site, the project shall be connected to this resource and utilize the non -potable water for irrigation purposes. During construction activities, water trucks are to acquire water from non -potable water sources, such as reclaimed water and/or canal water. A hydrolo y master plan shall be prepared for the Project Specific Plan. Further, a hydrology study shall be prepared For the hydrology master plan and submitted to the City of La Quinta for approval prior to the issuance of &rading permits. This study shall demonstrate that the project would construct storm drainage and hydrologic improvements, such as on -site stormwater retention basins, that conform to the City's toaster hydrology and storm drain improvement program as well as implement regional and local requirements, policies and programs. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized as a means of reducing water consumption. Prior to the initiation of any construction activity on the project site, a NPDES permit from the RWQCB shall be filed for. A Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Monitoring Plan are requirements of the NPDES permit. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES program requirements. Any existing groundwater wells located on the site that are no longer in use shall be abandoned in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to operation of the golf course, the golf course operator shall prepare a Golf Course Management Plan that includes an irrigation plan, water usage plan, and chemical management plan in order to reduce, to the extent feasible, golf course irrigation runoff and percolation into the groundwater basin. Design of new roads, golf courses, man-made ponds, common landscape areas, storm water basins, and other facilities shall incorporate proper engineering controls to channel storm and irrigation runoff into detention/retention facilities that are sized to accommodate design year storms and that incorporate filtration systems or other devices to reduce the potential for herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to percolate to groundwater or surface water runoff. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? El El M Documentation: a-d) Construction and operational air quality modeling was conducted based on the size of the Project Site, types of uses planned for development and their corresponding trip rates. Based on these, as well as other variables, air quality emissions forecasted for the Proposed Project would not exceed any air quality emission thresholds after mitigation.` Additionally, the project would not introduce any permanent residents within the Project Site. There is no potential to expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutants. All the planned uses for the Proposed Project are fairly typical land uses found throughout the City. None of the uses pose any special concern with Air quality model results are provided in Appendix A. 12 The Ranch April 2, 2002 11 IInitial Study regards to harmful or odorous pollutants that could negatively affect sensitive receptors located outside the Project Site boundaries. Given the size and scale of the Project, which consists largely of open space golf course uses, the project will not have any noticeable effect on local climate and atmospheric conditions. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Construction equipment shall be phased and operated in a manner to ensure the lowest construction -related pollutant emission levels practical, and shall require the use of water trucks, temporary irr ption systems and other measures which will limit fugitive dust emissions during site disturbance and construction. Air quality control measures identified in the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan shall be implemented. A PM10 Management Plan for construction operations shall be submitted prior to the issuance of grading include dust control: such as: permits. The plan shall management Water site and equipment morning and evening • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering • Pave construction roads, where appropriate • Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction related traffic congestion: • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic disturbance • Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes • Provide flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary • Schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak traffic hours _ Provide rideshare incentives to construction personnel Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize solar or low emission water heaters to reduce natural gas consumption and emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize built-in energy -efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Shade trees shall be provided in close proximity to Timeshare, hotel and golf facility structures to reduce building heating/cooling needs. 1 Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners to reduce energy consumption and emissions. I' Timeshare and golf facility construction shall be constructed using special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows to reduce thermal gain or loss. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient ' lighting (including parking areas) to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. lTimeshare and golf facility construction shall use light-colored roofing materials in residential construction as opposed to dark roofing materials. I1 Bus stops shall be positioned at locations on and adjacent to the site to be determined in coordination with the bus transit service provider that will serve the project area. Bus stops should be generally located 1 /4 mile walking distance from Timeshare units. ' The golf course shall design on -site circulation plans for clubhouse parking to reduce vehicle queuing. Further Study Required: ' No further analysis is required regarding this topic. J J� 13 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study I Potentially VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant Would the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharpEl El 0 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? C. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearbyEl El ® D uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? jl El El I� e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle El El El VN racks)? g Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? El El ® ri D_QcumMt9_1i9_n: a) The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. All planned land uses have been selected, planned and configured according to the land use designations illustrated on the City's Land Use map? Additionally, the type and amount of land uses included in the project is consistent with the land uses assumed on the site in the General flan EIR traffic model. As concluded in the 2002 General Plan EIR, no significant impacts would result. A traffic analysis was prepared for a similar pro ect planned on the proposed site. In order #o Further analyze project -specific transportation related issues o? the project, an update traffic analysis was prepared that compared the Proposed Project to that which was formerly proposed. The daily trip generation for the formerly proposed project was 25,596 trips. Based on trip rates for the planned uses, the Proposed Pro ect would generate a total of 6,383 trip, as shown in 'Table 1, a reduction of over 19,000 daily Frips wen his approximately a 75 compared to the former project. When compared to the former project, represents percent reduction in the total number of trips. As concluded in the updated traffic analysis, all of the study roadway Implementation of the following mitigation intersections would operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. measures would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. fiable1, Fra .Deed i and:Uses Daily Land Use uanti Tri S Golf Course 45 holes 1,608 Resort Hotel 250 rooms 2,000 'l Timeshare Units 300 units 1,758 Spgcialt� 25,000 T. ft. 1.017 Total 6,383 I Source: WK & Associates, Inc., The Ranch Project Change, Supplemental Traffic Evaluation, March 2002. b g) Na project specific design plans have been prepared for the Proposed Project which layout and define access points, internal circulation, parkin provisions or alternative transportation routes and programs. The Project would be designed and developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and City's Municipal Code. These regulatory documents dictate and govern guidelines and standards for the design of proposed developments. Specifically, requirements for site access, parking and circulation as well as alternative modes of transportation are contained in these resources. Project level site plans would be developed in accordance with these regulatory documents and would be subject to approval by the City and the City's Traffic Engineer to ensure compliance and implementation of all requirements. The Project would not impact rail, water or air traffic as it is not located in an area that is adjacent to any of these travel facilities. -No significant impacts would occur. La Quinta General Plan, Exhibit 2.1, p. 16. 14 The Ranch April 2, 2002 IInitial Study Mitigation Measures: A traffic sipal shall be installed at the Project entrance and Avenue 52, the Project entrance and Jefferson Street and at the intersection of Avenue 54 and Jefferson Street when and if they are warranted. The developer of the site shall be responsible for payment of a fair share of the cost of installing these signals. Further Study Required: -� No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Less than Would the proposal result in impacts to: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their � ® j� habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, LJ insects, animals, and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c. Locally -designated natural communities (e.g., oak ❑ ❑ ^� forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Uocumentati ' ll�� II�II a-c) The 707 acre Project Site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and the majority of the non - mountainous portion of site consists of disturbed non-native vegetation. Five vegetation communities occur on the 525 acre non -mountainous portion of the Project Site. These five vegetation communities consist of disturbed vegetation, agricultural lands, tamarisk ggroves, desert saltbush scrub and mesquite hummocks. The majority of the site, approximately, 440 acres, are disturbed areas consisting of abandoned citrus ,roves, sod fields, and areas containing the few existing buildings on the site. Approximately 40 acres of the site is presently used to grow turf for golf course use. Tamarisk groves occupy approximately 8 acres of the site. Native plant communities on the site are limited to approximately 8 acres of desert saltbush scrub and 3.4 acres of mesquite hurnmocks. The Coachella Valley Canal occupies approximately 26 acres of the site. A series of biological surveys have been conducted on the site since 1999. General biological surveys were conducted in March and April of 1999, Thirty-one special -status wildlife species are known to occur in the general project vicinity. Focused surveys for five of these wildlife species and wetlands were conducted in July and August of 2000. Focused surveys for Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, flat -tailed homed lizard, Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel, Palm Springs pocket mouse, Coachella Valle grasshopper and peninsular bighorn sheep were conducted based on the recommendation of the USFWS and Valley at a meeting on the site in 1999. All other sensitive species were surveyed for in conjunction with these surveys or the 1' previous survR s. None of these five species were observes during focused surveys. One species o special- ) concem, a Loerhead shrike, wis observed on the site during the 1999 surveys. A second special -status species, the bk-tailed gnatcatrs, was observed on an adjscent site during surveys 1999 and, for this reason, is considered tv have a hpotential to be present on the site. Suitablabitat for these two species comprises very few acres and as site is notlikely to sustain a lar a population of either species, the removal ofsuitable habitat within the projt boundaries is not a significant impact. The Santa Rosa Mountains have historically provided habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep, a state and federally listed endangered species. Additional focused surveys performed m 1999 found no evidence of ` bighorn sheep in the vicinityy of the Proposed Project. The USFWS-has defined the "essential habitat" of the peninsular bi horn sheep. Fssent'ial habitat covers the entire portion of the Coral Reef Mountains within the Project boundaries dawn to the toe-oF-slope. As no development would infringe above the toe -of -slope, no portion of the project would be developed in the essential peninsular bighorn sheep habitat. Nonetheless, I, standard measures are included For the project should peninsular bighorn sheep come on site. Through the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, nv significant impacts would occur. Seven special -status plant species are known to occur in the general project vicinity. A special -status plant survey was completed on the site in April 2000. No individuals or populations of Coachella Valley milk -vetch I' were found dun% these focused surveys. In addition, no other special -status plant species were observed during surveys. No significant impacts to special status plant species, therefore, will occur. 15 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study One sppecial-status vegetation community occurs within the project boundaries. Mesquite hummocks, classified by CDFG as partial �+ stabilized desert sand fields, are considered a sensitive habitat type. This vegetation wmmunity is ranked 'threatened" by the CDFG. Two mesquite hummocks occupy a�proximatel 3.5 acres of the Pro Site. These two hump -odes have been degraded by trash dum and ORV activity. However, the loss of 3.5 aeres of this habitat is adverse and is considered a poten- tially significant impact. With the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below, this impact would be less than significant. d) A wetland delineation, completed in August of 2000, identified four potential jurisdictional areas on the Project Site including a system of channels, a swale, and two excavated retention basins. All of these features, except one of the excavated basins, were dry on the surface at the time of the survey. Two converging channels run From the base of the Coral Reef Mountains to the Coachella Valley Canal levee. The main channel is 250 feet long�,, 4 feet deep, and varies from 30 to 50 feet wide. Vegetation along the channels is dominated by saltbush (AtripFex spp). The total ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional acreages of this feature are 0.1 acres and 0.18 acres, respectively. The swale occurs in the vicinity of the channels and was created by the canal levee preventing surface water run-off to the east. As a result, the swale extends 2,200 feet alon& the western edge of the canal, varying from 10 to 30 feet in width. No anaerobic soil indicators or hydrophytte lants were present at this feature. Because this wet area is the result of human activity and lacks two ofpthe three characteristics used to determine jurisdiction, it is unlikely that this feature is jurisdictional. However, the jurisdictional determination was deferred to the regulatory agencies. The first of the two retention basins is located in the northern portion of the proposed project area, south of the Citrus Golf Course Community. This site was inundated at the time of the delineation and is expected to be so for most of the year, given the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. The surface of the 2.2 acre -basin, used to collect runoff from the community to the north, had collected- water several inches deep across almost the entire basin. Despite the fact that the basin meets the physical criteria of a wetland, it may not be jurisdictional because it was artificially created. In cases such as this, jurisdiction is determined by the regulatory agencies. The other retention basin, apparently used as water storage for orange grove irrigation occupies the northeast corner of the site and was not inundated at the time the delineation was performed. However, the soil was damp below the surface and faint evidence of anaerobic soil conditions was present. This basin occupies 1.8 acres and harbors an assemblage of plants that narrowly meets the hydrophytic plant criterion. Because this basin was artificially created and has since been abandoned and because the delineation was conducted during and extremely dry time of year, determining wetland hydrology was difficult. However, the soil dampness and basin topography contributed to the determination that wetland hydrology was present. The jurisdictional status could not be determined for this artificial feature and requires a regulatory agency determination. A total of 5.29 acres of potential wetlands that occur on the site may be subject to ALOE/CDFG jurisdiction.' As no specific project level site and landscape plans have been prepared, it cannot be determined at this time if any of these resources would be impacted by the proposed development. Given the limited coverage of the site by these resources compared to the size of the planned golf courses, the resources could easily. be planned into the golf course or other portions of the site where they would not be disturbed. Should the site and landscape plan not include these features, any development, temporary or ppermanent, within areas under ACOE jurisdiction would be regulated b this agency and would otentiall require a Section 404 individual or nationwide permit before this development could proceed In addition, development activities within streambeds, lakes, and drainages are also subject to regulatory action by the CDFG under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFG jurisdiction extends to all riparian vegetation in the shvambed and banks of these areas. Approval of a CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required prior to the initiation of actions under this agency's jurisdiction. Because development of the Project Site could remove all orsome of the potential wetlands on -site and because these areas are regulated by state and federal resource agencies, this loss would be considered a significant impact without the implementation of the following mitigation measures. e) The proposed Project Site is surrounded on two sides by mostly developed land, consisting of residences, agricultural crops, and fallow or abandoned cropland. The Coral Reef Mountains border the western edge of the site and constitute a large, natural open space. There is one area adjacent to and east of the proposed project that contains native scrub habitat. This area is not directly connected to any large open spaces and native habitat adjacent to it is patchy and disjunct. Therefore, the Project Site does not serve as a movement corridor between large open spaces. Mitigation Measures A mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan has been prepared to protect peninsular big horn sheep, and other wildlife, from entering the non -mountainous portion of the site proposed for development. This Jurisdictional Delineation Report, The Ranch at La Quinta, Impact Sciences, September 2000. 16 The Randi April 2, 2002 1 Initial Study 1 1 1 I I F 1 f� it concept plan illustrates a continuos buffer to the toe -of -slope in areas where development could occur adjacent to the mountain edge. The concept plan delineates the location, acreage and native plant species envisioned for the mitigation area. This plan shall be incorporated into the project design and shall be subject to review by the City prior to the issuance of grading penntts. A copy of this mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept plan is available for review at the City of La Quinta Community Development Department. If Bigghorn Sh enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the functional equivalent) between the deveioprnent and the hillside shall be constructed. The ga should be 11 centimeters4.3 inches) or less. If determined necessary, the City shall construct temporary fe�xicin while permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which Bighorn Sheep can be entangled. If the Agency transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to the hillside, the Agency shall reserve an easement sufficient for the construction of fencing if needed in the future.. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall be kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where applicable. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG. A construction plan shall be prepared and provide, to the extent practicable, construction activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during gradin and construction activities any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period from fan.1 through June 30th. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the hillside. Prior to any construction or site preparation activities that would impact the 3.4 acres of mesquite hummock, the agency or project developer shall enter into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOV shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 3.4 acres of mesquite humnnocic in the Willow Hole area or in another area where the habitat is contiguous and large preserves already protect muds of this habitat type. The exact location and cost shall be determined through consultation with CDFG and the selected organization. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic plans such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees may remain. All swimming pools located on the Project Site shall be fenced pursuant to City regulations. Prior to the commencement of on -site grading, a 404 permit shall be obtained, if legally required, for alteration of areas under the ACOE jurisdiction. In addition, if development activities are to take place within streambeds or drainages under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, a streambed alteration agreement shall first be obtained, if legally required. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not be harmful to wildlife. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Documentation: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ®❑ ❑ ❑ ® L}} l a) Energy services are provided to the City of La Quinta from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The III) operates six substations which serve the City. As stated in the Certified General Plan EIR, the IID has stated that they would be able to supply electricity to future developments. All buildings constructed as a result of the 17 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study project would be required to conform to Title 24 of the Uniform ]wilding Code, which requires energy efficient envelop construction, equipment and fixtures. Landscapping and irrigation plans will be reviewed to ensure implementation of water efficient measures and drought tolerant plants. Furthermore, development of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan. Impacts associated with the increased demand on electricity and energy resources have been addressed in the General Plan EIR, As the Proposed Project would conform to all standard energy efficient building codes, no significant impacts to energy consumption would occur. b) Most of the developable areas in the City are located in areas with a minimal presence of significant mineral deposits. The sole mineral production site within the City is currently non -operative and is not located on the Project Site. Development of the proposed Project Site would not occur on, or inhibit the production of, any mineral deposits.' Non-renewable resources, such as natural gas, petroleum products, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper and other metals, sand and gravel are considered to be commodities which are available in a finite supply. The processes that created these resources occur over a long period of time. Therefore, the replacement of these resources would riot occur over the life of the Project. To varyin degrees, these materials are all readily available and same materials, such as sand and gravel, are abun ant. Other commodities, such as metals, natural gas, and petroleum products, are also readily available, but are finite in supply. If not consumed by this Project, these resources would likely be committed to other projects in the region intended to meet the anticipated growth outlined in the General Plan. Furthermore, the investment of resources in the Project would be typical o the level of investment normally required for a project of similar scale. Provided that all standard building codes, including energy conservation standards, are followed, no wasteful use of non-renewable resources is anticipated. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of but limited to: O hazardous substances (including, not oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response ' plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health El El R X hazard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential El health hazards? e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, O grass, or trees? Documentation: a-e) The Proposed Project would involve development of golf courses, a hotel, Timeshare units and associated commercial uses. None of the planned uses represent uses that pose a substantial risk of explosion or release of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the planned uses do not pose any health hazard or potential health hazard. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the entire Project site to deterrnine if any on or off site locations presented any specific hazard related impacts to the planned development of the Ranch propertyo As concluded in the reports, no off -site locations were identified that could environmentally impact the site. The abandoned single-family residence located on -site was investigated. It was determined that asbestos was present in some of the building materials. With the proper demolition techniques, no impacts would result from demolition." Additionally, very low concentrations of benzene, toluene and lead were detected at the former 9 La Quinta General Plan EIR, July 2001, Certified March 20, 2002. 10 The Phase 1 site investigation was prepared for the entire site through two separate reports. One for the portion of the site north of the Coachella Canal, while the second report was prepared on the portion of the site south of the Coachella Canal. Both reports were prepared in February 2001. 11 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Environmental Site Assessment South Ranch Property, February 2001. 18 The Ranch April 2, 2002 1 Initial Study location of 2 underground storage tanks. However, as these concentrations were very low and the underground tanks were removed and closed by the appropriate regulatory agency at that time, no further study or investigation was warranted." The Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans as the project would not obstruct the existing or planned circulation network. Additionally, the site plan would be subject to review by the county fire department to ensure all fire code regulations, including brush clearance and fuel modification zones, are adequate. This would in turn guarantee that there would not be an increased fire hazard within the project boundaries, nor in the local- vicinity. Impacts associated with hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Prior to the demolition or renovation of the on -site single family residence, asbestos containing materials (ACM) shall be removed in accordance with current regulatory guidelines. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant. Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Increases in existing noise levels? El ® O b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? El L] Documentation: a-b) A citywide roadway noise analysis was recently completed for the General Plan EIR. Noise monitoring was conducted adjacent to the Project Site at the intersection of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The calculated CNEL level was 67.4d8(A) measured 100 feet from the centerline. Additionally roadway volumes were modeled to calculate noise contours for both existing and future build -out conditions on roadways throughout the planning area and adjacent to the Project Site. Currently, Jefferson Street, south of Avenue 48 experiences a 65dli(A) noise contour 84 feet from the centerline. Future build -out roadway noise levels were also calculated along the same segments. The future build -out noise environment along this roadway segment was identical to the existing conditions. Although the specific design has not been prepared for the Project, it would be planned and developed consistent with the General Plan. As currently provided in the General Plan, the golf course uses are located` along the project boundaries with the Tourist Commercial uses, and consequently any use that would generate any noticeable noise is located in the interior of the site. The planned golf courses would effectively serve as a buffer between the outside noise environment and the planned uses such as the hotel and Timeshare units. All project development would be constructed as to incorporate modem noise attenuation construction medxds for the planned structures. Throu.h consistent planning and development with the General Plan and the implementation of the following mitigation measures, noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction noise would occur throughout site development with a majority of the noise intensive activities occurring at the beginning of the Project. These activities would require demolition of some of the existing on - site structures; site preparation (e.g., excavation of the proposed ponds and grading); construction of internal roadways, other infrastructure, buildings; and cleanup. These activities typically involve the use of heavy equipment, such as scrapers, tractors, loaders, and concrete mixers. Trucks would be used to deliver equipment and building materials, and to haul away waste materials. Smaller equipment, such as jack hammers pneumatic tools, saws. and hammers would also be used throughout the site during its development. This equipment would generate both steady state and episodic noise that wound be heard both on and off the project site. Noise levels generated during the construction phase typically affect the orcu ants of nearby residential uses. Given the existing suraoundm,gg uses, a residential subdivision and the PGA West golf course residential community exist to the north and souk of the site, resec�ively. A majority of the development would occur at the interior of the site, as the project edges would be built with the planned golf courses. Therefore, the closest homes to the construction area would only be subject to golf course construction, as opposed to heavy infrastructure and structural construction. Additionally, the residential subdivision to the north is shielded from the Project Site by a solid masonry wall that would substantially reduce construction noise levels at the existing residences. A person who is horse during the day and noise sensitive may find the short-term noise conditions anno ing, however, given that construction activities are short term and in this case, construction noise would' not introduce adjacent uses to sever noise levels and consequently, no significant construction noise impacts. 12 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Environmental Site Assessment North Ranch Property, February 2002. 19 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study As stated earlier, surrounding uses include a residential subdivision to the north, vacant land to the east, the PGA West golf course residential community to the south and mountains to the west. None of these adjacent properties represent a use that would generate severe noise levels. Additionally, given that the proposed golf uses would be developed on the project edges, this would serve as a substantial buffer from adjacent noise sources. Further, this edge treatment would serve to attenuate noise levels from the use proposed at the interior of the site to uses off -site. The Proposed Project would not introduce land uses that would generate severe noise levels. No significant impacts associated with exposing people to severe noise levels would occur as a result of the project. Mitigation Measures Between ,May I and September 30, all construction activities on the project site shall only occur between the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5.00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. Between October 1 and April 30, all construction activity on the project site shall only occur between the ]yours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. All operational activities of the Project shall also be subject to theNoise Ordinance of the City as well. All construction equipment operating in the planning area shall be fitted with well -maintained functional mufflers to limit noise emissions. To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and hauling routes shall be located away from existing residences. The design, selection and placement of the mechanical equipment for various buildings shall include consideration of the potential noise impact they may have on uses within the development site. Silencers and/or barriers shall be provided where necessary at outdoor equipment, such as cooling towers, air cooled condensers and refrigeration compressors/condenser units, and at the air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation systems. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect Potentially upon, or result in a need for new or altered government Potentially Significant Less than services in any of the following areas: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Fire protection? L1 ® a b. Police protection? n ® ❑ c. Schools? l� ❑ d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e. Other governmental services? Docurnentation: a) The Certified EIR for the General Plan has analyzed fire service and the potential demand on fire service through build -out of the General Plan area. Fire service is provided to the City of La Quinta througgh the terms Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) The RCFD currently is rated a 4 in of the Insurance service Office (ISO) Ratin s, of which a 1 is the highest score and a 10 is the lowest score. These ratings are based on response times, sa ety standards, staffing revels and building code standards. The average response time for the City's station is approximately 5 minutes. Currently there are 7 stations serving the planingg area, each with at least two paid firefighters per station. This staffing level fulfills the County Board of Supervisors staffing requirement. Station 70, located within the City of La Quinta is ecjuipped with one fire engine, one brush engine, one rescue squad, two paid firefighters and 5 volunteers. As bid-out continues throughout the General Plan area, increased demand would be placed on the existing fire services. Although fire service would ultimately serve the entire build -out planning area, each individuaF project is subject to review by the RCFD to ensure that adequate fire services would be provided to the project at the time of development. Therefore, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts to fire service wouldbeless than significant. b) The Certified EIR for the General Plan analyzed police protection and the potential demand on police protection through build -out of the General Plan area. Police protection is providedtothe City of La Quinta through the Riverside County Sheriff Department (RCSD). The RCSD is located in the neighboring City of Indio. As with the RCFD the RCSD currently maintains an average response time of 5 minutes. There are currently 3 sheriff units assigned to the City of La Quinta, each with 1 or 2 deputies depending on the time of day. As build -out of 20 The Ranch April 2, 2002 IInitial Study the planning area continues, the demand on sheriff services in the City of La Quinta will continue to increase. Eventually, without increased staffing and equipment, the police protection provided by the RCSD would no longer be adequate. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. c) Currentl , two ppublic school districts serve the City of La Quinta which are the Desert Sands Unified School District {yDSUSd) and the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVIJSD). As no part of the Pro Project would introduce permanent residents, no additional students would be added to the DSUSD. Although the payment of applicable school fees would be required, no significant impacts to schools would occur. d-e) The La Quinta Public Library is a branch of the Riverside County Library System This library is approximately 4,100 square feet in size with 28,4U©I volumes of materials and public computers. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not introduce any permanent residences at build -out. Consequently, there would not be any additional demand on public library services as library services are typically re�uired and provided to the residents of that particular jurisdiction. Any applicable developer fees would be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. No significant library service impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures The Riverside Counter Fire Department, in its review of new development proposals, shall evaluate project plans and the Departments ability to provide proper fire protection. This review shall include, but shall not be limited to, internal circulation, project directories, street names, and numbering systems. New developments shall comply with all City and Fire Department standards. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department shall review new development proposals in order to evaluate project plans and the Department's ability to provide adequate police protection. This review should include, but not be limited to internal circulation, project directories, street names, and numbering systems. New developments shall comply with all established City and Sheriff standards. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Potentially proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial Potentially Significant Less than alterations to the following utilities:: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Power or natural gas? I' b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment? O I' d Sewer or septic tanks? El JJ e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? F-1 ® El Documentation: a) Energy services are provided to the City of La Quinta from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), while The Gas Comppan pprovides natural gas service. The IID operates six substations that serve the City. As stated in the CertifiedyGeneral Plan EIR, the IID will be able to supply electricity to future developments. All buildings constructed as a result of the project would be required to conform to Title 24 of the Uniform Buildin Code, which requires energy efficient envelop construction, equipment and fixtures. Please refer to Section � for more discussion on energy service. —11 A b) Gas is transmitted to the planning area through 36-inch pipelines north of Interstate 10. These transmission lines are split up into various supply lines, which in turn are split again into distribution lines that provide gas to individual structures throughout the City. The Gas Company has indicated that they can accommodate new service to planned developments within the Planning Area through continued interaction with developers." The City requires that all new development shall finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation 13 La Quinta General Plan EIR, Certified March 20, 2001. 21 The Rnnch April 2, 2002 Initial Study measures identified below, impacts would be less than significant with regards to electrical and natural gas service. c) Telephone service in the City of La Quinta is provided byy Verizon California while cattle service is provided by Time Warner. Based on the Certified General plan la1R, Verizon has indicated that it is capable of providing telephone services to the City through build -out as it is planing to expand the existing facilities. Tune Warner renegotiates the franchise a�;regiment with the City every fifteen years, the most recent of which was approved in 1996. Time Warner has indicated that it will be able to service the entire planning area through build -out. The City requires that all new development shall finance i#s share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts would be less than significant with regards to communication systems. d) The CVWD's responsible for both water and wastewater treatment in the City of La Quinta. With regards to water, please refer to Section IV for a more detailed discussion. The CVWD currently maintains a network of sewer trunk lines throughout the City ran r'ng in size from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. An 18-force main is located adjacent to the Project Site in the Jefferson Street right-of-way, Wastewater is transported to one of two treatment facilities operated by the CVWD. One facility, located at Madison Street and Avenue 38, treats approximately 2 million gallons per day, while the second facility, the Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant located on Avenue fi3, currently treats approximately 4 million gallons per day. These facilities have the capacity to treat approximately 2.5 million and 5.8 million gallons per day, respectively. The Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant would treat wastewater generated from the Project Site, as all wastewater in the City of La Quinta generated south of Miles Avenue is transported to this facility. With a current capacity of approximately 1.8 million gallons per day, and an expected 20 percent increase in capacity over the next year, the Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant could adequately serve the Proposed Project" The City requires that all new development finance its share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to property service the proposed development. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts would be less than significant with regards to wastewater service. e) The City of La Quinta is situated in a low desert basin with a subtropical desert climate averaging 4 to b inches of rainfall per year. The'wet' season is typically between December and March. Although average rainfall is minimal in the entire basin, occasional rani and thunder storms have been known to occur which result in flash - flooding situations. These flash -floods are tyy icall contained within washes extending from higher elevations and floodplains adjacent to river courses. Ofparticularimportance to safety during flash -floods are when the floods inundate the alluvial fans extending from the local mountains. Developments adjacent to the alluvial fans are susceptible to storm water runoff that contains a high dirt and rock content. These flooding situations have proven to be significant hazards. Another cause for flooding is when local snow-capped mountains experience drastic temperature changes which in turn result in an increased rate of snow melting, The CVWD is the regional authority responsible for the management of storm waters within the Coachella Valley+, while the City is responsible for storm water management within the City boundaries. Although never officially adoppted, the City� has prepared a storm water management plan that has been used to direct Future management plans and patiries. Fhe C1ty's network of storm water dramage pipes range in size from 1$ to fi0 inches in diameter. in addition to maintavnin the existing storm water drainage network, the City requires that all new developments construe# on -sire retention basins with a water storm capacity. As documented in the Certified General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor is it within a 500-year floodplain. As the site is primarily vacant and undeveloped, project i n lemen' don would result in the increase to impervious surfaces. However, as the project would introduce two golf courses, there is ample opportunity to design the site so that it could effectively manage anticipated storm events. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts related drainage would reduced to a less than significant level. f) The City of La Quinta and the County of Riverside have a contract with Waste Management of the Desert for the collection and transport of solid waste to landfill sites. The service agreement between the City of La Quinta and Waste Management of the Desert is negotiated every 5 years. At tfie time the Certified General Plan EIR was prepared, Waste Management Services of the Desert transported solid waste generated in the City to the Edom Hill Landfill in the City of Indio. The Edam Hill Landfill is permitted to accept up to 2,651 tons per day, with a remaining ea acity of appproximaEely 1.5 million cable yards. The Edom Hill Landfill site has an exppected closure date ofanuary 1, 2[120.i6 The primary method in extending the life of landfill sites is through efFeetive waste diversion and recycling techniques, Currently the City of La Quinta achieves a 54 percent waste diversion rate." It should be noted that since the Certified General Plan EIR was prepared, additional landfill sites have been identified as available to accept solid waste from the Ciky Specifically, Azusa Land Reclamation Co, Lamb Canyon Disposal Site and the Spadra Sanitary Landfill are all available For waste 14 La Quinta General Plan EIR, Certified March 20, 2002. 15 La Quinta General Plan EIR, July 2001 and Ninyo £a Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Water Quality Evaluation, June 2000. 16 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://zuww.ciwmb.ca.govl. 17 Most recent board approved data, 1998 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://Www.cizvmb.ca.gov/. 22 The. Ranch April 2, 2002 A 11 Ji Initial Study disposal from the Project site." With the development of the proposed uses, total solid waste generated from the +City would be expected to increase, however, given that additional landfill sites are available for solid waste acceptance, and with continued waste diversion programs, solid waste impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The most efficient furnaces, water heaters, pool heaters and other equipment that use natural gas shall be used in project construction. The use of kitchen appliances that use natural gas and alternative, renewable energy sources, including solar and wind turbine technologies shall also be used to the greatest extent feasible. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which addresses energy conservation in all proposed uses shall be strictly enforced in project design and construction. All planned uses shall be connected to the city-wide sewer system. A recycling program shall be developed for all proposed uses. Recycling provisions for commercial and business establishments should include separate recycling bins. Items to be recycled at commercial establishments may include white paper, computer legal paper, cardboard, glass and aluminum cans. Professional landscaping services from companies which compost green waste shall be utilized. The Projects fair share of public utilities, infrastructure and improvements required to properly service. the proposed uses shall be determined through consultation with the City Department of Public Works and paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. Any existing or historic septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ® El b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? a c. Create light or glare? F-1 ❑ Documentation: a-c) As documented in the Certified General Plan EIR, the City's most valuable visual resources are the local mountains against the contrastin)i ex ansive valley floor. Local peaks range in upper elevations from 8,000 to 11,000 feet above sea level. The Coral Reef Mountains, which exist on the western property boundary, rise up to about 1,600 feet above sea level. Of other visual importance directly related to the project vicinity are image corridors and how they relate to the surrounding circulation network. Specifically, Jefferson Street is identified as a primary image corridor, while Avenue 52 is a secondary image corridor and Avenue 54 is an agrarian image corridor. Roadways with these classifications are required to be improved and maintained according to the City's Municipal Code. Specifically, setbacks, landscaping materials and signage are all treatments that are regulated through the municipal code. The Project would be required to improve and maintain portions of these roadways. Additionally, developments adjacent to the steep Coral Reef Mountains are required to maintain views from adjacent locations off -site. These design standards specifically deal with building height, setbacks, scale and architectural treatments. Although no site -specific plans have been developed, the project would be designed and developed consistent with the General Plan and City Municipal Code. Again, these guidelines detemune appropriate size, scale, treatment, heights and setbacks required for projects with specific land use designations and zoning classifications. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified below and approval of the Site Development Permit by the Community Development Department, impacts associated with visual resources would be less than significant. 18 California integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/. 23 The Ranch April 1, 2002 Initial Study t Mitigation Measures Landscape designs and materials that complement the native desert environment shall be utilized in project design and construction. Overhead utility lines shall be underVounded to the greatest extent possible through the establishment of an undergrounding and subject to the review of the City Engineer and Public Works program guidelines Department. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum height, number of fixtures, and intensity needed to provide the sufficient security and identification in each development, making every reasonable effort to protect. community's night skies. Signage shall be limited to the locations, sizes, and maintenance requirements necessary to provide functional identification. Safe, convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, screened outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, protected and enhanced- outdoor seating areas, appropriate lighting levels, limited si�nage, and landscaping designs that preserve and enhance visual resources shall be included in the design of any commercial area on the Project Site. Development pro d along designated scenic highways, roadways and corridors shall be reviewed for compatibility wit the natural and built environments to assure maximum viewshed protection and pedestrian and vehicular activity. All grading and development proposed within scenic viewsheds, shall be regulated to minimize adverse impacts to these viewsheds. All grading, development and landscaping plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. r XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact j a. Disturb paleontological resources? O b. Disturb archaeological resources? ® c. Affect historical resources? El El 1 ® 1 d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the fl potential impact area? Documentation: a-e) A recent citywide cultural investigation was conducted for the preparation of the Certified General Plan EIR in August 2000. Due to the location of the City on an ancient lake shoreline, the City of La Quinta contains some of the densest concentrations of archeological sites in California. In order to address site -specific historic and cultural issues, a historic and cultural study was prepared for the site in September 1999." During the preparation of the Phase I cultural resource investigation, eight isolated finds (isolates) were identified within the study area. By definition, isolates are not necessarily significant. However, six of the isolates that were recovered were associated with an archaeological site (CA-RIV-2842) located outside the project area. The finding of these six isolates indicates that deposits associated with this untested site may stills be present. The area associated with these six isolates should be considered archaeologically sensitive. A seventh isolate was found in the northern end of the Project area. This isolate may have been brought to the surface by root action or the removal of trees, indicating a ppotential for buried deposits. The eighth isolate was found within the flood zone of the Coachella Canal. IVo other items were found in association with this isolate. Given the sensitive nature of the Project Site, impacts to other 19 A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of "The Ranch" Project Area Located in the Community of La Quinta County of Riverside, California, McKenna et al., September 1999. 24 The Ranch April 2, 2002 IInitial Study undiscovered isolates could occur during earth disturbing construction work. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Two sets of structures are present on the Project Site. The first is the Kennedy residential complex, which was built after 1950 by previous owners of the property. The second set is the existing "Ranch' complex, all of which were built after 1970. Neither set, according to the site -specific study, is of historic landmark status. Build -out of uses would require earthwork for creation of development pads, land contouring to establish drainage patterns, and trenching to install utilities. Based on the results of the site -specific Phase I survey, the project will not significantly impact known resources on -site. However, given the general sensitivity of the surrounding area, and that the eight isolates found are located in proximity to a recorded site (CA-RIV-2842), the project Isas the potential to impact previously unidentified subsurface resources. Mitigation has been identified to reduce this potential impact below a level considered significant. Mitigation Measures During any ground altering activities associated with project grading or construction, including demolition of existing modem structures and facilities, the project area shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological i monitor. The monitor shall have the authority to talt any activities impacting potentially significant cultural resources until the resources can be evaluated for significance and cleared or mitigated. The monitoring program shall also include consultation with the local Native American representatives (e.g., Torres -Martinez and/or Morongo Reservations). Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 1 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than 1 XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of other facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? Documentation: a-b) With the exception of Lake Cahuilla County Park, the City of La Quinta is responsible for providing and maintaining public parks within the City. Existing public parks within the City include the Fritz Burns Park, the Francis i ck park, Seasons Park, Adams Park, the Eisenhower Park in the Cove, the Desert Pride Park, the Community Park and the Avenue 50 Sports Complex. The State of California passed legislation (Section 66477 of the Government Code) which allows a city to pass an ordinance to require, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, the dedication of land or the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a combination ofpboth, for park or recreational purposes, This legislation, commonly called the "Quimby Act," establishes a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 population as the amount of land necessary to meet the requirement for the provision of Neighborhood and Community Park land. The Cit of La Quinta requires 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents of new development pursuant to the Qty Act.. Given the nature of the proposed uses, the project would not generate any permanent residents for which additional park acreage is required. Additionally, the project would introduce 2 public golf courses, as well as a 9 hole public course offering a junior golf prograrn. Therefore, the project would provide additional public recreational services without increasing the City s population, which could be considered a beneficial impact of the project. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional park facilities, nor would it affect existing recreational opportunities. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational n facilities would occur. Further Study Required: ' No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 25 J The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less than XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially ❑ ® ❑ reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliiminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental ❑ (� ® ❑ u goals? c, Does the project have impacts which are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ u limited but cumulatively considerable? rCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ U will cause significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Documentation: a) Based on the analysis provided in Section I through XV, the Proposed Project does not have the. potential to significantly degrade flee quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife specter, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. All biological impacts would be I ess than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. b-c) Based on the analysis provided in Section. I through XV, the project would not achieve short-term City and environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. As stated, the project has been planned consistent with the City's General Plan. Development of the Proposed Project would implement build - out of the General Plan. Additionally, the project would not generate impacts that are individually linuted but cumulatively considerable. No significant impacts would occur with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. d) Based on the analysis rovided in Section I through XV, the project would not generate environmental effects which will cause significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 26 The Ranch April 2, 2002 Initial Study REFERENCES The following materials/resources were utilized in the preparation of this Initial Study. Any documents listed below are available for review at the City of La Quinta Community Development Department located at: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78.495 Calle Tampico -� La Quinta, California 92253 1. A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of "The Ranch" ProJJ'ect Area Located in the Community of La Quinta County of Riverside, California, McKenna et al., September 1999. 2. California Integrated Waste Management Board, California Integrated Waste Management Board Website, February, 2002,-http://www.ciwm .ca.gov/. 3. City of La Quinta Draft Comprehensive General Plan, Certified March 2002. 4. City of La Quinta Draft Comprehensive General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2001, Certified March 20, 2002. 5. Department of Conservation, Department of Conservation Website, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/. 6. Jurisdictional Delineation Report, The Ranch at La Quinta, Impact Sciences, September 2000. 7. Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Investigation, November 1999. 8. Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Water Quality Evaluation, June 2000. _ 9. Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Environmental Site Assessment South February 2001. Ranch Property, 10. Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Corporation, Environmental Site Assessment North Ranch Property, February 2001. 11. Telephone communication, Jim Zimmemian, Development Service Supervisor, Coachella Valley Water District, March 2002. 1 A A :A 27 The Ranch April 2, 2002 I r r r r r r r r a 61 in APPENDIX A Air Quality Data a 1 Table: AQ-1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION -RELATED EMISSIONS IProject Name: The Ranch 1 i Emissions in Pounds r Da CO VOC Land Use Resort Hotel Vehicular Sources 32.6 4.8 9.0 0.6 37.0 Stationary Area Sources U U U U U Subtotals 32.7 4.9 9.0 0.6 37.1 Commercial Retai Vehicular Sources 7.9 1.2 2.2 0.1 8.9 Stationary Area Sources M U U 0.10 9 Q Subtotals 8.0 1.2 2.5 0.1 8.9 Golf Course Vehicular Sources 17.7 2.7 4.6 0.3 20.4 Stationary Area Sources 0.1 U SLR U Subtotals 17.8 2.8 4.91 0.3 20.4 Residential Conde Vehicular Sources 57.8 14.7 14.9 1.0 66.6 Stationary Area Sources 2� 51 31 U S} Q Subtotals 60.3 20.2 18.1 1.0 66.6 Golf Course Club] Vehicular Sources 10.5 1.4 2.6 0.2 12.2 Stationary Area Sources U U 01 U SL.Q' Subtotals 10.6 1.5 2.8 0.2 12.2 Project Totals Vehicular Sources 126.5 24.9 33.5 2.3 145.2 Stationary Area Sources 2.8 5.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 'TOTALS 129.3 30.6 37.3 2.3 145.3 SCAQMD Thresholds (lbs/day) 550.0 55.0 55.0 150.0 150.0 Project's Significance (Yes or No) NO NO NO NO NO I Table: AQ-2 EMISSIONS FROM ON -ROAD VEHICLE TRAVEL Project Name: The Ranch Analysis Year: 2005 EMFAC7 Model: EMFAC7C Project County Location: Los Angeles: Orange: Riverside X San Bernardino Temperature. - Winter Summer (V (V{1C): P10P Summer (NO,): URBEMIS Analysis Methodology: Updated: Entrained Roadway Dust: Calculate: O Rc0.fLand Use Res/ Non -Res Units/ 1000 SF ADT Rates NOV Rates Trips er ADT % Pass-B % Divertedl % Internal I New Trips Res. NOV % Work Tri s % Truck Trips 66 IResort Hotel N 250 8 9.20 Room 2,000 0% 0% 50% 1,000 2,300 9.0% 1.8% 197 {Commercial Retail N 25 53.22 0.00 1000 SF 1,331 0% 0% 80% 266 0 2.0% 2.1% 91 iGolf Course N 36 35.72 0.00 Holes 1,286 0% 0% 50% 643 0 3.0% 0.4% 46 'Residential Condo R 300 5.86 1.71 Unit 1,758 0% 0% 50% 879 512 0.0% 0.5% 152 Golf Course Clubhouse N 25 16A 0.00 1000 SF 410 0% 0% 50% 205 0 35.09E 0.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trip Types Residential Non -Residential Home to Work Home to Shop Home to Other Work Non -Work Pass -By Diverted Trip Length (miles) 10.00 4.00 4.00 10.00 4.00 0.01 0.50 Trip Speeds 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 F 10.0 35.0 Percent Trip 20.0% 50.0% 30.0% -1 VehicleFleetmix %Type Catalyst Non -Cat Diesel Passenger Vehicles Automobiles 83.3% 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% Light -Duty Trucks 11.1 % 99.7% 0.0% 0.4% Urban Buses 2.2% - 100.O% Motorcycles 3.3% - 100.00/0 Trucks Medium -Duty Trucks 30.0% 100.0% 0.1% - Light Heavy -Duty Trucks 20.0% 44.3% 5.8% 50.0% Medium Heavy -Duty Trucks 10.0% 40.9% 9.2% 50.0% lie,^.vy Hrmry-Slut Trucks 30.0% 100.0% Project Vehicular Emissions in Pounds per Day Entrained Motor Vehicle Emissions Roadway Vehicle Miles CO VOC „ PM„ 'Resort Hotel 5,080 32.6 4.8 9.0 0.6 0.3 36.8 Commercial Retail 1,224 7.9 1.2 2.2 0.1 0.1 8.9 -Golf Course 2,803 17.7 2.7 4.6 0.3 0.1 20.3 Residential Condo 9,142 57.8 14.7 14.9 1.0 0.4 66.2 Golf Course Clubhouse 1,681 10.5 1.4, 2.6 0.2 0.1 12.2 'TOTALS 19.930 126.51 24.91 33.5 2.31 1.01 144.2 Table: AQ•3 EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AREA SOURCES (SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tables A9.11 and A9.12) Project Name: The Ranch !Ref Code Units/ Units/ Water/Space Beating Emissions in PovndsfDav Landscape Msinl. Emissions in llourdrmay Consumer Prod. VOC so. PM, No. SF Hld s. cf/Month CO CO VOC No. so. I PM;_ VOC 66 Resort Hotel 12 250 1 1,200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OX 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ox 0.0 197 Commercial Retail 7 25,000 1 72,500 0.0 0.0 03 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01 0.0 91 Golf Course 5 20,000 2 58,000 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 01 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 OX 0.0 46 !Residential Condo 3 300 300 1,175,40C 0.8 0.2 3.1 0.0 0. 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 01 5.1 152 Golf Course Clubhouse 11 25,000 1 50,ODC OX 0.0 0.2 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OX 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0', 0 TOTALS 1,357.100 0.9 0.2 3.8 0.0 0. 1.9 0:3 0.11 OA 0,0E 5.1 Conversion Factors Land Use Rpe Code Natural Gas Cansum tion Convwion Factors Uses a Faclor Residential Single Family I Cubic Feet/Unit/Month 6,665.0 Multi -Family (e5) 2 Cubic Feet/Unit/Month 4,105.0 Multi -Family (5+) 3 Cubic Feet/Unit/Month 3,918.0 .Food Store 4 Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 2.9 Restaurant 5 Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 2.9 Hospitals 6 Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 4.8 Retail 7 Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 2.9 College/University 8 Cubic Peet/Square Foot/Month 2.0 High School 9 Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 2.0 Elementary School 1.0 Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 2.0 -Office 1 I Cubic Feet/Square Foot/Month 2.0 Hotel/Motel 12 Cubic FeeL/Squam Foot/Month 4.8 Warehouse 13 Cubic Fcet/Square Foot/Month 2.0 Miscellaneous 1 14 jCubic Fect/Cuslomer/Month 241,611.0 0 Emission Factors for Each Criteria Pollutant from Space and Water Healing, Landscape Maintenance, and Consumer Products Emission Factors Weser/S ace Hearin Emission Factors land$ta Malm. Emission Factors Consumer Prod. VOC CO VOC w CO VOC » Residential Uses Nonresidtntial Uses 20.0 20.0 5.3 5.3 80.0 120A 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.00576 0.0276 0.00054 0:1 0.00014 0.0 0.005 0.0 0.00001 0.00037 0.0171 0.0 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EMISSIONS GRADING PHASE EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS Pgelp.lm174p. Emb.iWnr. f V.bo7u pq Day CON in N&-f.rwm.. Ukasl ) o.. m Pwodt •a V) VOC 7COa M10 I Y(W O. SUa Pb110 Fart UU-173 Hp 0320 0.11o I.NO •• 0.093 0.000 0.000 Ono OAID TnktcOOlfry IAOO 0.190 0.170 0630 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.00D O.00D 0.000 T,.kW L.M. 0.201 DA93 0.130 0.076 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O,OOD Tr.6od 7F.clw 0.330 0.120 1.260 0.140 0.112 O.ODD O.00D 0.000 0.000 O.000 &I.w 1.7]0 0.270 3.610 0.160 OA10 20.000 4.3M 61,660 7" 6.360 wm W Ooma •- •- •- 0.330 0.161 2.600 1.32D Wheckd ln.dn 0.572 0.230 1.900 0.112 0.170 O.OW 0.000 QOOD 0.00D O.000 Whrckd Tractor 3.360 0,160 1.270 0.090 0.140 0.000 O.00D 0.000 0.000 0,000 Wka 0.300 0.063 0.170 01067 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.00D OD00 0.000 Order 0.131 0.039 0.713 0.096 0.061 2,116 0.624 11.609 1.376 0.976 MHam0,673 0 10.60D 2A00 23.600 .21 21 2.240 7wd - Y3. 1 ,344 "MO 1 13FI24 I 12396 ON- AND OFF -ROAD VEHICLE EMISSIONS k m" r«tan nr I.mqmk1c I,, N. Ran. in W, Fr, I7a N. of MDw F sk.c ald p. VeAkk Vckkka pr.D.y CT} VOC NOa SO. PMIO CO V61C NO, V). P440 akr inep. Hwd F.ndu C-... W.& Vekkf® _ U013 2.13 1.6f 1.213 }.373 0.673 0 _ it Q.73P3 0.001 0.09 6S7 - " 4.00 0.43 0.00 _ O,47 O00 0.W 0:0tl O.pO 7nu7 w1en.: k- 3 il,w 0 D. Fml�lw 6xren.nrarxApADAr.Liu..whm6.�.1.a.rw..».�I.wnwwloet- FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS to So11 ity Fu67u.e Speed Moi. Solt Soil PMIO '0uH Source (mph) % (CY) D.ruly (D.) .+a rtnta6 _ Ia.mW ihrnTdae Ai.-GgiCAQ.WD C: AFI�Qw4p wWe.�{ApW tlllf S I Full,lns ula 3 LtTknl Moi.twe N., of Wily PMIO k.d cm PMIO n .r saune m 97 Ea.h Hwn rlea7 + lib? Eurrknorla. e 3 3fa3 7d1`R 36.19 1677 wd L'rv+a°xurrr: 91.47 - OnS)k F.J.- P.11 40) er No. of h1Oa PMIO PMIO Reducrion PM IO Vehkk Typ. Ve6_kk. Per Dry (1wlreNmO Ilh.) 9 [l+ 0u (.) H.ul Truclu lon•dk) ,i 23,0 017U 7096 0.00 0.00 Comr Worker V.hlelw ��.p - x _t36 16.61 70% Ilse 3.00 0.1 m - .li .=....J..-e ..- tai At19A16CADNDC1DAAe4rdv. M.___`.anRrWar 6f rein wd> Arn uiidre Ruk ) ar Comore 2O01 k, 12 mph F po.ed PMIO Hed. kw. PMIO Dn.l Saloex (ro) (%) I.ere.7 R Ilea) pw hate V.I. h FA Q dW &a- 6 ]! !0 :±, 17.29 709b 12.11 3.19 ea.l FnilniaM 17. 17.17 3.19 1.k/N W.a.lm pn�bm.r•hwn 7.bh AlliAel KApMO CIgA Ak Q�br HwdMc4 [AprY lfrll TOTAL EMISSIONS kdr�a IPnrrM. r U ) (I OA su. PMIO gmlux- Source -u,ymr.a ru r a . - 6k3- end Off-R-d Vehkk. 7.24 1.03 0.62 0.00 0.01 Fu111ire 0, 1i[rYHiun/fnachkrt 0.07 Ondi.3 and E`.ardunorM3 .. . 93.17 wbkk. 291.61 Ea Plk. A Sve. - 17.19 aiPHr.JRcdwx 9.OP 0.0 um om Nrl Iin,ulan T �0. 1: .O1 I Sh1A[}h1O YrLrta6n 7 1 0 I A0 s r.id. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 CONSTRUCTION ACMITY EMISSIONS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PHASE EQUIPMENT EWMJIONS Ivcn lrrm IhJkae. Ivwma kl ) nrinni . . N-jp-W Type Ve11ek. i- co VOL N04 SO.- pwo CO N0. SO, Pmto LAI'-w MP - Perl l3fn173 Hp 032D 0.170 1.510 - 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 T.d,:00 Hry _ 1.100 0.190 4.170 0ASD 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tneta3 lad. _ 0.201 0.095 0.030 0.076 Mm 3.216 1.520 13260 1.216 O.9M Tn4Wd 7hcwr 0.350 0.110 1.260 0.140 0.112 OD00 OA00 OA00 o,00D OA00 S.cp. r" • 1.250 0.270 3.140 OA60 0.410 0.000 0.000 OAM 0.00D 0.000 WudM. flour - •- - 0.750 0.165 1. 1.320 WI xW I.M. - ''j,#' e2 . 0372 0.230 1.900 0.122 0,170 4.576 1.140 15200 1.456 1360 WEukd'hcea. RT T 3300 0.11D 1.270 0.090 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 R.A. s4$� s 0 300 0.065 0.170 0.067 0.050 2.400 0.121, 6.960 0336 0.400 0.151 O.039 0,713 0.096 0.061 0.000 0.000 OA00 OA00 0.000 • t' le 1.700 9143 p IO,tOD 2.IOD 21. 1.2M 2-W 70.9A 6 10 R. 6 1.91dwr ON -AND OFF -ROAD VEHICLE EMISSIONS 2,nn..bn >.,.... 1. nmwmll. d. _- Nnd MOa Veklek 7)v Vrakk. pr. Ary CO VOC G. SOI PMIO CO VOC NO. SO. PMSO ...... I;wl Tspeke C[ ' Warr VeAkla 1. 25.913 L61 2.R} 1,251 SJ33 Q629 d 0 03y73 0.003 0,00 d37 0.O0 0; 400 0.41 0.00 OM Go CM Tail dau:_ - i I. 4 0.01 Lmlrlar I..f..... bMLssl D A.a L.w...Is /QH..nd..Ilwr h..wryb IWl w47441. PUGMVEuuST FJAISSIONS ly Fu1 Ox Spwd Md.lu.. Soo SdI PMIO IO..I Sa...a ( ) % (CY) D.roiq Iht Jc.t.fJ rnf Rc..t.Wr 50 w1 ors fxnaM MoWae Naof Udy PM Io FCC u.. PMIO Ham flbo % IN (00 AI 2 o.00 0.00 1a n n 0. Fnl0.e 1.nrt .Ir 40 H W. W MIN. PM10 PMIO N.4.nlo. PMIO V.6ick VW6. P.r Ory t9*frdJa{y iNb.) 1w iO+y rx54 Hwl Te.e4 Sa+-.4+1 no 0.00 M 0AO 0-00 Cant. Wale. Vehkt. 3.56 - 11.12 70% 7.11 3.14 T..1 - 1 ),I. 71IL - MM ....�a�.n A.rT.Y4A11+� Ad][RrA�CIdA Aw Or.h.r 11.NW1 fMp I1H1 501 Indi Am. li.lre ll** 401 el Carom 20.01 W. 12." Ecpo" PMIO Ral�tlon PMIO 0.I5ow+>< {%1 Yd.y.). 1%] (we.) IpyyI -% Fh. IPI.) pat Tonle -UM Fa .+14..dpSwiw 15 }I 50 44 7S9A0 70% i61-51 77,12 a..lnm PAo - i14 1l "Az RN.4w Rd.Nmprrne4wx bm TNYAl1AA dSCAQ�®C7dA AYQwtlry1W6m11Apy1VR) TOTALEMISSOM (pDoW. D m SU. PM10 Eainian Same 06,-d 011-Rod Vddek. 7.01 IRO 031 0.00 DAI Fll,ov 1)..t F: t.__'frir kut - - DAD OrW'i.l xd I DAO Yrldek. • 103.11 E.m.w P11. • Svrf-I - 139AD vi p' ppKlr6¢ 0.dy 0. 4:90 _ ]. Net F+.duim T_ - 2i.O1 .11 6..7i 4. 11 3 $ A<,1M0 Il+e. - ].00 I . I30A0 I VIOLAT1�01�1 PAOWNCE AUTOMOBILE ORSTATE LICENSE NUMBER TIME MAKE OF AUTOMOBILE. This is not a ticket, but if it were within my,. _,power•, you would receive two...Because of. your Bull Headed, inconsiderate, feeble Attempt at parking, you have taken enough room' for a 20 mule team, 2 elephants, 1 goat and a safari of pygmies:from.the African interior. The reason for giving you this is so that in the future you may -think of someone else, other than yourself. Besides' . 1 don't like domineering, egotistical dr sim- ple-rrtinded drivers and you probably- t into .. one;of these categories. f sign off wishing you an early transmission failure (on the expressway at about 4<30 0 m.). Also may the Fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits. WITH MY COMPLIMENTS PROJECT NAME: EXHIBIT A CITY OF LA QUINTA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The Ranch SCH No.:1999081020 APPROVAL DATE: May 15th, 2002 The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is the intent of this program to (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures; (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) utilize existing review processes wherever feasible. The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated in to the approval for this project in order to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City of La Quinta's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Geology The soils at Prior to the design and construction of any Receipt of City of La Prior to the the site have structural improvements, a comprehensive design site specific Quints issuance of any the potential level geotechnical evaluations shall be prepared geotechnical grading permits for that includes subsurface exploration and /engineering hydroconsoli laboratory testing. Recommendations for plans for the dation with grading/earthwork, surface and subsurface Project the addition drainage, foundations, pavement structural of water sections, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation. The Project All buildings planned as a result of the Proposed Review of City of La Prior to the Site would be Project shall be constructed in conformance with construction Quinta issuance of any subject to the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the plans building permits ground City of La Quinta. shaking during a seismic event. Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Water The project During construction activities, water trucks are to Field City of La Ongoing during would use acquire water from non -potable water sources, inspection Quinta construction potable water such as reclaimed water and/or canal water. for dust suppression instead of reclaimed water Cumulative At such time that non -potable water sources Review of City of La Prior to the use of become available to the project site, the project landscape Quinta and issuance of potable water shall connect to this resource and utilize the non- and project Coachella Valley building for irrigation potable water for irrigation purposes. plans to Water District permits. would identify the incrementally ability to contribute to connect to the demand non -potable on water water supplies sources in the future Drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized as a Review of City of La Prior to the means of reducing water consumption. landscape Quints issuance of and project building permits plans The project A hydrology master plan shall be prepared for the Receipt of City of La Prior to the will result in Project Specific Plan. Further, a hydrology study site Quinta issuance of changes to shall be prepared to support the hydrology master hydrology grading permits absorption plan. This study shall demonstrate that the project master plan rates, would construct storm drainage and hydrologic and study for drainage improvements, such as on -site stormwater the Project patterns, or retention basins, that conform to the City`s master the rate and hydrology and storm drain improvement program amount of as well as implement regional and local surface requirements, policies and programs. runoff -2- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Prior to the initiation of any construction activity Provide NOI Regional Water Prior to the on the project site, a Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm and Quality Control issuance of any Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and verification Board grading permits Monitoring Plan will be filed with the RWQCB that it was under the general NPDES construction permit. sent to The SWPPP shall include Best Management RWQCB Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES program requirements. Any existing groundwater wells located on the site Review of City of La Prior to the that are no longer in use shall be abandoned in construction Quinta issuance of any accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and plans grading permits regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. Design of new roads, golf courses, man-made Review of City of La Prior to the ponds, common landscape areas, storm water site, storm Quinta issuance of basins, and other facilities shall incorporate proper drainage and grading permits engineering controls to channel storm and landscape irrigation runoff into detention/retention facilities plans that are sized to accommodate design year storms and that incorporate filtration systems or other devices to reduce the potential for herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to percolate to groundwater or surface water runoff. Water from Prior to operation of the golf course, the golf Receipt of City of La Prior to the golf course course operator shall prepare a Golf Course Golf Course Quinta issuance of operation Management Plan that includes an irrigation plan, Management operation permit would water usage plan, and chemical management plan Plan contain in order to reduce, to the extent feasible, golf pollutants course irrigation runoff and percolation into the that impact groundwater basin. groundwater quality -3- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Air Quality Construction Construction equipment shall be phased and Review of City of La Prior to issuance activity operated in a manner to ensure the lowest construction Quinta of grading generates construction -related pollutant emission levels management permit vehicular air practical, and shall require the use of water trucks, plan quality temporary irrigation systems and other measures pollutants which will limit fugitive dust emissions during site disturbance and construction. The following measures shall be implemented to Review of City of La Prior to the reduce construction related traffic congestion: construction Quints issuance of • Configure construction parking to minimize management grading permit traffic disturbance plan • Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes • Provide flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary • Schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak traffic hours • Provide rideshare incentives to construction personnel Emissions of A PM10 Management Plan for construction Review of City of La Prior to issuance PM10 would operations shall be submitted prior to the issuance dust control Quinta of grading exceed the of grading permits. The plan shall include dust plan permit thresholds of management controls such as: significance . Water site and equipment morning and during evening construction . Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering • Pave construction roads, where appropriate • Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site Air quality control measures identified in the Review of City of La Prior to issuance Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan dust control Quinta of grading shall be implemented. plan permit -4- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Operation of Timeshare and golf facility construction shall Review of City of La Prior to issuance the proposed utilize solar or low emission water heaters to construction Quinta of occupancy project reduce natural gas consumption and emissions. and site permit would result plans in increased Timeshare and golf facility construction shall air pollutant utilize built-in energy -efficient appliances to emissions. reduce energy consumption and emissions. Shade trees shall be provided in close proximity to Timeshare, hotel and golf facility structures to reduce building heating/cooling needs. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall be constructed using special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows to reduce thermal gain or loss. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall utilize automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient lighting (including parking areas) to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. Timeshare and golf facility construction shall use light-colored roofing materials in residential construction as opposed to dark roofing materials. Bus stops shall be positioned at locations on and Review of City of La Prior to issuance adjacent to the site to be determined in construction Quinta of grading coordination with the bus transit service provider and site permit that will serve the project area. Bus stops should plans be generally located 1/4 mile walking distance from Timeshare units. -5- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks The golf course shall design on -site circulation Review of City of La Prior to issuance plans for clubhouse parking to reduce vehicle construction Quinta of grading queuing. and site permit plans Transportation Increases in A traffic signal shall be installed at the Project Warrant City of La Ongoing and local entrance and Avenue 52, the Project entrance and study Quinta Circulation roadway Jefferson Street and at the intersection of Avenue volumes 54 and Jefferson Street when and if they are would warranted. The developer of the site shall be incrementally responsible for payment of a fair share of the cost decrease of installing these signals. intersection LOS Biological During Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, Review of City of La Prior to the Resources construction fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used during Construction Quinta issuance of and the construction and operation of the Project Site and grading permits landscaping will not be harmful to wildlife. Landscaping activities, plan impacts to common wildlife would occur During A construction plan shall be prepared and Review of City of La Prior to the construction demonstrate, to the extent practicable, Construction Quinta issuance of and construction activities that emit excessive noise plan grading permits operation, will be avoided adjacent to the hillside. In there is a addition, during grading and construction potential activities any blasting or pile -driving near the impact to hillside will not occur during the period from Jan. Peninsular 1 through June 30th. bighorn sheep and other wildlife -6- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Potential The landscape plan shall include only plants that Review of City of La Prior to issuance impact to are non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic plans such as project Quinta of building Peninsular tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. landscape permit bighorn Existing trees may remain. plan sheep from increased human presence on Project Site A mountain toe -of -slope buffer/mitigation concept Review of City of La Prior to issuance plan has been prepared to protect peninsular big construction, Quinta of grading horn sheep, and other wildlife, from entering the landscape permit non -mountainous portion of the site proposed for and site plan development. This concept plan illustrates a (Agency continuos buffer to the toe -of -slope in areas where shall, to the development could occur adjacent to the mountain extent edge. The concept plan delineates the location, practical, acreage and native plant species envisioned for the widen the mitigation area. This plan shall be incorporated narrowest into the project design and shall be subject to points of the review by the City prior to the issuance of grading buffer areas permits. A copy of this mountain toe -of -slope to minimize buffer/mitigation concept plan is available for the impacts review at the City of La Quinta Community on the Development Department. hillside) -7- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8- The Agency City of La Ongoing foot fence (or the functional equivalent) between shall Quinta the development and the hillside shall be guarantee to constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters pay (4.3 inches) or less. If determined necessary, the the design City shall construct temporary fencing while and permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall construction not contain gaps in which Bighorn Sheep can be costs for the entangled. If the Agency transfer or disposes of fencing, and any of the property adjacent to the hillside, the that if the Agency shall reserve an easement sufficient for the property construction of fencing if needed in the future. is transferred, it shall require that the subsequent owner bond or posts sufficient security for the completion of the fence should it arise in the future. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the Review of City of La Ongoing project area, and shall be kept away from the landscape Quinta hillside areas through appropriate signage and and signage fencing, where applicable. plan Access into the hillside area from the site will be Review of City of La Prior to issuance discouraged through the use of signs or barricades, site and Quinta, CDFG, of occupancy if necessary, unless the access is provided as part signage plan USFWS permit of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG. Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks There is a The final design of the project shall insure that Review of City of La Prior to the potential road and driveways are designed to minimize site and Quinta issuance of impact from headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside. construction grading permit nighttime plan light on wildlife There is a In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass Review of City of La Prior to the potential shall be used in new construction. Exterior site and Quinta issuance of impact from building lights shall not shine on the hillside. construction building permit glare and Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible plan exterior minimum intensity and aimed away from the lighting on hillside. wildlife All swimming pools located on the Project Site Review of City of La Prior to the shall be fenced pursuant to City regulations. construction Quinta issuance of plan grading permit Potential Prior to any construction or site preparation Verification City of La Prior to the impact to activities that would impact the 3.4 acres of of receipt of Quinta, CDFG issuance of mesquite mesquite hummock, the agency or project financial grading permit hummock developer shall enter into a Memorandum Of security habitat Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an instrument appropriate non-profit organization whose and copy of purpose is to acquire and manage land for the the MOU purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 3.4 acres of mesquite hummock in the Willow Hole area or in another area where the habitat is contiguous and large preserves already protect much of this habitat type. The exact location and cost shall be determined through consultation with CDFG and the selected organization. -9- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Potential Prior to the commencement of on -site grading, a Receipt of City of La Prior to the impact to 404 permit shall be obtained, if legally required, for required Quinta, CDFG, issuance of areas under alteration of areas under the ACOE jurisdiction. In permits ACOE grading permit the addition, if development activities are to take place jurisdiction within streambeds or drainages under the of the ACOE jurisdiction of the CDFG, a streambed alteration and the agreement shall first be obtained, if legally CDFG required. Hazards Exposure to Prior to the demolition or renovation of the on -site Proof that a City of La Prior to the asbestos is a single family residence, asbestos containing qualified Quints issuance of significant materials (ACM) shall be removed in accordance demolition demolition impact with current regulatory guidelines. team has permit been retained Noise Construction Between May 1 and September 30, all construction Review of City of La Prior to the noise would activities on the project site shall only occur construction Quinta issuance of impact local between the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM plans grading permit residents and Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 sensitive PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on receptors Sundays and public holidays. Between October 1 and April 30, all construction activity on the project site shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. All operational activities of the Project shall also be subject to the Noise Ordinance of the City as well. All construction equipment operating in the Review of City of La Prior to the planning area shall be fitted with well -maintained construction Quints issuance of functional mufflers to limit noise emissions. plans grading permit, ongoing throughout construction -10- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and Review of City of La Prior to the hauling routes shall be located away from existing construction Quinta issuance of residences. plans grading permit The design, selection and placement of the Review of City of La Prior to the mechanical equipment for various buildings shall construction Quinta issuance of include consideration of the potential noise impact plans building permit they may have on uses within the development site. Silencers and/or barriers shall be provided where Review of City of La Prior to the necessary at outdoor equipment, such as cooling construction Quinta issuance of towers, air cooled condensers and refrigeration plans building permit compressors/condenser units, and at the air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation systems. Public The The Riverside County Fire Department, in its Review of Riverside Prior to the Services proposed review of new development proposals, shall site and County Fire issuance of project evaluate project plans and the Department's landscape Department and grading permit would ability to provide proper fire protection. This plan City of La incrementally review shall include, but shall not be limited to, Quinta increase internal circulation, project directories, street demand for names, and numbering systems. New service on the developments shall comply with all City and Fire Riverside Department standards. County Fire Department -11- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks The The Riverside County Sheriffs Department shall Review of Riverside Prior to the proposed review new development proposals in order to site and County Sheriff issuance of project evaluate project plans and the Department's landscape Department and grading permit would ability to provide adequate police protection. This plan City of La incrementally review should include, but not be limited to Quinta increase internal circulation, project directories, street demand for names, and numbering systems. New service on the developments shall comply with all established Riverside City and Sheriff standards. County Sheriff Department Utilities and The project The most efficient furnaces, water heaters, pool Review of City of La Prior to the Service would result heaters and other equipment that use natural gas construction Quinta issuance of Systems in an shall be used in project construction. The use of plan building permits incremental kitchen appliances that use natural gas and increase in alternative, renewable energy sources, including electrical solar and wind turbine technologies shall also be demand used to the greatest extent feasible. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, Review of City of La Prior to the which addresses energy conservation in all construction Quinta issuance of proposed uses shall be strictly enforced in project plan building permits design and construction. The use of All planned uses shall be connected to the city- Review of Coachella Valley Prior to issuance septic wide sewer system. construction Water District of grading systems in plan permit the City could result in potential impacts Any existing or historic septic systems located on Review of Coachella Valley Prior to issuance the site shall be abandoned in accordance with construction Water District of grading Federal, State, and local laws and regulations prior plan and City of La permit to the issuance of building permits. Quinta -12- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks The A recycling program shall be developed for all Receipt of City of La Prior to the incremental proposed uses. Recycling provisions for recycling Quinta issuance of increase in commercial and business establishments should program occupancy solid waste include separate recycling bins. Items to be permit generation recycled at commercial establishments may could result include white paper, computer legal paper, in potential cardboard, glass and aluminum cans. impacts Professional landscaping services from companies Verification City of La Prior to the which compost green waste shall be utilized. that a Quinta issuance of qualified occupancy landscaping permit service has been retained The The Projects fair share of public utilities, Verification City of La Prior to the incremental infrastructure and improvements required to of receipt of Quinta issuance of demand from properly service the proposed uses shall be financial grading permit the project on determined through consultation with the City security utility Department of Public Works and paid prior to the instrument. systems issuance of grading permits. could result in potential impacts Aesthetics The project Landscape designs and materials that complement Review of City of La Prior to the area is the native desert environment shall be utilized in landscape Quinta issuance of adjacent to a project design and construction. and design grading permit scenic area. plans Development would alter the aesthetic nature of the area Overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded to Review of City of La Prior to the the greatest extent possible through the design and Quinta Public issuance of establishment of an undergrounding program and site plans Works and City grading permit guidelines subject to the review of the City Engineer Engineer and Public Works Department. -13- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Signage shall be limited to the locations, sizes, and Review of City of La Prior to the maintenance requirements necessary to provide design plan Quinta issuance of functional identification. grading permit Safe, convenient vehicular and pedestrian Review of City of La Prior to the circulation, screened outdoor storage/loading and landscape Quinta issuance of other unsightly areas, protected and enhanced and design building permit outdoor seating areas, appropriate lighting levels, plans limited signage, and landscaping designs that preserve and enhance visual resources shall be included in the design of any commercial area on the Project Site. Development proposed along designated scenic Review of City of La Prior to the highways, roadways and corridors shall be landscape Quinta issuance of reviewed for compatibility with the natural and and design grading permit built environments to assure maximum viewshed plans protection and pedestrian and vehicular activity. All grading and development proposed within Review of City of La Prior to the scenic viewsheds, shall be regulated to minimize landscape Quinta issuance of adverse impacts to these viewsheds. All grading, and design grading permit development and landscaping plans shall be plans submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.. The project Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum Review of City of La Prior to the would height, number of fixtures, and intensity needed to design and Quinta, issuance of introduce provide sufficient security and identification in site plans Riverside building permit new sources each development, making every reasonable effort County Sheriff of light and to protect the community's night skies. Department glare that would alter the existing nighttime environment -14- Env. Issue Area Potential Env. Impact Mitigation Measure Method of Review Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance Initial I Date I Remarks Cultural There is During any ground altering activities associated Verification City of La Prior to issuance Resources potential for with project grading or construction, including that a Quinta of grading discovery of demolition of existing modern structures and qualified permit unidentified facilities, the project area shall be monitored by a historical subsurface qualified archaeological monitor. The monitor consultant cultural shall have the authority to halt any activities has been resources impacting potentially significant cultural resources retained during future until the resources can be evaluated for ground significance and cleared or mitigated. The altering monitoring program shall also include activities consultation with the local Native American representatives (e.g., Torres -Martinez and/or Morongo Reservations). -15- APPENDIX B ' Addendum Air Quality Analysis l� I, Page: 1 05/16/2006 3:10 PM ' URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 1 Name: Z:\10. Air Quality\URBEMIS Files\Silver Rock Resort - P1.urb 'File Project Name: Silver Rock Resort - P1 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 I ' SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 *** 2006 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 4.35 34.52 31.40 0.00 101.59 1.59 1 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 4.35 34.52 31.40 0.00 33.59 1.59 I PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST (lbs/day,unmitigated) 7.45 53.19 57.56 0.00 102.25 2.25 'TOTALS TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 7.45 53.19 57.56 0.00 34.25 2.25 PM10 PM10 2008 *** TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) ROG 7.44 NOx 50.84 CO 58.99 S02 0.00 TOTAL 2.06 EXHAUST 2.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 7.44 50.84 58.99 0.00 2.06 2.03 PM10 PM10 I ' *** 2009 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 7.43 48.66 60.47 0.00 1.95 1.92 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 7.43 48.66 60.47 0.00 1.95 1.92 PM10 PM10 *** 2010 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 28.58 61.44 83.61 0.00 2.29 2.23 i 1 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 28.58 61.44 83.61 0.00 2.29 2.23 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) ROG 0.99 NOx 0.76 CO 2.51 S02 0.00 PM10 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 41.27 50:47 528.78 0.41 62.30 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 42.26 51.23 531.29 0.41 62.31 I 1 PM10 DUST 100.00 32.00 PM10 DUST 100.00 32.00 PM10 DUST 0.03 0.03 PM10 DUST 0.03 0.03 PM10 DUST 0.06 0.06 Page: 2 05/16/2006 3:10 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Z:\10. Air Quality\URBEMIS Files\Silver Rock Resort - Pl.urb Project Name: Silver Rock Resort - P1 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: November, 2006 Construction Duration: 48 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 130 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 10 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi -Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 75750 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 100.00 - 100.00 Off -Road Diesel 4.31 34.45 30.66 - 1.59 1.59 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.•00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 4.35 34.52 31.40 0.00 101.59 1.59 100.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 4.35 34.52 31.40 0.00 101.59 1.59 100.00 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 100.00 - 100.00 Off -Road Diesel 4.31 32.86 31.87 - 1.46 1.46 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.04 Maximum lbs/day 4.35 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.14 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 1 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.45 .�1 Max lbs/day all phases 7.45 *** 2008*** JI JI J1 JI JI . JI JI JI .11 JI .11 JI 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.93 32.60 0.00 101.46 1.46 100.00 53.11 55.82 - 2.25 2.25 0.00 0.08 1.74 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.19 57.56 0.00 2.28 2.25 0.03 53.19 57.56 0.00 102.25 2.25 100.00 Page: 3 05/16/2006 3:10 PM Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - u 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 50.77 57.37 - 2.03 2.03 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.13 0.08 1.62 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.44 50.84 58.99 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 7.44 50.84 58.99 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 *** 2009*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 48.59 58.97 - 1.92 1.92 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.12 0.07 1.50 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Arch Coatings.Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.43 48.66 60.47 0.00 1.95 1.92 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 7.43 48.66 60.47 0.00 1.95 1.92 0.03 *** 2010*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 ' Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 'Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.11 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 18.58 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.11 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.05 1i 1 1 1 1 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.46 60.52 - 1.74 1.74 0.00 0.06 1.38 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 1.38 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Page: 4 05/16/2006 3:10 PM Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 2.41 14.71 20.19 - 0.49 0.49 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 28.58 61.44 83.61 0.00 2.29 2.23 0.06 Max lbs/day all phases 28.58 61.44 83.61 0.00 2.29 2.23 0.06 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Nov '06 Phase 2 Duration: 5.3 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Apr '07 Phase 3 Duration: 42.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building! Apr '07 SubPhase Building Duration: 42.7 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 2 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Jun '10 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 4.3 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Aug '10 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2.1 months Acres to be Paved: 0.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Pavers 132 0.590 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 4.31 34.45 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 Maximum lbs/day 4.35 34.52 Phase 3 - Building Construction CO S02 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 PM10 PM10 PM10 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 32.00 - 32.00 30.66 - 1.59 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.40 0.00 33.59 1.59 32.00 r Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 4.35 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - ��Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 �r J� J� J� J� t 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.52 31.40 0.00 33.59 1.59 32.00 - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 5 05/16/2006 3:10 PM Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 4.31 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.04 Maximum lbs/day 4.35 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.14 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.45 Max lbs/day all phases 7.45 *** 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive'Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.13 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.44 Max lbs/day all phases 7.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 32.00 - 32.00 32.86 31.87 - 1.46 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.93 32.60 0.00 33.46 1.46 32.00 53.11 55.82 - 2.25 2.25 0.00 0.08 1.74 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.19 57.56 0.00 2.28 2.25 0.03 53.19 57.56 0.00 34.25 2.25 32.00 - _ - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.77 57.37 - 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.08 1.62 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.84 58.99 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 50.84 58.99 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 *** 2009*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Grading Emissions Phase 2 Site 9 Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 -Road Diesel 0.00 I�On I Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.12 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.43 1� l� -II I� 1 1 - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.59 58.97 - 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.07 1.50 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 48.66 60.47 0.00 1.95 1.92 0.03 Page: 6 05/16/2006 3:10 PM Max lbs/day all phases 7.43 48.66 60.47 0.00 1.95 1.92 0.03 *** 2010*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 7.31 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.11 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 18.58 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.11 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.05 Asphalt Off=Road Diesel 2.41 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.01 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 28.58 Max lbs/day all phases 28.58 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.46 60.52 - 1.74 1.74 0.00 0.06 1.38 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 1.38 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 14.71 20.19 - 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.44 83.61 0.00 2.29 2.23 0.06 61.44 83.61 0.00 2.29 2.23 0.06 Construction -Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Rule 403 - Water 3X Daily Percent Reduction(RO.G 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 68.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Nov '06 Phase 2 Duration: 5.3 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Apr '07 Phase 3 Duration: 42.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Apr '07 SubPhase Building Duration: 42.7 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 2 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Jun '10 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 I SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 4.3 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Aug '10 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2.1 months Acres to be Paved: 0.8 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower 1 Pavers 132 1 Paving Equipment 111 1 Load Factor Hours/Day 0.590 8.0 0.530 8.0 11 Page: 7 05/16/2006 3:10 PM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.05 0.73 0.62 0 0.00 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.27 0.03 1.89 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.67 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.99 0.76 2.51 0.00' 0.01 1� 1' Page: 8 05/16/2006 3:10 PM 1� UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 1' ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 City park 5.89 2.95 30.84 0.02 3.64 Quality resturant 34.29 46.11 483.29 0.37 56.94 Strip mall 1.09 1.41 14.65 0.01 1.73 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 41.27 50.47 528.78 0.41 62.30 Does not include correction for passby trips. 1 Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES l� Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer II EMFAC Version: EMFAc2002 (9/2002) I� Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips City park 1.59 trips/acres 263.00 418.17 Quality resturant 89.95 trips/1006 sq. ft. 71.00 6,386.45 Strip mall 42.94 trips/1000 sq. ft. 4.75 203.97 Sum of Total Trips 7,008.59 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 41,119.56 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: l' Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 54.70 1.10 98.70 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.20 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.20 1.20 98.10 0.70 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.30 1.40 95.90 2.70 I' Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 f Lite-Heavy, 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88:90 I�Heavy Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.60 68.80 31.20 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 8 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) 1 11 I, Page: 9 05/16/2006 3:10 PM 11 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages I , Changes made to the default values for Construction Architectural Coatings: # ROG/ft2 (residential) changed from 0.0185 to 0.002272 l ' Architectural Coatings: # ROG/ft2 (non-res) changed from 0.0185 to 0.0116 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Rule 403 - Water 3X Daily has been changed from off to on. I 'Changes made to the default values for Area The landscape year changed from 2005•to 2010. The residential Arch. Coatings ROG emission factor changed from 0.0185 to 0.002272. The nonresidential Arch. Coatings ROG emission factor changed from 0.0185 to 0.0116. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2010. I Page: 1 05/16/2006 3:28 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Z:\10. Air Quality\URBEMIS Files\Silver Rock Resort - P2.urb Project Name: Silver Rock Resort Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 *** 2010 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 8.67 56.20 72.14 0.00 102.25 2.24 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 8.67 56.20 72.14 0.00 34.25 2.24 *** 2011 *** TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) *** 2012 *** TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) *** 2013 *** TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) *** 2014 *** TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) *** 2015 *** TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) ROG NOx 11.20 65.15 11.20 65.15 ROG NOx 11.20 65.15 11.20 65.15 ROG NOx 11.20 65.15 11.20 65.15 ROG NOx 11.20 65.15 11.20 65.15 CO S02 97.32 0.00 97.32 0.00 CO S02 97.32 0.00 97.32 0.00 CO S02 97.32 0.00 97.32 0.00 CO S02 97.32 0.00 97.32 0.00 PM10 TOTAL 102.43 34.43 PM10 TOTAL 2.66 2.66 PM10 TOTAL 2.66 2.66 PM10 TOTAL 2.66 2.66 PM10 EXHAUST 2.42 2.42 PM10 EXHAUST 2.42 2.42 PM10 EXHAUST 2.42 2.42 PH10 EXHAUST 2.42 2.42 PM10 DUST 100.01 32.01 PM10 DUST 100.01 32.01 PM10 DUST 0.24 0.24 PM10 DUST 0.24 0.24 PM10 DUST 0.24 0.24 PM10 PM10 PM10 ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST 134.52 65.30 101.41 0.01 2.91 2.43 0.48 134.52 65.30 101.41 0.01 2.91 2.43 0.48 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 2.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 2.03 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 49.55 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 48.84 NOx CO S02 PM10 15.85 15.19 0.00 0.03 15.85 15.19 0.00 0.03 NOx CO S02 PM10 38.68 408.08 0.47 71.50 37.91 399.92 0.46 70.07 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 51.59 54.53 423.27 0.47 71.53 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 50.87 53.76 415.10 0.46 70.10 Page: 2 05/16/2006 3:28 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Z:\10. Air Quality\URBEMIS Files\Silver Rock Resort - P2.urb Project Name: Silver Rock Resort Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: November, 2010 Construction Duration: 60 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 70 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 10 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi -Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 700250 _ CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2010*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - _ 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 = 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 100.00 - 100.00 IOff -Road Diesel 8.61 56.08 70.80 2.24 2.24 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.06 0.12 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 8.67 56.20 72.14 0.00 102.25 2.24 100.01 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 -- - - -- - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 Max lbs/day all phases 8.67 56.20 72.14 0.00 102.25 2.24 100.01 2 Phashas 1 - Dee 1 Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust T y 0.00 _ 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 'On Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C ' Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions 1 Fugitive Dust Off -Road Diesel 8.61 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.06 Maximum lbs/day 8.67 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10..17 Bldg Const Worker Trips 1.03 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 11.20 Max lbs/day all phases 11.20 *** 2012*** 56.08 0.00 0.12 56.20 64.54 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.15 65.15 70.80 0.00 1.34 72.14 84.27 13.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.32 97.32 - 100.00 - 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 102.25 - 2.41 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.66 0.00 102.43 - 100.00 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.24 100.01 2.41 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.24 2.42 100.01 I ' Page: 3 05/16/2006 3:28 PM Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 1.03 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.24 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 -- - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 Max lbs/day all phases 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 *** 2013*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - -- 0.00 -- 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lb,/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 'Off On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction ' Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 1.03 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.24 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 -- - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 Max lbs/day all phases 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 *** 2014*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions ' Fugitive Dust - - - -- 0.00 -- 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions _ 0.00 - 0.00 Fugitive Dust Off -Road Diesel - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Off Diesel 10.17 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 Bldg Const -Road Bldg Cvnst Worker Trips 1.03 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 - 0.24 - Arch Coatings Off -Gas Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - I' Page: 4 05/16/2006 3:28 PM ' Asphalt Off -Road Diesel Asphalt On -Road Diesel I Asphalt Worker Trips Maximum lbs/day Max lbs/day all phases *** 2015*** 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Dust - -- - 0.00 - 0.00 'Fugitive Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust -- - -- -- 0.00 - 0.00 -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 'Off On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0,0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Phase 3 - Building Construction 1 Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 64.54 84.27 ` 2.41 2.41 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.63 0.38 8.57 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.24 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 123.07 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.63 - 0.38 8.57 0.00 0.25 - 0.01 0.24 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.67 - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 4.82 29.42 40.37 -- 0.98 0.98 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.18 2.53 0.70 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.01 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 134.52 65.30 101.41 0.01 2.91 2.43 0.48 Max lbs/day all phases 134.52 65.30 101.41 0.01 2.91 2.43 0.48 l 1 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF ' Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Nov '10 Phase 2 Duration: 6.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: May 'll Phase 3 Duration: 53.4 months ` Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: May 'll J SubPhase Building Duration: 46.3 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day ' 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 3 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Mar '15 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 6 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Oct '15 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 7 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 2 Pavers 132 0.590 2 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx *** 2010*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Page: 5 05/16/2006 3:28 PM Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 8.61 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.06 Maximum lbs/day 8.67 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 8.67 *** 2011*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 8.61 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.06 Maximum lbs/day 8.67 Phase 3 - Building Construction Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 PM10 PM10 PM10 CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 32.00 -- 32.00 56.08 70.80 - 2.24 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 56.20 72.14 0.00 34.25 2.24 32.01 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.20 72.14 0.00 34.25 2.24 32.01 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 32.00 - 32.00 56.08 70.80 -- 2.24 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 56.20 72.14 0.00 34.25 2.24 32.01 Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel Bldg Const Worker Trips Arch Coatings Off -Gas Arch Coatings Worker Trips Asphalt Off -Gas Asphalt Off -Road Diesel Asphalt On -Road Diesel Asphalt Worker Trips Maximum lbs/day Max lbs/day all phases 1� 10.17 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 1.03 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.24 0.00 - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 34.43 2.42 32.01 *** 2012*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - _.�'Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips. 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction I' Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 Bldg Const Worker Trips 1.03 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 ' Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 I Maximum lbs/day 11.20 i� - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -- 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.54 84.27 -- 2.41 2.41 0.00 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 Page: 6 05/16/2006 3:28 PM Max lbs/day all phases 11.20 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 *** 2013*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 Bldg Const Worker Trips 1.03 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 11.20 Max lbs/day all phases 11.20 *** 2014*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 Bldg Const Worker Trips 1.03 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 11.20 Max lbs/day all phases 11.20 _ 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 0.61 13.05 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.b0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 65.15 97.32 0.00 2.66 2.42 0.24 *** 2015*** !llPhase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust w off -Road Diesel 0.00 on -Road Diesel 0.00 'll Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Dust - �1Fugitive off -Road Diesel 0.00 on -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 lbs/day 0.00 IIMaximum Phase 3 - Building Construction -�1 II -II II II .II 1 i 1 1 1 - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 7 05/16/2006 3:28 PM Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 10.17 64.54 84.27 - 2.41 2.41 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.63 0.38 8.57 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.24 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 123.07 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.63 0.38 8.57 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.24 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.67 - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 4.82 29.42 40.37 - 0.98 0.98 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.18 2.53 0.70 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.01 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 134.52 65.30 101.41 0.01 2.91 2.43 0.48 Max lbs/day all phases 134.52 65.30 101.41 0.01 2.91 2.43 0.48 Construction -Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Rule 403 - Water 3X Daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 68.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Nov '10 Phase 2 Duration: 6.6 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: May 'll Phase 3 Duration: 53.4 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: May 'll SubPhase Building Duration: 46.3 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 3 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Mar '15 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 6 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Oct '15 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 7 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 2 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 ' Page: 8 05/16/2006 3:28 PM ' AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 111 I' Natural Gas 1.15 15.82 13.29 0 0.03 I Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.27 0.03 1.89 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - I' Architectural Coatings 0.62 - - - - 1 TOTALS(lbe/day,unmitigated) 2.03 15.85 15.19 0.00 0.03 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Mitigated) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 _ I1Source Natural Gas 1.15 15.82 13.29 0 0.03 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.27 0.03 1.89 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - Architectural Coatings 0.62 _ TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 2.03 15.85 15.19 0.00 0.03 Area Source Mitigation Measures JI JI JI JI JI I I A A A Page: 9 05/16/2006 3:28 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 Hotel 39.82 30.14 318.18 0.37 Strip mall 8.45 7.72 80.94 0.09 General office building 1.29 0.81 8.96 0.01 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 49.55 38.68 408.08 0.47 Includes correction for passby trips. Includes the following double counting adjustment for internal trips: Residential trips: 0.00 8 reduction. Nonresidential trips: OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2015 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: PM10 56.32 13.55 1.62 71.50 0.00 % reduction. No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Hotel 8.17 trips/rooms 1,153.00 9,420.01 Strip mall 42.94 trips/1000 sq. ft. 67.50 2,898.45 General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 56.25 186.75 Sum of Total Trips 12,505.21 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 47,219.29 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 54.40 0.40 99.40 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.30 0.70 98.00 1.30 Light Truck 3,751- 51750 16.40 0.60 98.80 0.60 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.30 0.00 98.60 1.40 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.50 0.00 93.30 6.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 1 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) I Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0 ' General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 10 05/16/2006 3:28 PM MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 Hotel 39.27 29.54 311.82 0.36 Strip mall 8.29 7.57 79.32 0.09 General office building 1.28 0.80 8.78 0.01 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 48.84 37.91 399.92 0.46 PERCENTAGE REDUCTION % 1 2 2 2 Includes correction for passby trips. Includes the following double counting adjustment for internal trips: Residential trips: 0.00 % reduction. Nonresidential trips: OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2015 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Hotel Strip mall General office building Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Travel Conditions PM10 55.20 13.28 1.59 70.07 2 0.00 % reduction. No. Total Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips 8.01 trips/rooms 1,153.00 9,231.61 42.08 trips/1000 sq. ft. 67.50 2,840.48 3.25 trips/1000 sq. ft. 56.25 183.02 Sum of Total Trips 12,255.11 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 46,274.91 Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 54.40 0.40 99.40 0.20 15.30 0.70 98.00 1.30 16.40 0.60 98.80 0.60 7.30 0.00 98.60 1.40 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 1.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.50 0.00 93.30 6.70 Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 Residential Commercial Home- Home - Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 37.0 43.0 I 11 r ri �I % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 ' Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0 IGeneral office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 1 1 Page: 11 05/16/2006 3:28 PM MITIGATION OPTIONS SELECTED Non -Residential Mitigation Measures Non-Residential Local -Serving Retail Mitigation PercentReductionin Trips is 2% Inputs Selected: The Presence of Local -Serving Retail checkbox was selected. Page: 12 05/16/2006 3:28 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages 1 Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths 1 Architectural Coatings: # ROG/ft2 (residential) changed from 0.0185 to 0.002272 Architectural Coatings: # ROG/ft2 (non-res) changed from 0.0185 to 0.0116 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Rule 403 - Water 3X Daily has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The area souce mitigation measure option switch changed from off to on. The landscape year changed from 2005 to 2015. The residential Arch. Coatings ROG emission factor changed from 0.0185 to 0.002272. The nonresidential Arch. Coatings ROG emission factor changed from 0.0185 to 0.00116. Changes made to the default values for Operations The pass by trips option switch changed from off to on. The double counting option switch changed from off to on. The mitigation option switch changed from off to on. The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2015. The Res and Non -Res Local -Serving Retail Mitigation changed from off to on. 11 1 1 n I I 1 11 11 u U _11 APPENDIX C 1 SilverRock Resort Traffic Evaluation A May 17, 2006 Mr. Tony Locacciato IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. 803 Camarillo Springs Road Camarillo, CA 93012 Subject: Silver Rock Resort Traffic Evaluation Dear Mr. Locacciato: -l' The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following traffic evaluation for ! the proposed Silver Rock Resort development. The site is located south of Avenue 52 and 1, west of Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta (see Exhibit A). The uses will consist of a mixture of resort hotels, a conference/community center, commercial uses, and timeshare I' units. The intent of this letter is to identify if the project would contribute towards the need for additional improvements beyond what is planned in the General Plan Circulation !' Element. To this end, research has been conducted to identify land use and trip generation information that were assumed in the General Plan. Coordination with City staff has been undertaken to determine what land uses have been constructed in the area and what uses are planned (if any) beyond what is anticipated for the project. A comparison of the project ' land uses and trips with the previous General Plan assumptions are presented to determine if new or additionally more significant impacts are anticipated to occur. Project Description As indicated above, the project consists of a mixture of resort hotels, ' conference/community center, commercial uses, and timeshare units as illustrated on Exhibit B. The project would take access to both Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. It is 1 �1 Mr. Tony Locacciato IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. May 17, 2006 Page 2 our understanding that the current proposal consists of a mixture of uses with the maximum land use densities as follows: DESCRIPTION Resort Hotel Timeshare Conference/Community Center Restaurant Mixed Use Village Golf Course Project Trip Generation MAXIMUM UNITS 334 Rooms 1,020 Units 10,000 SF 15,000 SF 100,000 SF Ground Floor 60,000 SF 2Id Floor 36 Holes Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and produced by a development. The traffic generation for the project is based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the development. As indicated above, the project site is proposed to be developed with resort hotels, a conference/community center, commercial retail and timeshare land uses. Trip generation rates for this project are shown in Table 1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and others on similar timeshare sites (see Appendix "A"). Both daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 20,021 trip - ends per day with 1,423 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,834 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The traffic volumes shown in Table 2 consist of the Mr. Tony Locacciato IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. May 17, 2006 Page 3 total trips generated for each project land use. As a resort hotel/timeshare trip generated by the project will also be making trips to the golf course/commercial land uses within the project, a double counting of those trips occurs. Therefore, a reduction in externally oriented trips could be applied to these estimates to develop a more realistic estimate of trips assigned to the adjacent roadway system. IGeneral Plan Model Inputs The City's current General Plan was adopted in 2002. As part of the General Plan Circulation Element, extensive long range travel demand modeling was performed to identify the appropriate roadway infrastructure/classifications to support the buildout of the City's Land Use Element. Exhibit "C" illustrates a portion of the zone structure for the General Plan traffic model. As indicated in this exhibit, the project resides partly in both TAZ's 961 and 965. The traffic model indicates that these zones will generate a total of 40,330 trips per day. After balancing of the internal interactions within the zones, a total of 31,202 trips per day were assigned to the roadway network. ITrip Generation Comparison IA comparison of the trip generation estimates between the model and project indicates that the model was assumed to generate approximately 11,181 more trips (11,181 = 31,202-20,021) than the project. One of the 18-hole golf courses is currently situated on portions of both TAZ 961 and TAZ 965. Again, it is important to note that this reflects a conservative estimate due to the model trips representing the externally routed traffic and the project trips representing driveway estimates. 1 Mr. Tony Locacciato IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. May 17, 2006 Page 4 Conclusions Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation r system, if the General Plan Circulation Element roadways are implemented. Due to the magnitude of the differences in the future traffic forecasts, it is further anticipated that no new or more significant impacts would result due to the proposed project development. It is recommended that subsequent traffic studies be prepared to evaluate the needs at the project access points and to monitor the interim needs at the surrounding study area r intersections. you have an questions regarding this analysis, lease do not hesitate to call at (949 r If y Y q 9 g Y P ) 660-1994. 7 Sincerely, ■ ,�4 4�� C::7; Scott Sato, P.E. Principal ■ SS:mt JN:03251-03 ■ Attachments >w I 1 it it 11 u 11 i� TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE ITE CODE DUANTI UNITSZ PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES AM PM IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Resort Hotel 330 334 RM 0.22 0.9 1.12 0.18 0.24 0.42 4.2 Timeshare Appendix-A4 1020 DU 0.13 0.43 0.56 0.35 0.2 0.55 5.86 Shopping Center 820 160 TSF 0.79 0.51 1.3 2.56 2.77 5.33 57.61 Conf. Center 495 10 TSF 0.99 0.63 1.62 0.48 1.16 1.64 22.88 Restaurant 932 15 TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.66 4.26 10.92 127.15 Golf Course 430 36 holes 1.75 0.47 2.22 1.21 1.53 2.74 35.74 1 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003. 2 RM = Room, DU = Dwelling Units, TSF = Thousand Square Feet 1 s Appendix "A" - Timeshare Trip Generation Study 11 U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03200\03251\ExcelgTRIPGEN3.xls]T1 TABLE 2 SILVERROCK RESORT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY LAND USE 01JANT! UNITS' PEAK HOUR PM IN I OUT JT0TALj DAILY AM I IN OUT TOTAL I Resort Hotel 334 RM 73 301 374 60 80 140 1,403 Timeshare 1020 DU 133 439 572 357 204 561 5,977 Shopping Center 160 TSF 126 82 208 410 443 853 9,218 Conf. Center 10 TSF 10 6 16 5 12 17 229 (Restaurant 15 TSF 90 83 173 100 64 164 1,907 Golf Course 36 1 holes I63 17 80 44 55 99 1,287 TOTAL 495 928 1,423 976 858 1,834 20,021 1 RM = Room, DU = Dwelling Units, TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03200\03251\Excel\[rRI PGEN3.xls]T2 11 11 EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP SILVER ROCK, LA QUINTA, Callfarnfa - 03251: 01 LlREtp� cwocswn� 'Tf F qw ZIP" !Ism 824 ' N SILVER 0 1,400 2,800 Feet La Quinta, California - 03251 EXHIBIT C TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) STRUCTURE 1002 IIQRAIV EXHIBIT D CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT WASHINGTON- ST. HOVLEy LN. I ` : 42ND,A1�E:' CENTER �! !RDAIINS'�iD' j1 DR. DILLION FRED WARING� f bF�. A { s^r^^ r �'� • I ) ! MILES SAVE¢ _ _ R VISTA DEL SUR yvl �r t �• _-Jk- I �• ^ EISENHOWER - 1"'}ri`^^^ .^♦ j 0 DR i AVE- 48 1 1 ;*77eNo jf�rr�i_..i•�ilsr;'f, ��+ rri _.L.r Zr.r ^m^ ^^..^^^or�� ' �.. Q JI 1':ro AVt, fit rTv ! I'� a .:-.' —• ,y r now is J AVENIPAI f -' - 1 .__ --- 1 1 BAIRPO • � •f'' • .1- m m AVt • Y ; ;� } 1. a r aft-. •.. � .. • • t� y, •�� I •.r � " •i,y flpi ,, `.. �.•... .1j �AVj f IF r 1; I•. f ! .. LEGEND: . } • FREEWAY INTERCHANGE l r -• I •FREEWAY ♦g,4p♦ = AUGMENTED MAJOR (BO) moons = MAJOR ROADWAY (6D) 1 wininnom = PRIMARY ROADWAY •A(4D) s = PRIMARY ROADWAY • a (4D) = SECONDARY ROADWAY (4U) = COLLECTOR ROADWAY (2U) • — • LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY 0 URBAN SILVERROCK YA QUINTA, CaYif0lnia-f13251: lT4 1 EXHIBIT E GENERAL -PLAN ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS AUGMENTED MAJOR R 13x� 1®®'' 14'—Ts2- -.1--11:--�-1 MAJOR ARTERIAL 124'-- 1T12—-1 14'_7_13'' 1 12t.- V PRIMARY ARTERIAL - A 3 �-=-1 @`--__r —13'' 1 13' i - 12 1z'3—r12—�—i3'---.�tr-�--r f R w SECONDARY ARTERIAL 1 Be. r2• sx' 14'1-72'-1-121 —12:.----.i.T-14t-12, 1 R W COLLECTOR R � 74' 52' 1 11' 8"7'2' 1 12T-1 —11' R/W LOCai W 60' 36' x• }—ss' 2• R,IW CUL DE SAC R w. fW 36' 7' 1 S'. — -- }---18' 7' SOURCE: CITY OF LA QUINTA SILVER ROCK, LA QUINTA, California - 03251: 05 UFt�N ;n R!j tj _� I it APPENDIX A TIMESHARE TRIP GENERATION STUDY 1, HIGGINS ASSOCIATES II COWL 42TRAFFOC ENGINEERS l' 1335 First Street, Suite A, Gilroy, CA 95020 • 408 84B-3122 - fax 408 848-2202 - e-mail info@kbhiggins.com II RECEIVED I� MAY - 41998 May 1; 1998 R K J K I' Mr. Carl Ballard RxrK 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290 I� Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Trip Generation Data for Hyatt. Vacation Club Timeshare, City of Indian Wells, California l' Dear Carl: Ter your request, enclosed is a summary of our findings on trip generation data for timeshare and related I, uses: Unlike hotel, condominium, and recreational home uses, very little published trip generation data is available on timeshare and vacation club uses. For your reference, a 4-page document is attached entitled `Trip Generation Rate Research" which was prepared by Higgins Associates in 1996 for the conversion 1' of the existing Highlands Inn to•Timeshare in Monterey County. This letter report provides a compendium of trip generation data for timeshare use. The appropriate daily and peak hour trip generation rates for the proposed Hyatt Vacation Club will depend on its setting, size, physical characteristics, and operational characteristics. Setting refers to the location (eg. Santa Monica Mountains, Big Sur coastline, or Carmel Valley), environment (eg. urban, suburban, rural, country side, ' mountain, or remote), and attractions (eg. near beach, theme parks, recreational trails, or monuments). Size refers to the total number of timeshare units. Physical characteristics refer to on -site amenities such as bar, lounge, restaurant, barbeque dining, banquet/wedding facilities, retail shops, spa, swimming pool, gymnasium, •golf course, and tennis court. Operational characteristics refer to vacation packages, programs, -services, and activities anticipated on -site as well as at nearby off -site locations within walking distance of a timeshare facility. I' As discussed above, the traffic generation characteristics of a timeshare facility vary considerably depending on its intended use and intensity of use. Traffic generation characteristics of timeshare facilities tend to closely resemble that of either a hotel, a luxurycondominium/townhouse, a recreational home, or a vacation club. It is dependent on which of these land use categories the timeshare facility is most similar to. Hotels typically provide full room services, sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cbcktail lounges, retail shops, banquet/wedding facilities, and conference/meeting rooms. As confirmed by survey data at the San Luis Bay Inn, a timeshare facility, timeshare facilities have lower traffic generation potential than full -service hotels with similar setting and amenities, especially considering trips generated•by sales and promotion activities at the San Luis Bay Inn during the survey. Luxury condominiumhownhouses typically provide luxury facilities and services. Luxury condominium/ townhouse units are usually owned by individual owners. Recreational homes are typically located in a resort containing local services and complete recreational facilities. Recreational homes are usually owned ' F:11999UOB5'Vb49ZO-W2 Draft.Wpd Carl Ballard May 1, 1998 Page 2 f by individual owners. Vacation Clubs typically provide amenities and services similar to recreational homes. Recreational homes and vacation clubs generally have low traffic generation potential because I relatively few guests need to drive to off -site locations for food, services, and recreation. If the proposed timeshare facility operates similar to a hotel, ITE's hotel trip rates can be- used to conservatively estimate project trip generation. Alternatively, the timeshare daily trip rate derived from the San Luis Bay Inn datacan be used. The ITE hoiel's % of Daily and directional in/nut split % were applied to the San Luis Bay Inn's daily trip rate to determine timeshare weekday AM and PM peak hour trip rates. The San Luis Bay Inn's timeshare daily trip rate is 8.31 trips per occupied unit, which is 7% lower than ITE's hotel daily trip rate of 8.92 trips per occupied unit.. An example of timeshare units analyzed as hotel rooms is the Sands of'Monterey Resort (375 hotel rooms, 84 timeshare units, 101 condominium units) in the City of Sand City, California. If the proposed timeshare. facility operates similar to a condominium; I'TE luxury condominium/townhouse trip rates can be used to estimate project trip generation. For luxury condominium/townhouse, ITE's daily trip rate is 5.86 trips per occupied unit, which is 34% lower than ITE hotel daily trip rate of 8.92 trips per occupied unit. An example of timeshare units analyzed as a condominium is the Marriott Timeshare (236 timeshare units) in the City of Palm Desert, California. If the proposed timesharefacility operates similar to a recreational home or vacation club, the Transpo Group daily trip rate can be used to estimateproject trip generation. However, no weekday street peak hour data was published by the Transpo Group. The ITE's recreational home's % of Daily and directional Wout split % were applied to Transpo Group's vacation club daily trip rate to establish the vacation club AM and PM peak hour trip rates. The Transpo Group's vacation club daily trip rate is 6.9 trips per occupied unit, which is 23% lower than ITE's hotel daily trip rate of 8.92 trips per occupied unit An example of timeshare units analyzed as vacation club units is the Gleneden Beach Vacation Club (81 timeshare units) in the City of Lincoln City, Oregon. .. A total of four exhibits are attached. Exhibit 1 provides a comparison of daily and peak hour trip' generation rates per occupied room for various land uses from several sources. Our recommended weekday trip rates are also illustrated on Exhibit L. Vacation club survey data obtained from the Transpo Group are summarized on Exhibit 2. Timeshare survey data at San Luis Bay Inn performed by Higgins Associates are summarized on Exhibit 3. Examples of trip rates used in other traffic studies of timeshare facilities are summarized on Exhibit 4. In the case of the proposed 300-unit Hyatt Vacation Club Timeshare project, the project description (ie., L a kitchen in each unit, no restaurant, and no retail space) indicate that trip generation rates for luxury condominium/townhouse are the most appropriate. The luxury condominium/townhouse trip rate is 5,86 daily trips -per occupied unit, with 0.56 trip (23% in, 77% out) in the AM peak hour and 0.55 trips (63% in, 38% out) in the PM peak hour. FA199BU0B8WZ92W-C92 Draftmpd 11 Carl Ballard May 1, 1998 Page 3 1(you have further questions regarding this letter report, please feel free to call me at 408 848-3122. Thank you for this4opportunity to assist you on your project.' Sincerely, Philip Ho, TE Keith B. Higgins, CE, Project Manager President enclosure cc. Mark Solit F: ISMOBSWOB20&092 DraRwpd J I J r H/CGINS ASSOCIATES CO L A TR4FRC ENGaONEMRZ 1335 First Street, Suite A, Gilroy, CA 95020 - 408 848-3122 • fax 408 848-2202 , e-mail Info@kbhiggins.com TRIP GENERATION RATE RESEARCH FOR HIGHLANDS INN CONVERSION TO TIMESHARE December 2, 1996 This report summarizes our findings on trip generation rates for the conversion of Highlands Inn from the existing hotel use to a timeshare facility. A. DATA RESEARCH Available information regarding timeshare condominium trip generation rates was researched including a literature search and telephone communications with persons with information regarding this subject. 1. Literature Search A literature search was conducted which included reviewing our firms library and contacting the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Unfortunately, no published information was found pertaining'to trip generation rates for Timeshare. 2. i Personal Interviews In addition to the literature search, municipalities with Timeshare Condominiums and individuals knowledgeable with Timeshare Condominiums and Timeshare Condominium conversions were contacted. The following summarizes the information obtained. a. A traffic study was prepared for Marriott Timeshare Condominiums located in Palm Desert, California by ASL Consulting Engineers, June, 1989, for the Marriott Ownership Resort. The project -included 236 condominium units located in a resort setting. Marriott projected an average party of 4.7 people and an average length of stay of.4.5 days with an occupancy rate of 90% to 95%. Trip generation for the project was estimated using Residential Condominium rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip t,;tneration, 4th Edition, with the assumption that the project would experience 100% occupancy, during the Peak season. This yielded rates of 5.857 trip ends per unit per weekday, 0.446 trip ends per unit per morning peak hour and 0.561 trip ends per unit per evening peak hour. A trip end represents the end or beginning -of a trip. For example, a trip from Fisherman's Wharf to the Inn would constitute one trip and two trip ends, one trip end at the Fisherman's Wharf origination and one trip end at the Inn destination. The traffic report did not estimate weekend daily or peak hour traffic. A Marriott Timeshare Condominium unit is typically a two bedroom/two bathroom unit while the Highlands Inn typical unit will be comprised of one bedroom with a bathroom. Therefore, the party size at the Highlands Inn is anticipated to be lower than the average party of 4.7 people reported by Marriott. tie_m2 i MZ92 Tlh eshars Research wpd IPage 1 of 4 r ii r r 1 i r 1 11 I I I I b. Tim Stripe, with Continental Development, has overseen the development of two Timeshare projects. In both cases Hotel trip generation rates; as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, were used. Mr. Stripe mentioned this was a conservative approach as his observation has been that Timeshares typically generate less traffic than hotels per occupied unites the duration of the visit to a hotel is typically shorter than that of a Timeshare. In addition, Mr. Stripe stated that Timeshares are more apt to be located with food, beverage, and recreational services on site. Also, he felt that peak hour trips would be lower as Timeshare guests typically schedule their trips during off-peak periods. c. The Cathedral City Planning Department was contacted regarding a Timeshare conversion located in that jurisdiction. Claudia Gan -din, Planner, stated a traffic report was not required for the Timeshare. d. The City of Del Mar was contacted regarding the Del Mar Inn Conversion. Kent Whitson, fire City of Del Mar Consulting Traffic Engineer who also coordinates trip generation studies for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), stated that no formal data was available and recommended using multi -family or lodging trip generation rates. e. Ken Mathis, with the City. of Pacific Grove Public Works Department was contacted regarding the PG Plaza Timeshare. The PG Plaza Timeshare is comprised of approximately ten Timeshare units located above a retail plaza No report was completed for the conversion which occurred approximately ten years ago. Mr. Mathis did say there appears to be very little difference in the traffic generated before and after the conversion. He stated the biggest difference in the traffic occurs during the sell out period when additional traffic is attracted to the project for the sales presentations. John Burlingame, with HT -Highlands, Inc. provided information pertaining to his past experience with Timeshares and the planned marketing and operations of the Highlands Inn Timeshare. Although very little specific information is available, the length of stay at a Timeshare is typically longer than at a traditional hotel,. While the Highlands Inn operating as a hotel has an average length of stay of 1.95 days it is anticipated that the average length of stay at the Highlands inn Timeshare will be 4 to 6 days, similar to the Marriott Condominium Timeshare. Historically, people with longer visits -at a facility will spend more time at the facility and generate less trips. Regarding the sell out period, Mr. Burlingame stated a strategy has been developed to obtain much of the Highland Inn Timeshare sales from the people already staying on the property. Due to the Highlands Inn's reputation for quality and the marketing company's experience in Florida's Key West, ahigher close (sale of the property) rate, approximately 15%, is anticipated with many of the purchases from persons already familiar with the property.. The Key West project has obtained a close rate of 11.4% with outside (off the property) sales only. Marketing strategies include a mini -vacation program and lunch or dinner program which will offer lodging and/or meals in exchange for participating in a tour (the sales program for the project). This will further encourage purchases. from people already staying on the property or visiting the oti-site restaurant. Other inquires to obtain data have been made, including David Matheson with American Resort Association and Tony Castro with Douglas County, Nevada However, as of this date no 95-M.1 SB Y Timeshare Rewmh.wpd Page 2 of 4 I I _f response has been obtained. B. TIMESHARE VERSUS HOTEL CHARACTERISTICS E Although no definitive trip generation data was obtained a significant amount of -anecdotal information was gathered that was consistent among the various individuals interviewed. They are as follows:' r 1. Timeshare amenities and consumer use differ from hotels in several ways. Timeshares are typically sold in weekly increments and in some cases on a split week basis. Therefore, the length of stay at Timeshare is typically longer than at a hotel. Timeshare consumers are more likely to have a larger party size than the traditional hotel occupant as.the typical timeshare will accommodate a larger parry than a hotel. However, the Highlands Inn Timeshare with their one bedroom with a bath unit would be more conducive to a smaller party size. During sell out of the Timeshare additional tragic is generated from potential buyers. Typically on a conversion the developer would continue to rent out the unsold inventory until complete sellout. L Those units already sold would be used -by the owners. In addition, those interested in •purchasing will visit the site. It has been estimated that, on average, ten people attend an on -site sales presentation for every one Timeshare sold. However, given that the Highlands Inn is an existing project with considerable existing repeat demand, a higher close rate is .estimated. Consequently, additional traffic generation during sell out can be significantly reduced where a higher percentage of sale closure is attained, as expected with the Highlands Inn. Oiher techniques such as the implementation of reduced rental rates for attending a sales presentation can offset sales related traffic with traffic associated with the on -going hotel operation. A limit on the number of sale visits scheduled can also reduce sell out traffic. This technique, correspondingly, lengthens the duration of the sales. C. TIMESHARE TRIP GENERATION Trip generation for the Highlands Inn Timeshare is presented for the existing use, the proposed Timeshare, and for the additional traffic during the sell out period. Higgins Associates, as part of the December 1984 letter -report on the traffic element of the Draft EHL for the Point Lobos Ranch, calculated the trip generation for the Highlands Inn and the Tickle Pink Inn (a 34-unit hotel) based on traffic counts conducted Thanksgiving weekend, 1984, when both hotels were at full occupancy. A daily traffic generation rate of 11.9 trip ends per room was determined for both weekday and Saturday. A weekday evening peak hour rate (during the Highway 1 peak hour) of 1.03 trip ends per occupied room was determined as well. Project trip generation determined at that time is tabulated on Exhibit 1. Timeshare trip generation rates were tabulated based on the inforrimation and recommendations received during the data research activity described earlier in this letter: Rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation," Fifth Edition, 1991, for. a residential condominium/townhouses, hotel and resort hotel are tabulated on Exhibit 1. Rates published by San Diego Traffic Generators, January 1990 for resort hotels and residential condominiums are also I tabulated on Exhibit 1. L 99-092 rse-os211meshan Reswrchmpci Page 3 of 4 I I 1 I I ill The highest estimated daily traffic generation occurs with the Resort Hotel land use designation published by "the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Approximately 1,3.72 trip ends are anticipated during the weekday and 1,51.9 during Saturday. This is 330 less weekday daily trip ends and 183 less Saturday daily trip ends than generated by the Highlands'Inn under its existing use. The highest estimated morning peak hour volume is anticipated to be 75 trip ends while the highest estimated evening peak hour volume is anticipated to be 102 trip ends, 45 trip ends less than the existing evening peak hour volume. Although the directional distribution associated with each of the rates varies, clearly the proposed Timeshare use would generate less traffic under any -of the five land use designations tabulated -on Exhibit 1. The proposed conversion to Timeshare units is anticipated to generate approximately 42 less Saturday daily trip ends than the existing Highlands Inn when comparing the highest anticipated proposed development trip generation to lowest estimated trip generation for the existing "ghlands Inn. This results in an approximate 3% reduction However, during the sell out period additional traffic will be attracted to the site. Similar -to traffic generation for Timeshare units there is no available data regarding traffic generation during the Timeshare sell out period. Historically it takes about ten people to go through the sales process for every closure. The average person purchases 1.3 weeks. Each Highlands Inn Timeshare unit would be available only 51 weeks of each year. The approximately 53,000 tours would be required to sell the property assuming a 10% 'close rate. The project proponent is projecting a six year sell out period which would equate to 9,935 tours per year. To minimize sales staff, tours would be offered fairly evenly over'362 days of the year. (The sales facility would be closed only three days a year.) This would yield approximately 24 tours a day, or 48 trip ends per day. Additionally, the Highlands Inn Timeshare projects a close rate of up to 15% as well as anticipating tat h a substantial amount of their tours will contain people already staying on the property. The Highlands Inn currently runs at an average of 80% occupancy with 1.95 days the average length of stay. This provides approximately 55 rooms a day which house different guests. The Highlands Inn Timeshare expects to obtain a 20% capture rate of these guests for.their sales presentation. Further, the Highlands Inn Timeshare will likely run a mini -vacation program as a marketing tool, the guests stay at a reduced rate in return for their attendance at a sales presentation. By achieving a 15% close rate, the additional daily trip ends would likely be less than the estimated 48 per day, perhaps as low as 42 trip ends pei day or lower when sales to guests on -site are considered. D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project is anticipated to generate less traffic, even during the sell out period, than the existing use. This is based on the consensus of the individuals contacted regarding timeshare conversions. Therefore, no traffic impact mitigations are recommended. 9B492198-092 Timeshare Rexarch.wpd Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION RATES PER OCCUPIED UNIT Legend Trip rates were obtained from Trip Generation, RE. 6lh edllon, 1997. h Trip rates were of bind from Tratflt: Generators, SANDAG, December 1996. Mark c Trip rates were ealcutaNd based an data o kded ty Me T z Apo Gr at San Lutz fcI n (sitfornia dnClub 1. 997�1es In INS.odes wwa dcuwad based on data eoiieeicd by iil� e San Lads Bay Inn Is buak�st on the weekerki For a ew=r` �e +M °, werk Y rate at San Lrx� Bay trrrr eras assumed to be fcierdkai to fhe. d = TOP r g,aim my trip rate. Weekelay ALM and PM Palk hour bip rates for S*,n Lu's Bay Inn were estk hated by apPiy M the rTE Were % of fly wW direclkwar ky mA 9Pl11 % to the San tubs Bat' Inn weekday daftY '� were apptled to DoTrarupo morate to es8mda the AM and PWl peck Norr . . e � rfE'a Racre IHome -A of palsy and elret4iar� .o+ da9y trip bip gnarativn rwtes for vacaticrr chip use. Note ". not vehkk trips per room ( and vacant). !. At trip rates presented .hove ars vahida tripe per oeeupted r hare Reporr by RCI CorrsultbV- Inc. 2 The natlonaraverape room occupancy In S MG for Timeshared Per 1990.Ttmes r�rt1 nre� .r.}r w.sV ��1 p5MI198 1 1 EXHIBIT 3 TIMESHARE TRIP GENERATION RATES BASED ON SURVEY DATA AT SAN LUIS BAY INN, CALIFORNIA Time Period Starting Time • Period Ending Driveway Count Hourly Total Trip Rate Per ( vehicles) ( vehicles) Occupied Unit Total. In Out Total In Out Total in: Out 12 : 00 midnight 12 : 15 am 0 =`r 12 : 15 12 : 30 ` 0 12 : 30 12 : 45 0 12 : 45 1: 00. am 0 0 0 0 1 00 am 1: 15 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 30 1 1 1 1 0 1: 30 1: 45 0 1 1 0 1: 45 2 00 am 2 2 3 3 0 -2 00 am 2 15 0 3 3 0 2 15 2 30 1 1 3 2 1 2 30 2 45 .0 3 2 1 2 45 3 00 am 0 1 0 1 3 00 am 3 15 0 1 0 1 3 15 3 30 0 0 0 0 3 30 3 45 0 0- 0 0 3 45 4 00 am 0 0 0 0 4 00 am 4 15 0 0 0 0 4 15 4 30 0 0 0 0 4 30 4 45 0 0 0 0 4 45 5 00 am 0 0 0 0 5 00 am 5 15 0 0 0 0 5 15 5 30 0 0 0 0 5 30 5 45 0 0 0 0 5 45 6 00 am 0 1 0 0 0 6 00- am 6 15 0 0 0 0 6 15 6 30 0 0 0. 0 6 30 6 45 0 0 0 0 6 45 7 00 am 2 1 1 2 1 . 1 7 00 am 7 15 1 1 3 2 1 7 15 7 30 1 1 4 3 1 7 30 7 46 2 1 1 6 4 2 7 45 8 00 am 3 3 7 6 1 8 00 am 8 15 2 2 8 7 1 8 15 8 30 2 1 1 9 7 2 8 30 8 45 3 2 1 10 8 2 8 45 9 00 am 1. 1 8 5 3 9 00 am 9 15 9 2 7 15 5 10 9 15 9 30 4 2 2 17 6- 11 9 30 9 45 8 3 5 22 7 15 9 45 10 00 am 8 3 - 5 29 10 19 10 00 am 10 15 5 5 25 13 12 F:11998VOBS198-092198-092 San Luis Bay Inn.wb3 05/01/98 Page 1 of 3 Time Period Starting 10 15 10 30 10 45 11 00 am '1.1• 15 11 30 11 45 12 00 pm. 12 15 12 30 12 45 1 00 pm 1 15 1 30 1 45 2 00 pm 2 15 2 30 2 45 3 00 pm 3 15 3 30 3 45 4 • 00 pm' 4 15. 4 30 4 .45 5 00 pm 5 15 5 30 5 45 6 00 pm 6 15 6 30 6 45 7 00 pm 7 15 7. 30 7 45 8 00 pm 8 15 EXHIBIT 3 TIMESHARE TRIP GENERATION RATES BASED ON SURVEY DATA AT SAN LUIS BAY INN, CALIFORNIA Time Driveway Count Hourly Total Trip Rate, Per Period ( vehicles ) ( vehicles) Occupied Unit Ending Total In Out Total In Out Total, In: Out •% X 10 30 10 45 11 00 am 11 15 11 30 11 45 12 00 pm 12 15 12 30 12 45 1 00 pm 1 15 1 30 1 45 2 00 pm 2 15 2 30 2 45 3 00 pm 3 15 3 30 3 45 4 00 pm 4 15 4 30 4 45 5 00 pm 5 15 5 30 5 45 6 00 Pm 6 15 6 30 6 45 7 00 pm 7 15 7 30 7 45 8 00 pm. 8 15 8 30 11 6 5 32 17 15 } 35 20 15 35 22 13 '39 25 14 :47 :'1:6 0.62 62 : 38 9 5 4 40 25 15 r 10 5 5 42 25 17 If 9 6 3 42. 23 .19 ........................... 16 : .......... fi 10 44 22 22 i ..12 ' .. ,. $ ... ';'.':.4 47 25 22 47 23 24 0.78 49 : 51 9 5 4- 46 25 21 6 4 2 40 21 19 10 ..6 -' . :.4 40 24 16 18 15 -"3 43 30 13 ' .13 . .. .. 9.:. : ' !0 47..,...... 34.... 13 ..-:.20:. ..:8' :. °,'42 :.:: 61'i.:::..:.:38 :.. ::° 23 0.90 62 : 38 8 5 3 59 37 22 } 8 5 3 49 27 22 14 8 6 50 26 .24 15 8 7 45 26 19 13 5 8 50 26. 24 Il .20 13 7 62 34 28 15 13 2 63 39 24 ...., :.4. 60 35 25 .: ........ 70 39 31 .. . 37 32 ` 17 :. 's ';: ;: ' ? .: T1;:: : ... : s s8. 1:04 46 : 54 9 5 4 68 34 34 t 11 5 6 56 -30 '26 8 4 4 45 23 22 - 6 2 4 34. 16. 18 6 3 3 31 14 17 4 1 3 24 10 14 6 3 3 22 9 13 8 3 5 24 10 14 2 2 .20 7 13 6 1 5 22 7 15 4 4 20 4 16 7 4 3 19 5 14 F:\1998VOBS\98-092198-092 San Luis Bay Inn.wb3 L 05101/98 Page 2 of EXHIBIT 3 TIMESHARE TRIP GENERATION RATES BASED ON SURVEY DATA AT SAN LUIS BAY INNt CALIFORNIA Time Time Driveway Count Hourly Total Trip Rafts Per Period Period ( vehicles) ( vehicles) Occupied Unit Starting Ending Total In Out Total In Out . Total. In: Out 8 30 8 45 `'€1 24 11 13 8 45 9 00 pm l3 2 24 12. 12 9 00 pm 9 15 25 13 12 9 15 9 30 .r..:.. 8 ?4 ...........d . :...2..:.:.::"::.'s ........ . 0.38 50 : 50 . 9 30 9 45 3 2, 1 22 9 13 9 45 10 00 prn 5 3 2 21 10 11 10 00 pm 10 15 0 i6 9 7 10 15 10 30 4 3 1 12 8 4 10 30. 10 45 4 1 3 13 7 6 10 45 11 00 pm 5 1 4 13 5 8 11. 00 pm 11 15 4 1 3 17 6 11 11 15 11 30 •4 3 1 17 6 11 11 30 11 45 2 2 15 5 10 11 45 pm 12 00 midnightl 2 2 12 4 8 Daily Total 565 299 266. 8.31 -Trips/Unit Note 1. Total Number of timeshare units = 68 2.' Number of Occupied Units = 68 -on Friday 9/12/97 and Saturday 9/13/97 3. Survey data was collected by Higgins Associates at the San Luis Bay Inn in Avila Beach, California for 24 hours from Friday midnight 9/12197 to Saturday midnight 9113/97. F:11998VOBS198-09219M92 San Luis Bay Inn.wb3 05/01/98 Page 3 of 3 TABLE 4 EXAMPLES OF TRIP RATES USED IN TRAFFIC STUDIES TO DETERMINE TRAFFIC GENERATION OF TIMESHARE FACILITIES Location Name of Facility Land Use Size Daily Trip Rate Source of Data Study was Date of On -Site (Rooms per Occupied and assumed Conducted Study Amenities or d.0 ,) Unit Land Use Category By n� r .:, u:. ��lilli :i : I'. rf.!,{{ri �lii �•iii•. •!!� '!` I: 'lf 71 : , r 'ry" �jj All -�E lit.;t:!?:�I:°�'TI_i 1_!i:;l :I:;1'.1 - l;It Ir t f IifltiuT,i! I;rll�r!f ! Ili_IW!, .� 1'ra:' :. .... • .. 8.70 ITE (hotel) Higgins 1996 . note 1 City of Marina, Marina Dunes Hotel . 70 10.16 ITE (resort hotel) Associates CA Resort Vacation Club 112 Ir + 'I i; S�j[ I i4:�i..'t�i'��;!i iri•;;rlh;, #kTi �; Nii r ?r!li�rdti; lP'7Filili_I%anri:i !!:air; rl1 k;17r,i 1 ; :ie,:,:;:.i.:'E::::1:. :: ITE (residential ASL 1989 note 2 City of Palm Marriott Timeshare Timeshare 236 5.86 condominium) Consulting . Desert, CA Condominiums Engineers %lit-in'L,Lr si'�ia!'!I#'! II:'L`Pnl:'!i'lu. . i�;.:'Ir:lkk]t�si:i 'iJ,IEi,Pi;!il•.i� • � llr!lilru� Ili if(.tRl!ii' r5f!J:1 ' -I; 1 #�fitl?TritrlFrl'flllr!G?ttirt3rlirrGlillrilil!rl!!:?kl'.':li I;%'IPill:.11;I!�:I:'ii;'isi 7:ii i:l'':'•.I'.' :1.! �• 1: !! I.. i , 1:' I`. , S.L.. :u• i;! i,; :;n I'r':q•:,1;i 3.4 Survey data at Transpo .. 1995 note 3. City of Lincoln Gleneden Beach Vacation Club S1 Paris Village, Group City OR Vacation Club Leaven worth, WA , .,�. I-:•�"� li•f`11CIII'I ,;•. "II'"II; I. �• twl#n w�• :i ., . xi:' rf.. b...l.,�,,,.•., .i �r. WS A 1988 to 4 ru u!r.r!: : '::. .,I ;I r:r �: �,nlarra 375 10.0 City of Sand Sands of Monterey Hotel City, CA Resort Timeshare 84 Condominium 101 facilities -and coasts Note banquet 1. On -site amenities include conference and meeting rooms, full service quality restaurant, access facilities. ants instead use on -site amenities at the Desert Springs 2. No amenities are available on -site. Marriott Timeshare occupants Resort. 3. No public amenities,, services or restaurant are available on -site. all shops, a 5,000 square foot restaurant. 4. On -site amenities include a 20,000 square foot conference center and ret swimming pools and tennis courts, pow--'►BS1r'-'�219p ¢pA Trances Dai4L 43 05/01 /98 FM R pmM = I i 11 11 APPENDIX D CVWD Agreement I' j� 11 I I No Recording Fee Required Per Government Code Section 27383 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Post Office Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 (Space above this line for Recorder's Use) DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION AND IRRIGATION SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made on this day of 2005, for identification purposes only, by and between the COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California, ("District") and LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public agency of the State of California, ("La Quinta"). RECITALS WHEREAS, La Quinta is developing a project named Silver Rock Resort ("Project") generally consisting of two (2) 18-hole golf courses, up to a total of 1250 combined hotel and casita/timeshare units, a clubhouse, a conference center, a commercial/retail center and a maintenance facility located on approximately five hundred twenty-three (523) acres within Sections 5, 6 and 8, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of La Quinta and described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and C0acs\cng\agnnnts\06VA Quinta Redcv I WHEREAS, the Project will require domestic water distribution and sanitation collection systems and domestic water and sanitation service to each of the Units; and WHEREAS, the Project has fire flow requirements of one thousand five hundred (1,500) F gallons per minute (gpm) for two (2) hours and four thousand (4,000) gpm for two (2) hours, respectively, which are in excess of that p y, available from District's existing system; and WHEREAS, La Quinta is desirous of having District provide domestic water and r sanitation service to the Project and is willing to transfer to District the domestic water and sanitation distribution systems necessary, therefore, after the construction thereof and District is willing to accept such transfer and to provide domestic water and sanitation service to the Project on the terms and conditions set forth herein; and r WHEREAS, the Project will also include two 18-hole golf courses with water features and amenities and will require irrigation water service to serve the golf courses. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the term "irrigation water" is intended to refer to canal water; and WHEREAS, La Quinta will require modifications of the existing irrigation water distribution/delivery system which includes the modification of two 2 delivery systems consisting of a twelve -inch (12") line, meters, gate valves, telemetry and all related appurtenances. 0 ■ NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. La Quinta shall do the following for domestic water service: ■ a. If necessary, as determined by City and District, execute District's Domestic Water and/or Sanitation System Installation Agreement (the "Standard Agreement") for each tract within the Project in such form and content as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, as amended by eng\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev 2 1 District from time to time. In the event of any inconsistency or ambiguity between the ' terms of the Standard Agreement and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall 1' II control. b. La Quinta shall act as lead agency for the purpose of complying with CEQA and all other applicable state and federal environmental laws for the design and I, construction of the domestic water facilities and/or sites designated herein. As a part of its obligations to fund the CEQA process, La Quinta shall prepare or cause to be prepared l� all instruments, documents, reports and other like or kind writings required to be prepared I' and/or filed by CEQA. C. La Quinta, at its cost and expense, shall provide to District grant deeds for six 6 domestic water well sites and one 1 booster station/ ressure reducing site () () P g ("BS/PR Site"), at such locations approved by District, in District's sole and absolute discretion. Said domestic water well sites and BS/PR Site shall be approximately one hundred fifty feet (150') by one hundred fifty feet (150') in dimension. La Quinta shall ensure that the well sites and site are free and clear of all monetary liens and encumbrances and that the transfers to District shall comply with the California Subdivision Map Act. The BS/PR Site is in lieu of a seventh well site. ■ d. Pay to District the actual cost of the design and construction of two (2) domestic water wells and pumping plants complete with all necessary appurtenances including backup, on -site generators. The wells and pumping plants may be constructed ' on anof the above -mentioned well sites provided b La Quinta as y p y Q determined by Distract in its sole and absolute discretion. The District shall invoice La Quinta on a monthly basis or at La Quinta's option La Quinta may provide an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to District or La Quinta may provide cash in the amount of eight hundred fifty LI Ieng\av=ts\05\La Quinta Redev 3 1 thousand dollars ($850,000.00) per well to be used by District to pay the cost of two (2) of the wells and pumping plants with on -site, backup generators complete with all necessary appurtenances before water service is initiated to the Units within the Project in I accordance with the schedule in Appendix A. District reserves the right to review and modify the irrevocable letter of credit or cash amount to pay for the wells and pumping F plants due to increased construction costs. La Quinta shall pay to District any additional cost within thirty (30) days of being billed should the cost of design and construction of h advance payment referenced herein. a the well and pumping plants exceed the p In lieu of La Quinta providing an irrevocable letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount mentioned above to be used by District to pay for the cost of the domestic water wells and well pumping plants, La Quinta, at District's option, may construct one (1) and/or two (2) domestic water wells at the well sites described in Subparagraph l.c. and 1 furnish and install the pump and motor in accordance with District specifications. All 7 well, pump and motor materials and appurtenances shall be approved by District. The well, drilling, soil and water sampling, constructing, developing and testing shall be done under the direction of a District approved hydrogeologist. All directions given by the hydrogeologist shall be subject to District approval. _ In conjunction with this option, La Quinta shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to District or cash in the amount of eight hundred fifty thousand dollars ($850,000.00) less the bid amounts for the well drilling, pump and motor contracts to be used by District to pay for the cost of the well pumping plant facilities and appurtenances including backup generator power supply. La Quinta shall submit the contract documents for the well, pump and motor to District for review and approval prior to presenting them to contractors for bidding purposes. eng\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev 4 F l it it II 11 11 11 -11 Before the domestic water wells are transferred to District, La Quinta shall have the domestic water wells tested for water quality, water production, specific yield and sand content. Well shall comply with all District, state and federal water and well requirements. If the above water well requirements are not met, La Quinta will not be relieved of its obligation to provide District with a well in accordance with the schedule in Appendix A. C. Provide, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, separate grading and landscaping plans for the six (6) well sites and the BS/PR Site described in Subparagraph 1.e. The provisions of Paragraph 4(a) shall apply to the review and approval of the plans. After the grading and landscaping plans have been approved by District, La Quinta shall grade and landscape the sites per the approved plans. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the grading and landscaping of the well sites and the BS/PR Site. f. Provide, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, electrical power of a voltage and wattage necessary for well operation to the six (6) well sites and the BS/PR Site described in Subparagraph I.e. g. Provide, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, telephone service necessary for well communication operation to the six (6) well sites and BS/PR Site described in Subparagraph I.e. h. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, (i) eight -foot (8') high perimeter walls around the six (6) well sites and, (ii) BS/PR Site described in Subparagraph 1.e., and (iii) exterior landscaping. The design of the walls shall also include consideration of noise attenuation to maintain exterior noise levels to an 1 eng\agnnnts\05\La Quinta Redev 5 acceptable ambient level for residential development while the wells and reservoir are in operation. The wall, landscaping and berm shall be of the type and include such material as District shall determine, in District's sole and absolute discretion..The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the design and construction of the walls, berm and landscaping. i. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, well site drainage and well discharge water facilities from each of the six (6) well sites and site drainage and water discharge facilities from the BS/PR Site into local drainage facilities. La QuettaSite discharge water facilities shall include drainage and well and BS/PR g designs for District approval on the grading plans described in Subparagraph l.h. j. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, a minimum of a twelve -inch (12") diameter domestic water pipeline, if one is not adjacent to each of the six (6) domestic water well sites, from an existing twelve -inch (12") diameter or larger L domestic water pipeline and provide a twelve-inch.(12") diameter or larger domestic water pipeline and provide a twelve -inch (12") stub -out to each of the six (6) well sites described in Subparagraph l.c. k. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, a minimum of t two (2) eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipelines, if not already adjacent to the BS/PR Site, from existing eighteen -inch (18") pipelines and "stub -out" into the BS/PRS site. One eighteen -inch (18") pipeline shall be connected to the District's Cahuilla Pressure Zone (150-foot Pressure Zone) and the second shall be connected to the District's Lower La Quinta Zone (235-foot Pressure Zone). 1. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, a building or buildings at La Quintals option to house any or all of the two (2) wells and appurtenances described in Subparagraph 1.d. The design shall include a removable/retractable roof, eng\agmints\05\La Quints Redev 6 F1 I 1 11 ventilation and soundproofing. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the design and construction of the buildings. M. Pay or cause a third party to pay or provide for the operation and maintenance, including malicious damage and graffiti, of the landscaping, walls, gates and drainage facilities for the six (6) well sites and BS/PR Site described in Subparagraphs 1.c. and l .d. Maintenance of the landscaping and drainage facilities for the six (6) well sites and the BS/PR Site shall be in accordance with the requirements of District, as they may be amended from time to time. La Quinta shall be responsible for installing and establishing the initial landscaping at the BS/PR Site and maintaining the landscaping for one (1) year after the landscaping is planted.. n. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, to District specifications, the following pipelines before water service is initiated by District to the Units within the Project in accordance with the Schedule on Appendix A. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the design and construction of the pipelines described herein. (i) An eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the 235-foot Pressure Zone along Avenue 52 service road, which connects to the existing eighteen -inch (18") diameter stub at intersection of service road and Avenue 52 and extends southeast approximately two thousand feet (2,000) to the interim clubhouse. (ii) An eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the 150-foot Pressure Zone along Avenue 54, which connects to an existing eighteen -inch (18") diameter pipeline located 400 feet west of Jefferson Street and Ieng\agrmnts\05\L8 Quinta Redev 7 I extends approximately 1,900 feet west to the golf course maintenance facility. (iii) An eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the r 150-foot Pressure Zone along the Avenue 54 entrance road which connects to the F eighteen -inch (18") diameter pipeline referenced in Subparagraph l.n.(ii) and extends to BS/PR Site described in Paragraph l.c. (iv) A eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the r 235-foot Pressure Zone along Avenue 52 which connects to the eighteen -inch pipeline described in Subparagraph .i (l 8) diameter domestic water pipl n. ) at its ( southeasterly terminus (near interim clubhouse) and extends southeasterly past r proposed clubhouse and across canal and then southerly to BS/PR Site described in Paragraph l.c. (v) An eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the 235-foot Pressure Zone along Avenue 53 entrance road, which connects to the eighteen -inch (18") domestic water pipeline described in Subparagraph l.n.(iv) and extends east to the existing eighteen -inch (1811) stub on Jefferson Street and Avenue 53. o. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, to District specifications, the internal domestic water pipelines to meet the Project's fire flow and domestic water requirements in accordance with the approved domestic water system model. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the design and construction of the internal domestic water pipelines. p. La Quinta shall install a pressure regulating valve on each nonirrigation service within the boundaries of the Project. q. Complete in the required sequence, in accordance with the schedule in M eng\agrmnts\05\LA Quinta Redev 8 Appendix A, the six (6) well sites, payment for the two (2) well and pumping plants, a 1 BS/PR Site and each pipeline described in Subparagraphs l .c., Ld. and 1.n., respectively, 1 before domestic water service is initiated by District to the referenced Units in Appendix A within the Project. r. Immediately upon completion of the six (6) well sites and BS/PR Site described in Subparagraph l .c., La Quinta shall field review with a District representative the remaining visual and aesthetic impacts and agree to mitigate with, but not limited to, landscaping, walls, paint and/or decorative rock to District's satisfaction. Designs shall be reviewed and approved by District prior to construction. 2. La Quinta shall do the following for sanitation service: a. If necessary, as determined by City and District, execute District's Domestic Water and/or Sanitation System Installation Agreement (the "Installation Agreement") for each tract within the Project in such form and content as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, as amended by 1 District from time to time. In the event of any inconsistency or ambiguity between the terms of the Installation Agreement and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. w b. La Quinta shall act as lead agency for the purpose of complying with CEQA and all other applicable state and federal environmental laws for the design and construction of the sanitation facilities and/or sites designated herein. As a part of its obligations to fund the CEQA process, La Quintacause to be all shall prepare or prepared instruments, documents, reports and other like or kind writings required to be prepared 1 and/or filed by CEQA. 1 en8\agrmnts\05U.a Quinta R®dev 9 I C. Design and construct, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, to District specifications, a fifteen -inch (15") diameter gravity sewer pipeline along Avenue 54 from the existing fifteen -inch (15") diameter gravity sewer pipeline located approximately four hundred feet (400') west of Jefferson Street to the golf course maintenance facility. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall a 1 to the design and construction of the gravity Papply � �' tY sewer line. d. Design and construct, at La Quinta's cost and expense, to District specifications, a minimum of twenty-four inch (24") diameter gravity sewer pipeline from an existing twenty-four inch (24") diameter gravity sewer pipeline located on Avenue 52, r approximately 1,800 feet west of Jefferson Street, south within Project to the Coachella Branch of the All American Canal. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the r design of the gravity pipeline. 1 e. Design and construct, at La Quinta's cost and expense, to District specifications, a minimum of a twenty-seven inch (27") diameter gravity sewer pipeline r from the twenty-four inch (24") diameter gravity sewer pipeline described in Subparagraph 2.d., at the canal and extend across the canal and south to the Avenue 53 entrance road and then west to the existing twenty-four inch (24") diameter gravity sewer _ main located on Jefferson Street at Avenue 53. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the design and construction of the gravity sewer main. This gravity sewer pipeline shall be completed prior to District providing sanitation service to the clubhouse and the mixed use area located northwest of the Project. £ After completion of the gravity sewer piplines described in Subparagraphs 2.d. and 2.e., abandon, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, the remaining surface appurtenances (after District has removed the reusable items) at the sewer lift eng\sgrmnts\05\LA Quinta Redev 10 �f extends approximately 1,900 feet west to the golf course maintenance facility. •` (iii) An diameter domestic water for the eighteen -inch (18") pipeline 150-foot Pressure Zone along the Avenue 54 entrance road which connects to the eighteen -inch (18") diameter pipeline referenced in Subparagraph l .n.(ii) and extends to BS/PR Site described in Paragraph l.c. (iv) A eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the 235-foot Pressure Zone along Avenue 52 which connects to the eighteen -inch (18) diameter domestic water pipeline described in Subparagraph l .n. (i) at its southeasterly terminus (near interim clubhouse) and extends southeasterly past . proposed clubhouse and across canal and then southerly to BS/PR Site described in Paragraph l.c. (v) An eighteen -inch (18") diameter domestic water pipeline for the 235-foot Pressure Zone along Avenue 53 entrance road, which connects to the eighteen -inch (18") domestic water pipeline described in Subparagraph l .n.(iv) and extends east to the existing eighteen -inch (18") stub on Jefferson Street and I, Avenue 53. o. Design and construct, at La Quint* sole cost and expense, to District specifications, the internal domestic water pipelines to meet the Project's fire flow and domestic water requirements in accordance with the approved domestic water system ' model. The provisions of Paragraph 4 shall apply to the design and construction of the internal domestic water pipelines. ' p. La Quinta shall install a pressure regulating valve on each nonirrigation It service within the boundaries of the Project. q. Complete in the required sequence, in accordance with the schedule in 11 eng\agrmnts\05\Lz Quinta Redev I reason District does not or is not able to deliver irrigation water to La Quinta, La Quinta hereby waives any claim, loss, damage or action it may have against District including, I but not limited to, damages, loss of business, loss of profit or inconvenience (collectively "Claims"), and La Quinta shall hold District free and harmless from any and all legal r liabilities or economic losses incurred by La Quinta or any other person or entity acting ■ through La Quinta arising from District's failure to delivery irrigation water to La Quinta, excluding therefrom any claims incurred by La Quinta arising from District's, its officers', employees' or a agents' gross negligence or willful misconduct in failing to offs �g �g deliver irrigation water to La Quinta, which result in the failure to deliver irrigation water. I d. District shall have the right, but not the obligation, to conduct a water audit of the Project once every five (5) years beginning with the execution of this Agreement to determine if La Quinta is in compliance with the Water Management Plan. District shall give La Quinta thirty (30) days prior written notice of each audit and an invitation to participate. All costs incurred by District in connection with the audit, including labor costs, shall be at La Quinta's expense. District shall invoice La Quinta for 1 the costs incurred herein. La Quinta shall make payment to District within thirty (30) days of receipt of the billing therefore from District. As a condition of continued water service, the recommendations, if any, resulting from the water audit necessary to bring La Quinta into compliance with the Water Management Plan, must be implemented unless District's General Manager -Chief Engineer, in his discretion, determines otherwise. La Quinta hereby agrees to undertake the recommendations set forth in the water audit within thirty (30) days of receipt of the audit and shall diligently -and continuously complete the recommendations unless La Quinta within thirty (30) days of the receipt thereof, requests, in writing, to be relieved eng\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev 12 1 from the obligation to undertake one or more of the recommendations set forth in the 1 water audit. Within a reasonable time after receipt of the notice from La Quints, the General Manager -Chief Engineer of District will notify La Quinta, in writing, if IA Quinta shall be relieved from the obligations to undertake the recommendations. In the event District's General Manager —Chief Engineer determines that one or more of the recommendations must be undertaken, La-Quinta shall begin within thirty (30) days of receipt of District notice and complete the recommendations within the time frame set in the notice from District's General Manager --Chief Engineer. e. Pro rata stipulation. It is mutually understood and recognized that La Quints will be allowed to distribute irrigation water service throughout Project; r however, only the pro rata amount of irrigation water will be used by La Quinta on the number of irrigated acres that lie within Improvement District No. 1 (ID No. 1) and the average plant consumption rate for the turf grown. In addition, canal water shall not exceed ninety-seven (97) percent of the Project's total water usage. The remaining I, amount of water service required for the portion of La Quinta that lies outside of ID No. 1 will be supplied by well water. f. Outside of improvement district stipulation. To ensure that irrigation water service supplied by District is not being used outside ID No. 1, La Quinta shall execute a separate Well Metering Agreement with District in the form provided by District for each groundwater well supplying La Quinta with well water. The Well Metering Agreement does not include the conveyance of said metering devices to District. ' g. La Quinta shall employ, at its sole cost and expense, a qualified professional engineer to plan, design and prepare detailed construction plans and I eng\agrmnts\Q5\La Quinta Redev 13 specifications in accordance with District design criteria and standards for the irrigation works (Works) to the Project. All planning, design work and plans for said Works shall be subject to review and approval by District prior to the beginning of any construction of the Works. The entire cost of the design plans and construction of the irrigation and telemetry works shall be paid by La Quinta which includes the following improvements: (i) Abandon Lateral 120.8-0.3 Rt along Avenue 52 between Adams Street 0.5 (one-half [1/2] mile east of Adams Street) and Jefferson Street. (ii) Abandon Lateral 120.8-0.3-0.5 Rt along Jefferson Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 52.5 (one-fourth [1/4] mile south of Avenue 52). (iii) Abandon Lateral 120.6 along Adams Street 0.75 (three-quarter [3/4] mile east of Adams Street) between Avenue 52.25 (one-fourth [1/4] mile south of Avenue 52) and Avenue 53. (iv) Abandon Lateral 121.3 along Avenue 53.5 (one-fourth [1/4) mile south of Avenue 53) between Adams Street 0.50 (one-half [1/2] mile east of Adams Street) and Adams Street 0.75 (three -fourth [3/4] mile east of Adams Street). (v) Abandon Lateral 120.8A (I6-inch)along Adams Street 0.50 (one-half [1/2] mile east of Adams Street) between Avenue 52 and Avenue 52.25 (one-fourth [1/4] mile south of Avenue 52). (vi) Abandon existing vertical 10-inch concrete diameter Delivery Point No. 1602, located at Adams Street 0.75 (three-quarter [3/4] mile east of Adams Street) and Avenue 52.25 (one-fourth [1/4] mile south of Avenue 52). (vii) Replace existing 54-inch diameter concrete pipe with 30-inch eng\ag=ts\o5\La Quinta Redev 14 11 diameter CL 165 DR 25 C-905 PVC pipe for Lateral 120.8 located along Adams Street 0.50 (one-half [1/2] mile east of Adams Street) between Avenue 52 and Avenue 52.25 (one-fourth [1/4] mile south of Avenue 52) if La Quinta is not able to design around the existing irrigation lateral. If La Quinta is able to design around the existing 54-inch diameter concrete irrigation lateral, then La Quinta shall protect the irrigation lateral in place and shall maintain a minimum of 4 feet of cover over the irrigation lateral and shall maintain the width of the existing easement for the irrigation lateral. La Quinta shall provide an exhibit showing actual elevations of top of pipe every 50 feet for the irrigation lateral and show any other utilities and surface improvements that will be installed within the existing irrigation lateral easement. (viii) Modify existing vertical 10-inch concrete diameter Delivery Point No. 1601, located at Adams Street 0.50 (one-half [1/2) mile east of Adams Street) and Avenue 53.5 (one-fourth [1/4) mile south of Avenue 53) with a 12-inch diameter line meter, gate valves, and extend an 18-inch C905 CL 165 DR 25 PVC pipe and all related appurtenances per District standard to the new meter. (ix) Modify existing L4 Pump Station Wet Well, located at Adams Street 0.50 (one-half [1/2] mile east of Adams Street) and Avenue 52.25 one-fourth [1/4] mile south of Avenue 52) and extending an 18-inch diameter ductile iron pipe and 12-inch line meter, gate valves and all related appurtenances per District standards. (x) Upgrade existing L-4 electrical panel to accommodate increased loading. eng\agrmnts105U.a Quinta Redev 15 I (xi) In addition to modifying the existing meters, La Quinta agrees to pay all costs for District forces to furnish and install telemetry equipment at said delivery point 1601, if needed, for the purpose of conveying canal water to I La Quinta. La Quinta shall pay the entire cost of the plans and construction to extend irrigation water service to the property. The estimated cost for District forces to install the telemetry equipment is thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) per delivery point. This cost is District's best estimate of the cost including work. However La Quinta will be indirect costs and overhead of the proposed Qu responsible for payment of the actual cost of the work. If the cost exceeds the L deposit, La Quinta will be billed and if it is less than the deposit, the balance will be refunded to La Quinta. h. Before the release of any construction plans, La Quinta shall, at its sole L cost and expense, provide Bureau of Reclamation with a ten (10) foot wide easement for the new delivery point, as outlined in Subparagraph 3.g.viii. i. Before the release of any construction plans, La Quinta shall at its sole cost and expense vacate the existing easement for the portion of the existing irrigation laterals that will be abandoned as described in Subparagraphs 3.g., i, ii, iii, iv, v and vi. In addition, La Quinta shall provide District with the required documentation for abandoning easements. Said abandoned easements shall be in recordable form and shall be executed by or on behalf of La Quinta. j. La Quinta agrees that no improvements may be constructed within the Bureau of Reclamation easements without written consent by District. This includes, but is not limited to, street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, buildings, walls and other permanent structures. eng\agr=ts\05U.a Quinta Redev 16 I I k. La Quinta hereby acknowledges and agrees that any portion of the delivery system to District's metered delivery points, installed by or on behalf of District on the Project, is the property of District, notwithstanding the funds necessary to construct the delivery system that came from La Quinta. La Quinta shall, upon receipt of a notice, execute any further instruments as may be necessary to indicate District's ownership of the delivery system to District metered delivery points installed by or on behalf of District. This includes, but is not limited to, receipt of declarations by La Quinta or La Quinta's Contractor who furnished materials in the construction of the delivery system, showing payment in full and, prior to the release of the construction plans, La Quinta shall deliver to District a Bill of Sale which conveys title of the delivery system to District's metered delivery points to District. 1. District shall not be liable for the replacement of surface improvements, which District may be required to remove in the future to gain access to the delivery system. La Quinta waives the right to claim, loss, damage or action against District arising out of or resulting from the removal or destruction of surface improvements or any action of District, its rights hereunder and La Quinta hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless District against and pay in full all loss, damage or expense that District may sustain, incur, become liable for arising out of or in connection with the rights provided for hereunder. M. Upon acceptance of the delivery system by District as hereafter described, the Project shall be placed on the water availability roll. n. La Quinta acknowledges that the Project must be irrigated by a method that does not permit unreasonable use or waste of water. Only sprinkler or drip irrigation will be permitted, except for lake filling purposes. I eng\agrmnts\05\tA Quinta Redev 17 1 o. La Quinta shall provide groundwater protection from nitrates and pesticides leaching into the groundwater by employing the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as established by the University of California Turf Grass Research, I which are attached hereto on Exhibit E and by this reference incorporated herein. District reserves the right to substitute or modify the attached Exhibit "E" within sixty (60) days prior written notice to La Quinta. An evaluation of the Project's BMPs may occur during the water audit. All costs of the evaluation shall be at the expense of the La Quinta. P. In the event of a shortage of available irrigation water, except as otherwise required by law, regulation or court order, the following irrigation water uses shall have r priority to use irrigation water over the Project: r (i) Agricultural uses in existence as of the date of this Agreement. (ii) Agricultural uses converted to nonagricultural uses prior to the date r of this Agreement. (iii) Nonagricultural uses in existence prior to the date of this Agreement. During such periods of shortage, irrigation water for the Project may be supplied by non -District -owned wells. q. District shall bill La Quinta monthly for the delivery of Irrigation Water to La Quinta. The irrigation water statement shall include (1) the irrigation water delivery dates, (2) water tolls and charges, (3) the amount of irrigation water consumed in acre-feet and (4) the amount to be paid by La Quinta. r. Prior to releasing the construction plans to receive irrigation water service, La Quinta shall, at its own cost and expense, apply for and obtain all necessary consents, easements, approvals, permits, authority, licenses or entitlements ("Permits') from all appropriate governmental authorities including, but not limited to the Bureau of eng\agn-nnts\05\La Quinta Redev 18 i Reclamation, required to allow District to deliver irrigation water to the Project, including, but not limited to, the construction of the delivery system. District shall have no obligation to provide irrigation water service to the Project until District receives the easements and necessary authorizations issued by said governmental authorities. La Quinta shall comply with and conform to all laws and regulations, including, but not 1, limited to, any and all requirements and orders of all federal, state and local boards or authorities, present and future, in any way relating to the use of irrigation water, and La Quinta shall hold District free and harmless from any loss, damage or liability arising therefrom or in connection therewith S. La Quinta hereby grants to District, its officers, employees and agents, a nonexclusive easement for vehicular (excluding vehicles with a gross laden weight of I' more than six thousand [6,000] pounds) and pedestrian ingress and egress to gain access to the District's irrigation facilities, equipment and appurtenances for the purpose of performing the activities set forth in this Agreement over those portions of the Project I, described within Exhibit' F" and depicted within Exhibit "G" hereto (the "Access ' Easement Area!). District agrees to use and cause its officers, employees and agents to use the Access Easement Area in such a manner as to not unreasonably disrupt golf play on the Project. In addition, District agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless ' La Quinta from any cost incurred or suffered by La Quinta as a result of damage or injury to persons or property as a result of District, its officers, employees and/or agents exercising its nonexclusive right of ingress and egress described herein, excluding ' therefrom any Claims incurred by District arising from La Quinta's, its officers', I employees' or agents' gross negligence or willful misconduct. I I eng\ag=ts\o5\La Quinta Redev 19 1� t. Upon receipt of notice of completion of construction of the delivery systern, which District shall inspect during construction; any variation from District's standards shall be called to La Quinta's attention and shall be remedied by La Quinta in I accordance with District's requirements. When the delivery system meets District lords District shall accept the delivery system for purposes of ownership, operation star Cep cry Y P� P P� and maintenance, provided, however, that charges for the cost of operating, maintaining, r repairing and replacing the delivery system may, in the future, be added to charges for water service to the Project, as part of a District -wide policy. The Bill of Sale for the delivery system shall be provided to District prior to the release of the final construction r notice for the delivery system. 4. The following shall apply to the design and construction of the domestic water, sanitation and irrigation facilities: a. For each improvement or facility (including landscaping) La Quinta is required to design the following provisions shall apply: (i) La Quinta shall employ, at its sole expense, a qualified professional engineering firm ("La Quinta's Engineer") to plan, design and prepare detailed construction plans and specifications for the improvement in full and complete accordance with District's design criteria and standards. La Quinta's Engineer shall complete the design and detailed construction plans and specifications and the same shall be submitted to District as set forth below. All such planning and design work and detailed construction plans and specifications performed and prepared by La Quinta's Engineer shall be subject to review and written approval by District prior to the beginning of any construction of the specific improvement. District shall approve or disapprove the construction plans and specifications eng\agnnnts\05\L4 Quinta Redev 20 1 within a reasonable amount of time after submittal to District.. In the event 1 District disapproves the plans and specifications, La Quinta shall modify the plans PP P P � Q fy and specifications in accordance with the reasons given for disapproval and shall within thirty (30) days after disapproval by District submit the revised construction plans and specifications to District for approval or disapproval..The 1 foregoing procedure shall be continued until the construction plans and specifications have been approved by District. LA QUINTA HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES AND UNDERSTANDS THAT DISTRICT MAY ' APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF DEVELOPER'S PLANNING AND 1 DESIGN WORK AND/OR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION. All cost and expense of District's review (including, but not limited to, District's agents, employees and independent contractors) shall be deducted from the Deposit (as defined in Subparagraph b.(ii)(x) below). La Quinta represents that the plans and specifications will conform to all applicable federal, state and local governmental I' rules, ordinances and regulations and all applicable environmental protection laws. La Quinta's submission of the plans and specifications to District shall ' evidence La Q representation warranty resentation Quinta's r and to District that the plans and h' specifications are to the best of La Quinta's knowledge, after due inquiry, complete, accurate, workable and are in compliance with all governmental requirements with respect thereto. ' b. For each facility, La Quinta is to construct and/or install, the following ' provisions apply- (i) Following receipt of District's approval of the design and 1 I eng\ag=ts\05\La Quinta Redev 21 construction plans and specifications for each improvement: A. La Quinta shall employ, with written concurrence of District, a qualified and properly licensed contractor or contractors (hereinafter referred to collectively as "La Quinta's contractor") to construct and p p complete the improvement. B. Once construction and/or installation of the improvement L has commenced, La Quinta shall diligently prosecute the same to completion at no cost or expense to District in conformance with the laws, rules and regulations of all governmental bodies and agencies. L C. La Quints shall directly pay all costs associated with the L construction of the improvements, (and any of them), including but not limited to, furnishing of materials, and La Quinta shall keep District free L and harmless from such costs. D. Each improvement shall be installed in strict compliance with the plans and specifications. Any deviations from the approved plans and/or specifications must be approved by District, in writing, prior to being made. E. La Quinta hereby irrevocably appoints District to inspect the furnishing and installation of the improvement. It is understood and agreed that District's inspection personnel shall have the authority to enforce the construction plans and specifications, which authority shall include requiring that all unacceptable materials, workmanship and/or installation be replaced, repaired or corrected by La Quinta's contractor. All reasonable cost and expense of District's inspection (including, but not eng\agrnmts\05\L3 Quinta Redev 22 1 limited to, District's agents, employees and independent contractors) shall be deducted from the Deposit [as defined in Subparagraph C.(x) below]. 1 District's inspection does not include inspection for compliance with safety requirements by La Quinta's contractor. Any inspection completed by District shall be for the sole use and benefit of Di tract, and Di is neither La Quinta nor any third party shall be entitled to rely thereon for any purpose. District does not undertake or assume any responsibility for or owe a duty to, select, review or supervise the creation of the improvement. F. La Quinta's Engineer shall provide to District all field engineering surveys associated with the construction of the improvement at La Quinta's sole cost and expense. La Quinta shall promptly famish to District all field notes and grade sheets, together with all location, offset, and attendant data and reports, resulting from La Quinta's Engineer's field engineering surveys and/or proposed facility design changes, all of which I� have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering 1 practices, and allow District sufficient time to approve or make any ' required facility design changes resulting therefrom prior to construction. An inspection or review pursuant to this subparagraph shall be for the Y P P sole use and benefit of District, and neither La Quinta nor any third party shall be entitled to rely thereon for any purpose. (ii) Before the release of any construction plans, La Quinta, at its sole cost and expense, shall furnish to District easement document(s), satisfactory to District as to content, form, location and width, which have been duly executed by the property owner(s) and which assure District's unequivocal right to own, eng\agr=ts\05\Ls Quinta Redev 23 I operate, maintain, replace, repair, enlarge, reconstruct, remove and improve the improvement. La Quinta shall ensure that all deeds of trust and mortgages are subordinated to the easements set forth in this subparagraph (b). (iii) La Quinta's contractor shall be required to repair the improvement which have been Y anYP�Ydamaged b prior to District's final acceptance of the g improvement (or any of them) covered hereby. The final acceptance shall follow r final inspection and testing of such improvement after completion of the r improvement at issue. La Quinta specifically agrees to make, or require La Quinta's contractor to make, corrections and/or repairs prior to final acceptance r determined to be necessary by District inspection personnel, without cost to District, and to provide a one-year (following date of final acceptance by District) materials and workmanship guarantee providing that La Quinta or La Quinta's contractor will repair, at its or their expense, all failures of any improvement which was furnished, installed and/or constructed due to faulty materials or installation, within said one-year period. In the event La Quinta or La Quinta's contractor fails to cause satisfactory repair, as determined by District, within M forty-eight (48) hours after written notice or such longer period of time as District may reasonably deternune, District may cause such repairs to be completed at La Quinta's cost and expense. Notwithstanding the above -provided -for forty-eight (48) hour or other specified repair period, District shall have the unqualified right to immediately make any emergency repairs necessary to eliminate any threat to q the public's health, safety or welfare, at La Quinta's cost and expense. Nothing in this subparagraph shall limit or abrogate any other claims, demands or actions District may have against La Quinta or La Quinta's contractor on account of eng\ag=ts\05\La Quinta Redev 24 IJ 11 damages sustained by reason of such defects, nor shall the provisions of this paragraph limit, abrogate or affect any warranties in favor of District which are implied by law or set forth in any construction agreement. (iv) La Quinta shall, upon request by District, furnish District with such information as La Quinta possesses or has available to it from any consultants, engineers, contractors or other persons engaged by or under the control of La Quinta relating to the environmental assessment relative to the creation of the improvements covered by this Agreement. in this regard, nothing herein contained shall be construed or interpreted to require District to take or participate in any legal action for the purpose of securing approval for the improvement. (v) La Quinta shall assume the defense of, indemnify and hold harmless District and its officers, directors, administrators, consultants, engineers, employees and agents, and each and every one of them, from and against all actions, damages, claims, losses and expenses of every type and description to which they may be subjected or put, by reason of, or resulting from, this Agreement and the design, engineering and construction of the improvement. No provision of this Agreement shall in any way limit the extent of the responsibility of La Quinta for payment of damages resulting from its operations or the operations of any of its contractors, engineers, agents or employees. La Quinta further covenants and agrees to pay, or to reimburse, District, its agents, employees, engineers, consultants, officers, directors and administrators, for any and all costs, attorneys, fees, liabilities or expenses in connection with the investigating, defending against or otherwise in connection with any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, expenses or actions, arising out of or in connection I eng\agmmts\05U Quinta Redev 25 with La Quinta's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, except liability arising through the sole negligence or willful misconduct of District, its agents, employees, engineers, consultants, officers, directors and administrators. District shall have the right, at La Quinta's expense, to commence, to appear in, or to defend any action or proceeding, arising out of and in connection with the Agreement, and in connection therewith, may pay all necessary expenses if r La Quinta fails upon reasonable notice to so commence, appear in or defend any action or proceeding with counsel reasonably acceptable to District. La Quinta shall be furnished with copies of bills relating to the foregoing upon request. r (vi) Prior to the release of the construction plans for the domestic water, sanitation and irrigation facilities, La Quinta shall furnish to District an a irrevocable letter of credit ("LOC") or a certificate of deposit ("CD") from a bank or savings and loan located and doing business in the state of California and i acceptable to District, naming District as sole beneficiary with the exclusive right ■ of withdrawal according to the following: in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) or 5 percent (5%) of the amount of each construction contract for the domestic water, sanitation and irrigation facilities, whichever is greater, as security for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of construction; said security shall provide that District has the absolute right five days after the mailing of a written notification to La Quinta by certified mail at La Quinta's address herein to draw all or a portion of the funds represented by the security as may be necessary to complete construction, including administrative and all other costs for each of the domestic water, sanitation and irrigation facilities; each LOC or CD shall be issued or delivered, on a case by basis, for each contract based on eng\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev 26 the construction required as outlined in the applicable Appendix attached hereto; said security, less draws, if any, will be returned to La Quinta, on a case -by -case basis, upon acceptance of each of the domestic water, sanitation and irrigation facilities, meaning that the LOC or CD shall be released for each contract as the facility covered by the contract is accepted by District. A preconstruction conference shall be held with District and the contractor prior to start of construction. (vii) 'La Quinta shall carry and maintain, at La Quinta's sole cost and expense, until all of the improvements and/or facilities have been installed or completed, not less than the following coverage and limits of insurance which shall be maintained with insurers and under forms of policies satisfactory to District: A. Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability. (1) State Worker's Compensation - coverage as required by law. (2) Employer's Liability with limits of at least $1;000,000 per occurrence. B. Automobile Liability for Bodily Injury and Property Damage - $5,000,000 per person, $10,000,000 per occurrence. C. General Liability for Bodily Injury and Property Damage - $5,000,000 per person, $10,000,000 per occurrence. These policies may contain an aggregate limit not less than the occurrence limit. The required limits may be satisfied by a combination of a primary policy and an excess or umbrella policy. 1 eng\agrmnts\O.T" Quinta Redev 27 A. All insurance required pursuant to the express provisions of this Agreement shall: (1) Provide that coverage shall not be revised, cancelled or reduced until at least thirty (30) days written notice of such cancellation shall have been given to District.. (2) Be issued by the Joint Powers Insurance Authority which is qualified to do business in the State of California and whose financial stability is evaluated on a yearly basis by an independent actuarial study and satisfactory to the District. (3) Be reasonably satisfactory to District in all other reasonable respects. B. The Memoranda of Coverage or Evidence of Coverage letter, required pursuant to this Agreement, together with evidence of payment of premiums, shall be provided to District prior to the commencement of any term of this Agreement. C. The general liability insurance to be maintained by La Quinta pursuant to this section above shall: (1) Name District as an additional covered party under the Memorandum of Coverage. (2) Apply severally to La Quinta and District. (3) Cover La Quinta and District as protected parties in the same manner as if each are a member of the Joint Powers Insurance Authority. eng\agmMts\05U Quinta Redev 28 (4) Contain no provisions affecting the rights which 1 either of them would have as claimants if not so named as protected parries. (5) At such time as there is a duty to defend i i or indemnify under this indemnification agreement outlined in this contract, then the liability afforded under the Joint Powers Insurance Authority Memorandum of Coverage would be primary and any other valid and collectible insurance available to the District shall be excess. (ix) Upon completion of the improvements (or any of them), La Quinta shall notify District of such completion, in writing, and cause contractors and all subcontractors and materialmen to provide lien and material releases. (x) Concurrently with La Quinta's execution of this Agreement, La Quinta shall deposit with District a minimum sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) ("Deposit"). The Deposit shall be held by District for all costs and expenses of District arising out of or in connection with the review of plans and specifications, engineering, surveys, field notes and grade sheets, inspections of the improvements and any matter related to or arising out of the same. La Quinta hereby authorizes District to use, apply or retain all or any part of the Deposit to offset its costs and expenses related to the foregoing duties. District shall not be required to keep the Deposit separate from its general funds, and La Quinta shall not be entitled eng\agmmts\05UA Quinta Redev W, I to interest on the Deposit. If there are any funds left in the Deposit after the completion or acceptance of the improvements, such excess shall be returned to La Quinta within thirty (30) days following completion and acceptance of the improvement. If further funds are necessary, La Quinta shall, within thirty (30) days after written demand therefor, deposit cash with District in an amount which District considers sufficient to pay for r the costs and expenses to be included hereunder. (xi) Prior to the release of the construction plans to the improvements (or any of them), La Quinta shall execute a bill of sale CUR of Sale,) in the foam r and content acceptable to District. The Bill of Sale shall convey title to each improvement to District at no cost and expense to District. Each improvement shall be transferred to District free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 5. District shall do the following for domestic water service: a. Construct two (2) domestic wells and pumping plants with on -site backup generators, complete with necessary appurtenances, on two (2) of the six (6) sites i provided by La Quinta described in Subparagraph Lc in accordance with the schedule on 17 Appendix A. Each well will be operational within one (1) year of the date of La Quinta • k providing the necessary advance payments; however, District shall not be liable for the failure to meet this schedule and La Quinta hereby waives and releases, indemnifies and holds District and its officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns harmless from all debts, liabilities, obligations, costs, expenses (including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees), damages, claims, actions or causes of action arising out of or in connection with the failure to complete the well improvements within one (1) year of the i date of La Quinta providing the necessary advance payments. eng\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev. 30 i b. Provide the fire flow of one thousand five hundred (1,500) gallons per 1 minute (gpm) and four thousand (4,000) gpm for two (2) hours for the two thousand seven hundred (2,700) square foot clubhouse and multi -story hotel, respectively, to said Project subject to La Quints constructing the reservoir, reservoir pipeline and all pipelines and La Quinta providing payment for the two (2) wells and pumping plants (or completion of the two (2) well pumping plants if construction option described in Subparagraph Ld. is used) subject to circumstances within the control of District. Said fire flow shall not be available prior to the completion of all pipelines, and payment for the two (2) wells and pumping plants (or completion of the two (2) well pumping plants I' if construction option described in Subparagraph Ld. is used) in accordance with the schedule in Appendix A. l' C. Consider one hundred percent (l 00%) of the actual cost, exclusive of engi.neering, inspection and surveying of the two (2) wells and pumping plants, described in Subparagraphs Ld., as credit towards the Dwelling Unit Charge of the Water System I' Backup Facilities Charge less the Supplemental imported Water Supply Component at the charge in effect on the day each facility is placed into service in District's system for the Project. No refund or transfer of this credit will be made outside the Project. Should the cost of constructing the well and pumping plants be less than the advance payment described in Subparagraph Ld., excess deposits monies shall be refunded to La Quinta. 1 A In the event the construction costs determined above for the wells and pumping plants described in Subparagraph 1.d. exceed the Dwelling Unit Charge of the Water System Backup Facilities Charge, less the Supplemental Imported Water Supply ' Component for the Project, District will not pay the additional construction costs for the two (2) wells and pumping plants, reservoir, reservoir pipeline and pipelines described in 1 I erg\ V=ts\05U Quinta Redev 31 Subparagraph l.d. 6. District shall do the following for sanitation service: a. Convey a grant deed to La Quinta (depending on location of temporary lift I station) for the temporary lift station described in Subparagraph 2.e. at such time that the gravitysanit�sanitary pipeline described in Subparagraph 2.d. is accepted for operation and maintenance. r b. Remove the reusable items at the lift station at no cost to La Quinta at such time that the gravity sanitary sewer pipeline described in Subparagraph 2.d. is progressed for service. The removal of the remaining surface appurtenances at the lift station will be r at La Quinta's sole cost and expense. r C. Consider the difference in pipeline cost exclusive of engineering, inspection and surveying between a ten -inch (10'� diameter gravity sewer pipeline and a r twenty-seven inch (27") diameter gravity sewer pipeline described in Subparagraph 2.c. r as credit toward the Collection System Component of the Sanitation Capacity Charge at the charge in effect on the day the pipeline is placed into service in District's system. No refund or transfer of this credit will be made outside the Project. d. In the event the actual difference in construction cost between a ten -inch (10") diameter gravity sewer pipeline and a twenty-seven inch (27") diameter gravity sewer pipeline, exclusive of engineering, inspection and surveying, described in Subparagraph 2.e. exceeds the Collection System Component of the Sanitation Capacity Charge, District will not pay the additional construction costs. e. Determine the cost of the pipeline subject to consideration, based on La Quinta either from the lowest, responsible bid, from a publicly bid contract or by providing three (3) bids to District prior to the start of construction. District will review eng\agr=ts105\La Quinta Redev 32 I and approve the bids as a basis of the lowest costs. 7. The following general provisions shall also apply: a. La Quints shall provide written notification to the District of any assignment of its rights or duties hereunder to any person or entity. The District shall acknowledge receipt of the assignment in writing. b. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the assigns, successors and representatives of the parties. C. All notices provided for hereunder shall be in writing and mailed (registered or certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested), or by express carrier (return receipt requested) or hand delivered to the parties at the addresses set forth below or at such other addresses as shall be designated by such party and a written notice to the other party in accordance with the provisions of this section. All such notices shall, if hand delivered, or delivered by express carrier, be deemed received upon delivery and, if mailed, be deemed received three business days after such mailing. DISTRICT: Coachella Valley Water District Attention: Steve Robbins, General Manager -Chief Engineer Post Office Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 LA QUINTA: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Attention: Tom Genovese, Executive Director Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92247-1504 d. This instrument, together with the exhibits attached hereto and other writings referenced herein, contain the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersede any and all prior agreements between the parties, 1 eng\agnnnts\05\La Quinta Redev 33 I oral or written, and any and all amendments thereto. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting a I subsequent modification in writing, signed by the parties to be charged. e. In the event of any litigation or other action between the parties arising out g g�' of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as maybe granted, to its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. f. The invalidity or illegality of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the remainder of this Agreement. L g Each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such other documents and perform such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement. h. The captions contained in this Agreement are for convenience of reference L only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement or limit or amplify any of its terms or provisions. i. This Agreement is entered into within the State of California, and all questions concerning the validity, interpretation and performance of any of its terms or provisions or any of the rights or obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed by and resolved in accordance with the laws of the State of California. j. Should public funds be used in the construction of any particular domestic water, sanitation or irrigation facility at any given time, require that any contractor under its employ for the construction of such facilities shall comply with the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California regarding prevailing wages, minimum wages; the 8-hour day and 40-hour week, overtime, Saturday, Sunday and holiday work; and nondiscrimination because of race, color, national origins, sex or religion. eng\ag=ts\05\La Quinta Redev 34 1 k. Subject to the obligations of La Quinta set forth herein, upon accepting 1 title to the domestic water and sanitation systems and facilities described above in this Agreement, District shall assume all rights and obligations of ownership including, without limitation, the operation of the system at no further cost to La Quinta. 1. Whenever in this Agreement the approval or consent of District is � PP required, or some other action is required to be undertaken by District, as a condition to the' commencement of work or consummation of some other event, District shall act in a timely manner in taking such action or in its consideration of such approval or consent. 1 PLEASE ATTACH APPROPRIATE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES 1 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1 By PLEASE ATTACH APPROPRIATE ' NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES 1 11 Date LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY l3 Date II' C0:1es\eng\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev I 35 F1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LA QUINTA ) On May 16, 2005 before me, Regenia Hensley, Notary Public, personally F appeared THOMAS P. GENOVESE personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed F the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. r WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Af KGENAWNSMY r R ENIA HENSLEY comT*do,# 152t429 Notary Public Notary PubW - Cd"omia Commission # 1521423 mver� county oAy Comm. Eames Oct 2& 20M Expiration: October 23, 2008 dw Type of Document: Domestic Water & Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement wI Coachella Valley Water District I APPENDIX A Construction and/or design of the facility described under Item (a) must be completed before water service is initiated Reference to the following Units within Facilities Item (a) Subparagraph the Project* Design and construct 15-inch diameter gravity 1 sewer i eline 2.c. ** Design and construct 24-inch diameter gravity 2 sewer i aline 2.d ** Design and construct 27-inch diameter gravity 3' sewer i eline 2.e. ** Dedicate Well Site No. 1 and construct site 4. improvements Well and Pumping Plant No. l with on -site 5' backupenerator 1 Dedicate Well Site No. 2 and construct site 6. improvements 7. Well and Pumping Plant No. 2 with on -site 1.d. 300 backup generator 8. 18-inch diameter pipeline 9. 18-inch diameter pipeline 1.n.(ii) ** 10. 18-inch diameter pipeline l .n.(iii) ** 11. 18-inch diameter pipeline 1.n.(iv) ** 12. 18-inch diameter pipeline 1.n.(v) ** Dedicate Well Site No. 3 and construct site 13. improvements I.e. *** Dedicate Well Site No. 4 and construct site 14. im rovements I.e. *** Dedicate Well Site No. 5 and construct site 15. improvements I.e. *** Dedicate Well Site No. 6 and construct site 16. im rovements l.e. *** 17. Booster Station/Pressure Reducing Station site I.e. *** I' *Certain items may require design only. Approval of designs will be required by District before service is provided to the specified Units within the Project. **As development progresses for sewer and water and/or to meet fire flow requirement for the water system. i ***Well sites are a function of acreage and not units. Well sites will be dedicated even if ultimate units are not reached. Similarly, if additional units are added within the existing project acreage, no additional well sites will ' be required. ****These units may be any combination of the hotel, timeshare units, permanent clubhouse, conference center, commercial/retail center and maintenance facility. I(()lac\rna\avrmntcVlS\T a (lninta RMPv J EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 CO:les\eng\agnnnts105U Quinta Redev I EXHIBIT B PROJECT LOCATION MAP C0:leskng\W=ts\0.T" Quinta Rc&v F EXHIBIT C STANDARD DOMESTIC WATER AND/OR SANITATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION AGREEMENT CO:les\eng\agrmnts\05U.e Quinta Redev r r r r r r a w I 1.1 1 I L EXHIBIT D WELL METERING AGREEMENT CO:les\e►g\agrmnts\05\La Quinta Redev EXHIBIT E BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES r r r F r r u F CO:les\eng\agrnmts\05\Le Quinta Redev fl 1 1 fl CO:les\eng\agimnts\03\La Quinta Redev EXHIBIT F ACCESS EASEMENT AREA EXHIBIT G DEPICTION OF ACCESS EASEMENT AREA L L L L L L-I m CO:les\eng\agmunts\05V.a Quinta Redev 1 EXHIBIT E 1 Best Management Practices 1. Apply frequent light rates of N. 2. Use slow -release fertilizers. 3. Avoid fertilizing during periods when turf grass is naturally slow growing, dormant or stressed. 4. Avoid fertilizing when rain is forecasted. ' 5. Conservatively irrigate greenbelt areas to save water and reduce leaching. Limit irrigation to the amount necessary to replace moisture used by the plant. Irrigate according to ET and soil infiltration rates. Maintain the highest possible irrigation distribution. Try not to have 1 irrigation application rate exceed soil infiltration rate by using multiple, short run times. 6. Use less energy demanding plants where possible and reduce the scope of the "heavily managed" areas. 7. Reduce annual N application rates as much as possible. 8. Minimize the reduction of growth of base turf areas during preparations of overseeding. 9. Reduce the amount of area within greenbelt areas that is overseeded. 10. Install under -drain system to collect the leachate from areas of the greenbelt areas that may 1 be susceptible to leaching. The leachate should be properly disposed of through irrigation via infiltration through a proper soil profile. ' if 11. Develop collection ponds to collect surface runoff and necessary, install impervious liners to prevent groundwater leaching. 12. Collect runoff from sensitive areas and pass it through grassed swales or vegetated buffer strips. 13. As a condition of service, the recommendations of Best Management Practices must be implemented unless the general manager — chief engineer finds it would be a hardship. 1 I I CO:les\eng\agrn nts\06U.a Quinta Redev i i i APPENDIX E ' Approved WSA and WSV i� 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION for the proposed: SilverRock Resort Specific Plan City of La Quinta prepared for: ATEp 01STDic, Coachella Valley Water District P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department P.O. Box 1594 La Quinta, CA 92247-1594 May 18, 2006 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS r r WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION r 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1 2.1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................1 1 2.2 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ..........................................................................................1 r 2.2.1 Water Supply Assessment .................... ...................................................................... I I 2.2.2 Water Supply Verification.........................................................................................2 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................2 2.3.1 Application of WSA...................................................................................................3 2.3.2 Application of WSV...................................................................................................3 2.4 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY 2.4.1 General....................................................................................................,...................3 2.5 EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS............................................................3 .� 2.5.1 Background...........................................................................................6....................3 2.5.2 Reliance on CVWMP and UWMP............................................................................4 3.0 WATER DEMANDS .................. ............................4 3.1 PROJECT DEMANDS..................................................................................................6.4 4.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (WSA)........................................................................6 4.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................6 4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SOURCES................................................................6 4.2.1 Primary Water Sources ..................................................... ...6 4.2.2 Additional Water Sources..........................................................................................6 4.3 ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY.................................................................................6 4.3.1 Groundwater..............................................................................................................6 4.3.1.1 Description of the Aquifer.....................................................................................7 4.3.1.2 Aquifer Adjudication.............................................................................................7 4.3.1.3 Overdraft Status of the Aquifer..............................................................................7 4.3.1.4 Overdraft Mitigation Efforts..................................................................................7 4.3.1.5 Historical Groundwater Use...................................................................................8 4.3.1.6 Groundwater Sufficiency Analysis.........................................................................8 4.3.2 Additional Water Sources .......................... :............................................................... 8 4.3.2.1 Canal Water...........................................................................................................8 - 4.3.2.2 State Water Project (SWP) Water..........................................................................9 4.3.2.3 Surface Water.......................................................................................................10 4.3.2.4 Recycled Water................................................................................................... 10 4.3.3 Summary of Primary and Additional Water Sources............................................10 4.3.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................11 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 5.8GENERAL .......,...,...,..,~.,.,.,....,^..~,,,^......,.....,...^~..,,..,,,,,,^^,,,,,,~~,,,,,,,,,^,,,,~,^,,,,_~~,,~,12 5.2 WATER SOURCE .......,............,..,,^.~.......,~~....__,.,.,..~,,,^,,,,,,,,,,,,^,,~,,,,~~~~~,,~~~,,~12 5.4 FACTORS OF RELIABILITY ~~~~~~~,~~~.~~..~~..~~~~~^ ~~~~~~^12 m� 5.4.8General `^~`^^,.,.,,..,,...~...,.......,...,,.~.^``^^^`^^^`^`^`~^`^^^^^^``^^^^^^~~^^^^^^^~`^^^`~^^^~^~~~^^~`^~^12 N� 5.4.2Himtouical Availability of Supply ~..~^.,...,.,,....~,....,_,,,,...,,,~,.,.~,,,~~,,,,,,,,~~..,,,,,,,,12 5.4.3 Water Shortage Con ~~~.~.~~.~.~~~.~~~~~..~ ~~..D2 5,4.4Rmdxxctiwn of Water Supply ..................................................................................... 12 5,4.5 SWDxand Colorado River Water ,......,...,...,,,,-~..,^,^^^^^^'^^^`^^`^`^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^^^^`^^^^^,.,.12 N� 5,5IMPACTS ONOTHER PROJECTS ........,...,,....,.......,.,^.^`.^'`^^^^`^^``^`^^^^^^^^`^^^^`^^^^^^^^^~^^`13 5.6UKUGB8TS TOGROUNDWATER 83 .................................................................................. 5.7VERIFICATION ......,.........^....^....,,...,..,....,,.....,..,,.,,,,,,,,,,,~,,~,~~,,,,,,~,,,^~,,,,~,,,,,,~,~,,13 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION......................................................................................iv FIGURE2: PROJECT SITE.................................................................................................... v TABLE 3.1-1 ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER SERVICE DEMANDS LESS RETURN FLOWS.....................................................................................................................................5 TABLE 4.3.2.1-2 CVWD DELIVERIES UNDER THE QUANTIFICATION SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT...............................................................................................9 TABLE 4.3-3 EXISTING CVWD WATER SUPPLY ENTITLEMENTS, WATER RIGHTS AND WATER SERVICE CONTRACTS..............................................................11 TABLE 4.3-4 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES....................................11 iii WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION Bernardino l A i LT) 5.0 2.5 0 6.0 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE City of Palm Desert Indlen Wells Country Club City of Indian Wells L1=`I n NOT TO SCALE v IWATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed SilverRock Resort Specific Plan allows for the development of public golf courses, golf -oriented resort facilities and supporting commercial uses in a master -planned resort environment. The Specific Plan establishes land use regulations, design standards and other criteria to facilitate the development of two high -quality public golf courses with supporting facilities, a public park, a traditional hotel with a conference center, a resort hotel, a boutique hotel, a mixed -use resort retail village, and resort casitas within the proposed Specific Plan Area. This Project is subject to a Water Supply Assessment (Senate Bill 610) and a Water Supply Verification (Senate Bill 221). This document examines the current condition of the Coachella Valley Aquifer (Aquifer) and finds the Aquifer adequate to supply the Project in accordance with California Water Code Section 19010 et seq. This document also verifies the ability of the Aquifer to serve the Project in accordance with the California Government Code Section 66473.7. 2.0INTRODUCTION 2.1 BACKGROUND The SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Area is located within the southern portion of the City of La Quinta. The Specific Plan Area is located approximately 6.6 miles southwest of Indio in Riverside County. Regional access to the Specific Plan Area is provided via Highway 111, which is located to the north of the Specific Plan Area. 1The SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Area includes approximately 741 acres of land located south of Avenue 52, west of Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 54, and east of the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. Since this Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act process (CEQA) and subsequent actions to implement this project will include subdivision as defined by the California Government Code Section 66473.7, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Public Water System (PWS) for the Project, has determined that a Water Supply Assessment ® (WSA) is necessary to complete the Project's CEQA process and that a written Water Supply l� Verification (WSV) will be needed to approve the subdivision maps that will be subsequently prepared and approved by the City to implement the proposed Specific Plan Project. 2.2 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT Upon request of local government, a PWS is required by law to provide documentation regarding the water supply for new projects. This information is included in the CEQA documentation and it becomes evidence used in the approval process. 2.2.1 Water Supply Assessment _ Senate Bill 610 (SB610) was enacted in 2001 and became effective in January 1, 2002. SB610 amended Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code. SB 610 also amended Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915, repealed Section 10913, and added and amended _� a WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION Section 10657 of the California Water Code. It requires cities and counties to request specific information on water supplies from the PWS that would serve any project that is subject to CEQA and is defined as a "Project" in Water Code Section 10912. This information is to be included into environmental review documents prepared pursuant to CEQA. 2.2.2 Water Supply Verification Senate Bill 221 (SB221) was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB221 amends Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7 and Section 65867.5 of the Government Code. SB221 establishes the relationship between the WSA prepared for a project and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66473.7, the PWS must provide written verification of sufficient water supply prior to the approval of a new subdivision. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Specific Plan Area defines eight Planning Areas, each with corresponding development criteria and design development guidelines. The type and amount of land uses allowed in each Planning Area are identified below. Planning Area 1: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include two 18-hole golf courses and supporting facilities, including a clubhouse, driving range, instructional facility, and a golf course maintenance facility. One 18-hole golf course currently exists in this Planning Area. Planning Area 1 consists of approximately 373 acres. Planning Area 2: This Planning Area includes the existing Ahmanson House, which will be preserved and maintained for use as a civic and cultural events facility. The Specific Plan permits the use of this existing facility and the development of additional facilities including a restaurant with up to 300 seats, up to 10,000 square feet of conference facilities, and up to 100 guest rooms. Planning Area 2 consists of approximately 4 acres. Planning Area 3: The permitted use in this Planning Area is a boutique hotel containing a maximum of 188 rooms that can be occupied separately with a maximum of 234 keys. A portion of these units may be sold to individual owners/investors. Planning Area 3 consists of approximately 13 acres. Planning Area 4: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include a resort hotel and resort casitas containing a maximum of 405 units that can be occupied separately with a maximum of 520 keys. A portion of these units may be sold to individual owners/investors. Planning Area 4 consists of approximately 30 acres. Planning Area 5: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include a mixed -use resort retail village containing up to a maximum of 160,000 square feet. Planning Area 5 consists of approximately 9 acres. Planning Area 6: Permitted uses in this Planning Area include a traditional hotel and resort casitas containing a maximum of 450 units that can be occupied separately with a maximum of 2 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 1 1 500 keys. A portion of these units may be sold to individual owners/investors. Planning Area 6 consists of approximately 31 acres. Planning Area 7: Planning Area 7 consists of a total of approximately 35 acres to be used as public park space. Planning Area 8: Planning Area 8 consists of a total of approximately 51 -acres containing existing and planned public facilities including streets, the All American Canal and water service improvements. In addition, the City of La Quinta Community Development Agency has reached a Domestic Water and Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement with the CVWD, which oultlines specific parameters for water and sewer service and infrastructure to support the proposed Project. 2.3.1 Application of WSA A WSA is required since the proposed Specific Plan Project would permit development of more than 500 hotel and/or housing units and is a "Project" as defined by Water Code Section 10912. 2.3.2 Application of WSV A WSV is required since the City will subsequently prepare and approve subdivision maps to implement the Specific Plan Project that will permit the development of over 500 hotel and/or housing units and, for this reason, the Project will also be a "Subdivision" as defined by Government Code Section 66473.7. 2.4 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY 2.4.1 General This Project is within the CVWD service area. CVWD is the PWS for this location. The CVWD service area encompasses roughly 637,000 acres, mostly within Riverside County, but also extends into northern Imperial and San Diego Counties. CVWD provides services for domestic water, irrigation water, sanitation collection, wastewater reclamation and recycling, imported water (recharging), stormwater protection and agricultural drainage. CVWD currently has approximately 100,000 domestic water connections and has a groundwater production capacity of 151 million gallons per day (MGD). Areas served with domestic water by CVWD include a portion near Desert Hot Springs, the Indio Hills area, a portion of Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, a portion of Indio, Thermal, Mecca, Desert Shores, Salton Sea Beach, Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach and Hot Mineral Springs. ' 2.5 EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS 2.5.1 Background CVWD initiated a water management planning process in the late 1990s to address the overdraft conditions in the Aquifer and to ensure that there would be adequate water supplies in the future. 1 3 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION I of this planning The Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) is the productp g process. The Board of Directors approved the CVWMP on October 8, 2002. As part of the CVWMP planning process, a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared per CEQA guidelines. The PEIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse and to the public for extensive review. A Final PEIR was approved for the CVWMP in September 2002. CVWD completed an update of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in December 2005, as required under California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6. Much of the data used in the UWMP was based on information in the CVWMP. However, domestic water demand projections and State Water Project (SWP) purchases and reliability were updated. It is important to note that projected water demand and supply data and water conservation programs in the UWMP apply only to the CVWD service area. The UWMP was adopted by the CVWD Board on December 13, 2005. 2.5.2 Reliance on CVWMP and UWMP r A WSA is required to document the water demand for CVWD and planned future uses for this Project. Water Code Section 10910(c)(2) states that if demands from the potential future growth were accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP, the water supplier may incorporate the requested information from the UWMP in preparing the WSA. CVWD water demand projections contained in the UWMP and CVWMP take into account the use and intensity of the use proposed under the Project. The Project is within the service area covered by the CVWMP, the CVWMP PEIR and the UWMP. 3.0 WATER DEMANDS 3.1 PROJECT DEMANDS (' The Project planning area includes a total of 546 acres. Based on CVWD's Water System 1 Backup Facilities Charge Study, CVWD has developed consumption estimates by land uses from actual consumption data which are used below to calculate annual consumption. Based on these 1 consumption factors, the Project will demand approximately 2.11 MGD or about 2,361 acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr) as shown on Table 3.1-1. F r- 4 1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 1 1 1 fl 11 3.1-1 Estimated Project Land Use Water Units Smice Quantity ac DemandsTable Return Demand Factor Less Return Flows* (ac-ft/ac/yt) Flows Demand ac-ft/vt Demand MGD Residential Golf View Hotels/Resort Timeshare Units 1,143 78 5.69 443.82 0.40 Commercial/ Residential Mixed Use Retail Village 9 3.97 35.73 0.03 Open Space Golf Courses, Clubhouse, Affiliated Uses 373 4.78 1,782.94 1.59 Public Park Space 35 2.82 98.70 0.09 TOTAL: 2361 2.11 Notes: MGD = million gallons per day; ac=acre; ft=feeh, yr=year *Public Scbool Demand Factor used for Pubtic Park Space, per request of the CVWD. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION r 4.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (WSA) r 4.1 GENERAL Having established that the CVWMP and UWMP are applicable to this Project, the next r requirement of a WSA is to identify and describe the water supply sources of the PWS that will serve the Project. Water Code Section 10910(d) requires a WSA to include identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the r identified water supply for the proposed Project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the PWS. According to the UWMP, the Aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and multiple dry years for a 20-year period (UWMP, Section 8). 4.2 .IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SOURCES r 4.2.1 Primary Water Sources The Project's proponents have indicated that primary water supply will be groundwater from the Aquifer, more specifically the Whitewater Subbasin. A description and assessment of the Aquifer is provided in the Analysis of Water Supply section. 4.2.2 Additional Water Sources In addition to groundwater, CVWD and the Coachella Valley have additional water sources including imported water, recycled water and a small amount of surface water. These sources are described in the Analysis of Water Supply section. In accordance with the Domestic Water and Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement between the City of La Quinta and the CVWD, water from the All American Canal, which runs through the project site, is an available source of water to the CVWD pursuant to the QSA as further described below. The Domestic Water and Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement allows water from the canal to account for up to ninety-seven (97) percent of the Project's total water „ usage. Also per the Agreement, the remaining amount of water required for the portion of La Quinta that lies outside of Improvement District No. 1 will be supplied by well water. 4.3 ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY 4.3.1 Groundwater Since the early part of this century, the Coachella Valley has been dependent primarily on groundwater as a source of domestic water supply. Groundwater is also used to supply water for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf courses, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley. Water Code Section 10910 (f) requires additional information when a groundwater basin is cited as the water supply source for a project. The additional information includes a description of the basin; the rights of the PWS to use the basin, the overdraft status of the basin, any past or planned overdraft mitigation efforts, historical use of the basin by the PWS, projected use of the basin by the Project and a sufficiency analysis of the basin to supply the Project. 6 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 1 Descri tion of the A uifer 4.3.1.1 U a The Aquifer can be described as a giant tilted bathtub full of sand, with the high end at the northwest edge of the Coachella Valley near the community of Whitewater and the low end at the Salton Sea. The Aquifer underlies the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thousand Palms, Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Oasis and Mecca. Through groundwater modeling, CVWD estimates that the Aquifer stores approximately 25 million ac-ft of water in the first 1,000 feet below ground surface ---much of which originates from runoff from adjacent mountains. 1 4.3.1.2 Aquifer Adjudication I I it I I I i- Groundwater in the Aquifer has not been adjudicated. CVWD shares a common groundwater source with other PWSs including Desert Water Agency (DWA), the City of Coachella, the City of Indio and the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company. Other groundwater users include some individual residents, farmers, golf courses, businesses and commercial facilities. 4.3.1.3 Overdraft Status of the Aquifer California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 108 is the most current bulletin published by the DWR that characterizes the condition of the Aquifer. In Bulletin 108, DWR identifies that the amount of usable supply in the overdrafted Aquifer is decreasing (CVWMP, p. 6-2). The overdraft condition of the Coachella Valley has caused groundwater levels to decrease more than 60 feet in portions of the Lower Valley (from La Quinta to the Salton Sea) and raised concerns about water quality degradation and land subsidence. Groundwater levels in the Upper Valley (from Palm Springs to La Quinta) have also decreased substantially, except in areas where artificial recharge has successfully raised water levels (i.e., at the Whitewater Spreading Facility). 4.3.1.4 Overdraft Mitigation Efforts As outlined in Section 2.5, CVWD has developed the CVWMP to comprehensively protect and augment the groundwater supply. The CVWMP Preferred Alternative reduces reliance on groundwater sources by utilizing more Colorado River water, SWP water and recycled water. The CVWMP also recommends that conservation measures be implemented to reduce demands on the Aquifer (CVWMP, Section 7). The goal of the CVWMP is to reduce the overall water consumption by 7% by 2010 (CVWMP, Table 7-1, pg. 7-2). CVWD has made continual efforts to mitigate the overdrafting of the Aquifer. These efforts date back to 1918 when the predecessor agencies to CVWD, the Coachella Valley Stormwater District and the Coachella Valley County Water District, worked together to control and conserve water by using stormwater to recharge the Aquifer in the Upper Valley. The District has secured rights to the Colorado River and participated in the construction of the All -American Canal and the Coachella Branch of the All -American Canal. Colorado River water is utilized to recharge groundwater in the Lower Valley. The District has also secured rights to SWP water and negotiated an exchange agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to exchange CVWD's SWP water for MWD's Colorado River Water Source and recharge Colorado River water to the Aquifer in the Upper Valley. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION r F 4.3.1.5 Historical Groundwater Use In 1936, groundwater use was 92,400 ac-ft/year and increased continually to about 376,000 ac- ft/yr in 1999. Groundwater use has increased steadily to present use levels. In recent years, the r demand for groundwater in the Coachella Valley has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin. r 4 3 1 6 Groundwater Sufficiency Analysis With 30 million ac-ft of combined storage and the on going implementation of the CVWMP, the r Aquifer is sufficient to supply the Project and other present and anticipated needs for one or more multiple dry years for over the next 20 years. The CVWMP shows that water demand by all uses in the Coachella Valley was 668,900 ac-ft/yr r in 1999 and projects that this demand will increase to 723,800 ac-ft/yr by 2015 and 824,100 ac- ft/yr by 2035 (Table 5-4 Coachella Valley Water Supply and Demands Alternative 4 = Combination Alternative, CVWMP, p. 5-16). The demands of this Project are part of the CVWMP demand projection and are expected to be 2,361 ac-ft/yr; which is only 0.326% of the 2015 total anticipated demand, or 0.286% of the 2035 anticipated demand. The UWMP shows that water demand by all uses in the CVWD service area will increase to 570,504 ac-ft/yr by 2015 and 644,288 ac-ft/yr by 2030 (Table 2-14 Total Projected Water Demand with Conservation, UWMP, p. 2-26). The demands of this Project are part of the UWMP demand projection and are expected to be 2,361 ac-ft/yr; which is only 0.414% of the I I 2015 total anticipated demand, or 0.366% of the 2035 total anticipated demand. r The Project will participate in the goals of the CVWMP by allowing up to ninety-seven (97) percent of the water to be used by the Project to be obtained from the All American Canal, which runs through the Project Site, and incorporating conservation programs such as efficient landscaping practices, etc. In addition the Project will participate via the payment of a Supplemental Imported Water Supply Charge (SIWSC), which will be used to offset costs associated with purchasing new water supplies. 4.3.2 Additional Water Sources As stated in Section 4.2 of this report, the Aquifer is the primary supply for the Project and this WSA focuses on the adequacy of the Aquifer to supply sufficient amounts of water to meet the water demands of this Project. Additional water sources are considered as a supplement to _ groundwater in that they are used to recharge the Aquifer, serve as a source substitution for groundwater, or used for irrigation. 4.3.2.1 Canal Water The Coachella Canal is a branch of the All -American Canal which brings Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The service area for canal water delivery under CVWD contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is defined as Improvement District No. 1 (ID-1). Historically, CVWD has received approximately 330,000 ac-ft/yr of Priority 3a Colorado River water. This source of water is considered reliable through execution of the recent Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) on the Colorado River. The QSA was approved in October 2003 between CVWD, the MWD, Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). The QSA quantifies CVWD's Colorado River water rights for the next 75 years. Under the QSA, CVWD will receive up to 456,000 ac-ft/yr of Colorado River Water as shown on 4.3.2.1-2. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION I 1 u 1 I I TABLE1 DELIVERIES 1 QUANTI FICATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Component ac-ft/ r Base Allotment 330,000 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement 20,000 Coachella Canal Lining (to SDCWA) -26,000 To Miscellaneous/Indian PPRs -3,000 IID/CVWD First Transfer 50,000 IID/CVWD Second Transfer 53,000 MWD SWP Transfer 35,000 Total Diversion at Imperial Dam 459,000 Less Conveyance Losses -15,000 Total Deliveries to CVWD 444,000 SOURCE: CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan, September 2002, p. 7-11. Notes: 1: Assumed losses after completion of canal lining projects Water from the Coachella Canal provides a significant water supply source for the Lower Valley. In 1999, Coachella Canal supplied over 60 percent of the water supply to the Lower Valley, but less than one percent of the water supply to the Upper Valley. Most of the water was used for crop irrigation in the Lower Valley. Canal water will affect this Project directly and indirectly. Approximately nineteen (19) acres of the All American Canal are located within the boundaries of the Project Site. Up to ninety-seven (97) percent of the Project's water usage for irrigation purposes, which is by far the majority of the total water demand for the Project, may be obtained from the All American Canal in accordance with the terms of the existing Domestic Water and Sanitation System Installation and Irrigation Service Agreement between the City of La Quinta and CVWD. Indirectly, canal water will be used for groundwater recharge and source substitution throughout the Coachella Valley. 4.3.2.2 State Water Project (SWP) Water CVWD and DWA are SWP contractors for the Aquifer region. The SWP includes 660 miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities, from Lake Oroville in the north to Lake Perris in the south. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.1 million ac-ft/yr to 29 contracting agencies. CVWD's original entitlement to SWP water is 23,100 ac-ft/yr and DWA's original SWP entitlement is 38,100 ac-ft/yr --- for a combined entitlement of 61,200 ac-ft/yr. In 2004, CVWD purchased 9,900 ac-ft/yr of SWP entitlement from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District to bring its basic SWP entitlement to 33,000 ac-ft/yr. The total basic entitlement for CVWD and DWA is 71,100 ac-ft/yr. In addition, CVWD and DWA have also negotiated an exchange agreement for 100,000 ac-ft/yr of SWP entitlement from MWD. MWD has permanently transferred 88,100 ac-ft/yr and 11,900 ac-ft/yr of its SWP entitlements to CVWD and DWA, respectively. Thus, the total current SWP entitlement for CVWD and DWA is now 171,100 ac-ft/yr, with CVWD's portion equal to 121,100 ac-ft/yr. Recently, CVWD and DWA have negotiated the potential transfer of 12, 000 ac-ft/yr and 4,000 ac-ft/yr, respectively from the Berrenda Mesa Water District (BMyVD) for at total entitlement of 16,000 ac-ft/yr. This entitlement transfer is subject to CEQA review and if approved will bring the total SWP entitlement for CVWD and DWA to 187,100 ac-ft/yr, with CVWD's portion equal WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION I s also pursuing uin to 133,100 ac ft/yr. CVWD i ur additional entitlement to SWP water when g available. CVWD and DWA do not directly receive SWP water. Rather, CVWD and DWA have entered into an exchange agreement with MWD that allows MWD to take the CVWD and DWA exchange SWP entitlements and swap it for an equal amount of Colorado River water that MWD r transports through its Colorado River Aqueduct. The exchanged water is delivered to the Coachella Valley at the Whitewater River turnout and is used to recharge the Aquifer in the Upper Valley. For purposes of this analysis, a future (2030) state-wide average delivery of 77.3% of entitlements has been assumed. This reliability percentage is based on the "The State Water r Project Delivery Reliability Report, 2005 Final Draft" prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). For CVWD and DWA combined, this equates to 144,700 ac-ft/yr (77.3% of 187,100 ac-ft/yr). In addition, it is assumed that MWD would call-back the 100,000 ac-ft/yr exchange entitlement in the driest 62.5% of the years or 40,100 ac-ft/yr in 2030. Therefore, the total average amount of imported water available for recharge from CVWD and DWA sources is 104,600 ac-ft/yr. In the future, it is possible that the amount of water available for recharge will increase as additional entitlement is secured to keep up with projected water demands. r CVWD and DWA also will purchase additional water from the SWP, when available. Purchase of additional SWP water involves the purchase of water on the spot market, as opposed to the purchase of entitlement to an ongoing supply of that water. 7 4.3.2.3 Surface Water Surface water supplies come from several local rivers and streams, including the Whitewater 7 River, Snow Creek, Falls Creek and Chino Creek. In 1999, surface water supplied approximately three percent of water supply to the Upper Valley to meet municipal demand, and none to the ON Lower Valley. Because surface water supply is affected by variations in annual precipitation, the annual supply is highly variable. Since 1936, the estimated historical surface water supply has ranged from approximately 4,000 to 9,000 ac-ft/yr. 17 I 4.3.2.4 Rccycled Water Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other purposes. It is not suitable for use as potable water. Recycled municipal wastewater has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and other municipal landscaping in the Coachella Valley. CVWD operates six water treatment plants, three of which generate recycled water for golf 04 courses and large landscaped areas. 4.3.3 Summary of Primary and Additional Water Sources I Table 4.3-3 shows CVWD's existing water supply entitlements, rights and service contracts as discussed above. 10 1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 1 1 11 TABLE CONTRACTSAND WATER SERVICE Existing Supplies Ever Su 1 ac-ft/vr Entitlement 7RightContract Other Utilized? Groundwater Unspecified X Yes Coachella Canal Colorado River Water 350,000 z X Yes SWP Exchange Water3 121,100 a X Yes — ---'_----- - va%. n1 n n A 1 t..,n nn1 t.nn.n n,iiu�i:nnlo�t 2 As quantified in the Quantification Settlement Agreement between 11D, MWD and CVWD, October 2003 3 imported SWP Exchange Water is not used as a direct water supply source, but rather is used to recharge groundwater supplies in the Coachella Valley. Includes Original Entitlement, Tulare Agreement and MWD Agreement. Under the UWMP the portion of water from each of the current water supply sources will change significantly by 2035 relative to 2005 conditions. Table 4.3-4 shows the actual water supplies in 2005 as well as the proposed water supplies on 2015 and 2035. TABLE 4.34 Source SUNINIARV OF PROJECTED 2005 WATER SUPPLIES 2015 2030 Canal Water 282,000 342,000 429,000 Groundwater 85,100 123,100 123,200 SWP 46,000 70,600 66,500 Recycled Water 15,300 25,100 28,300 Desalinated Drain Water 0 8,000 11,000 Total Supply: 428,400 568,800 658,000 SOURCE: CVWD, Urban Water Management Plan, December 2005, Table 3-14, Historical and Projected Average Water Supply-CVWD, r.3-40. 4.3.4 Conclusions Based on the information and findings documented in this WSA, there is substantial evidence to support a determination that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project. This is based on the volume of water available in the Aquifer and the fact that CVWD has existing water entitlements, rights and contracts to meet future demand as needed over time, and has committed sufficient resources to implement the water management programs developed in the CVWMP. The projected demand for this Project will account for only 0.326% of the total projected demands of the Coachella Valley (CVWMP) in 2015 and 0.286% in 2035. The projected demand for this Project will account for only 0.414% of the total projected demands for CVWD (UWMP) in 2015 and 0.366% in 2030. No shortages are anticipated within the CVWD service area in average/normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year scenarios for the next 20 years. 11 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION I 5.0 WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 5.1 GENERAL As discussed previously, this Project is subject to a Water Supply Verification (WSV) as outlined in Government Code Section 66473.7. 5.2 WATER SOURCE The water supply for this Project is from the Aquifer and the All American Canal. 5.3 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION r Government Code Section 66473.7 (c) permits the use of an UWMP, the Project's WSA, and other acceptable water supply reliability information. This WSV relies on CVWD's UWMP, Water System Backup Facilities Charge Study, as well as the CVWMP as discussed in the WSA. 5.4 FACTORS OF RELIABILITY r 5.4.1 General Government Code Section 66473.7(a) requires that all of the following factors be considered: I (1) The availability of the supply over the last 20 years; (2) the applicability of an urban water shortage contingency found in the UWMP; (3) the reduction of water supply to a specific user by ordinance or resolution; and (4) the reasonable amount of water that can be relied upon from specified supply projects such as SWP and Colorado River agreements. 5.4.2 Historical Availability of Supply The CVWMP reviews the historical use of the groundwater from 1936 to 1999. In 1936, the groundwater supply from the Aquifer in both the Upper and Lower Valley was 92,300 ac-ft. In 1999, the same supply was 3 76, 100 ac-ft. ■ 5.4.3 Water Shortage Contingency The CVWMP and UWMP determined that there is no need for a water shortage contingency in the foreseeable future. 5.4.4 Reduction of Water Supply There will not be a reduction of water supply to any user due to this Project. 1 5.4.5 SWP and Colorado River Water The QSA and other agreements have been signed that will provide additional Colorado River and SWP water to the valley. Although this imported water may not directly affect this Project, it will be used to recharge the Aquifer, used for irrigation, and used to supplement the use of recycled water during low flow periods. Bolstered by the recently signed agreements, the Aquifer has sufficient storage to meet future demands. 12 - 1 1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION 1 5.5 IMPACTS ON OTHER PROJECTS This Project is within the scope and range of the CVWMP. This Project will not have an impact on agricultural and industrial users. In addition, this Project will not affect the water supply for any lower -income housing projects. 5.6 RIGHTS TO GROUNDWATER As stated in the WSA, the Aquifer has not been adjudicated. CVWD has the right to extract the groundwater as required to supply this Project. 1 5.7 VERIFICATION This document verifies the water supply for the Project as required by California Government Code 66473.7 1 1 t 11 1 1 j1 13 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION LIST OF ACRONYMS AC -FT Acre Feet AC-FT/YR Acre -Feet per Year CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CVWD Coachella Valley Water District CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan DWA Desert Water Agency DWR California Department of Water Resources ID-1 CVWD's Improvement District No. I IID Imperial Irrigation District MGD Million Gallons per Day MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SIWSC Supplemental Imported Water Supply Charge SWP State Water Project UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WSA Water Supply Assessment WSV Water Supply Verification 14