CC Resolution 2004-138RESOLUTION NO. 2004-738
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32398.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-513
APPLICANT: ROBERT SCHUMACHER
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 16' day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Robert Schumacher for certification of Environmental Assessment
2004-513 for Tentative Tract Map 32398 to subdivide f 110.90 acres into 392
single-family lots, a ten acre commercial lot and miscellaneous lots, generally
located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60, more particularly
described as follows:
APNs: 764-240-002, 063, 004 & 005
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 141h day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Robert Schumacher to certify a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, to subdivide t 110.90 acres into 392 single-family lots, a ten acre
commercial lot and miscellaneous lots; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2004-067
recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-
513 for Tentative Tract Map 32398 and Specific Plan 2004-067; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied - with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental
Assessment 2004-513, and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed. on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; 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 Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-138
Environmental Assessment 2004-513
Robert Schumacher
November 16, 2004
Page 2
1 . The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the project site has been conditioned to
mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant
levels.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any
wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than
significant levels as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project in that the site will be developed
consistent with the existing land use designations under the General Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which
would affect human health, risk potential, or public services.
Resohrtion No. 2004-138
Environmental Assessment 2004-613
Robert Schumacher
November 16, 2004
Page 3
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-513 and
said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption
of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
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 for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2004-513 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department
and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: Council Member Osborne
ABSENT: None
r--
r ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2004-138
Environmental Assessment 2004-513
Robert Schumacher
November 16, 2004
Page 4
DONALD Ab LMOMayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU E REEK, CMC, City dierk
City of La Qui'nta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TH RIWEty Attorney
City of L Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Specific Plan 04-072, Tentative Tract Map 32398
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northeast corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street APN: 764-240-002, -003,
-0041, &-005
5. Project sponsors name and address: Robert Shumaker
2995 Woodside Road, #400
Woodside, CA 94062
6. General Plan Designation: 10 acres 7. Zoning: 10 acres Neighborhood
Neighborhood Commercial, 100 acres Medium Commercial, 100 acres Medium
Density Residential Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Specific Plan to establish the development standards and guidelines for a 10 acre
neighborhood commercial shopping center at the northeastern corner of Monroe Street and
Avenue 60, as well as a total of 392 single family homes and open space on the remaining
100 acres. The Specific Plan includes narrow private streets, back yard lanes with garage
access, a 1.2 acre park, and a series of central retention basin/common area open space areas.
Building heights are proposed to average at 22 feet, with a maximum of 28 feet. The
neighborhood commercial component of the project would allow up to 108,900 square feet of
commercial retail space within the 10 acre site.
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 110 acres into the .10 acre commercial lot, 3 92 single-
family lots, and miscellaneous lots. Minimum lot size is proposed to be 6,000 square feet
with an average lot size of 6,600 square feet.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant (Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood
Commercial)
South: Avenue 60, Vacant Desert, Agriculture (Low Density Residential
w/Agriculture/Equestrian Overlay, Medium High Density Residential, Golf Course)
West: Monroe Street, (Low Density Residential, Golf Course)
-1-
East: Vacant Desert (Low Density Residential w/ Agriculture/Equestrian Overlay)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
Page -
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality -
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traff c
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect, on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions ' in the
project have been made by or agreed-t D by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bc prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RtPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY
"potentially significant unless mitigat
effect 1) has been adequately analyze
legal standards, and 2) has been addr(
analysis as described. on attached shee
is required, but it must analyze only t]
I find that although the proposed proje
environment, because all potentially si
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGA
standards, and (b) have been avoided <
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, includ
imposed upon the proposed project, nc
��i^C //
Si
gave a "potentially significant impact or
i" impact on the environment, but at least one
in an Iearlier document pursuant to applicable
sed by mitigation measures -based on the earlier
i. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT- REPORT
effects that remain to be addressed.
I could -have a significant effect on the
paificant effects (a) have been analyzed
'IVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
r mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
ag revisions or mitigation measures that are
thing fi;Ww is required.
August 27, 2004
Date
4.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative aswell as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
-4-
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Neither Monroe Street nor Avenue 60 are designated Image Corridors in the General
Plan. The site is relatively flat, and does not contain any significant landforms. The site
is some distance from both the surrounding mountains, and proposes structures which
will not exceed 28 feet. The project will not have a significant impact on scenic vistas.
The primary source of light and glare at the site will be automobile headlights. The
residential portion of the project will have limited lighting in landscaping. The
commercial corner will have parking lot lighting. The City regulates lighting levels
through the Dark Sky Ordinance and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) Agricultural activity has occurred both on and around the site. A nursery occurs north of
the site. There are no known Williamson Act contracts on the property. The area is
designated in the General Plan for Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial land uses, and is on the edge of the urbanized area of La Quinta. The area
is a mix of vacant desert lands and agriculture. Although the area has in the past been
active for agriculture, the land use designations on the site, its location within City
limits, and in the urbanizing portion of the City, make the site unsuitable for long term
cultivation. Impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The largest contributors to air quality impacts in the City are vehicular emissions and
blowing particulate matter. The proposed project will generate up to 392 single family
homes, and a neighborhood commercial shopping center of up to 108,900 square feet.
The traffic report prepared for the proposed project estimated that the project site at
build -out would generate up to 10,769 trips per day (ADT)l. Based on this traffic
generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be
expected to be generated from the project site.
1 "Northeast Corner of Monroe Street at Avenue 60'' Focused Traffic Review," prepared by RK Engineering, March, 2004.
-8-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Euildout
(hounds ner dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
10,769 x 15 = 161,535
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 143,538.15 3773,991.90 77,536.80 - 13,615.35 1,615.35
Pounds at 50 mph 32.09 834.42 171.16 - 3.57 3.57
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 10,769 ADT. Based on California Air Resources. Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75'F, light duty autos, catalytic.
The Table shows that the. proposed project, at build -out, will exceed SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. The project
is consistent with the land use designations placed on the site in the General Plan,
however. During the environmental analysis for the General Plan, the City found that the
impacts associated with air quality at build -out of the General Plan were offset by the
benefits associated with build -out of the Plan, and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was prepared. The EIR included a number of mitigation measures which
will be applied to this project. Impacts associated with air quality will also improve as
vehicle technology improves, and the impacts above are likely to be conservative.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates
of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for
the control of dust both during the construction- process and during project operations.
These include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed
project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, re -vegetation, track -out control.
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, re -vegetation.
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, re -vegetation.
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance.
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 2,904 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. This calculation assumes that the entire site is
Wa
to be graded at once. Given the varied land uses and the size of the residential
component of the site, it is likely that grading will be completed in phases. Impacts
associated with dust are therefore expected to be lower. The contractor will be required
to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In
addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures
below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill shall be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an
on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of
the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a
crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each
work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaping on Monroe and Avenue 60 will be completed during the first phase
of earthmoving activities, as will the project's perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and smaller commercial businesses. It is not
expected that objectionable odors will result from any of these land uses.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Letters dated March 16 and June 9,
2004, LSA Associates)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Letters
dated March 16 and June 9, 20049 LSA Associates)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (Letters dated March 16 and
June 9, 20049 LSA Associates)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Letters dated
March 16 and June 9, 20049 LSA Associates)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
-11-
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) Habitat Assessments were prepared for the site for the Burrowing Owl and for Coachella
Valley Round -Tailed Ground Squirrel2, the two species of concern identified as having
potential to occur on the site. Both surveys were negative. The disturbed nature of the
property, as well as the agricultural activity on surrounding parcels, and the two
roadways on two sides of the project site, make the site unsuitable for these species.
The project site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
u
2 Letter dated March 16, 2004 for burrowing owl, and June 9, 2004 for Coachella.Valley round -tailed ground
squirrel, signed Lisa Ann Philhower, LSA Associates.
-12-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
x
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5?
(Archaeological Mitigation and Data Recovery
Report... CRM Tech, April 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change m*
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
(Archaeological Mitigation and Data Recovery
Report... CRM Tech, April 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources
Assessment... CRM Tech, April 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) Phase I and Phase II cultural resource investigations were completed for the proposed
project site3. The Phase I analysis, completed in 1998, identified and catalogued a
potentially significant site (CA-RIV-5158) on the southern half of the site. As a result, a
Phase II recovery was undertaken. The recovery was completed between 2/04 .and 3/04.
The recovery yielded ceramic sherds, stone debitage and portions of tools, milling tools,
fire affected clay, charcoal, animal bone and manuport items. Artifacts were found at
depths of up to 80 centimeters.
Although a number of artifacts were recovered from the site, others may still occur
within the boundaries of CA-RIV-5158. The loss of artifacts would represent a
potentially significant impact. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and
grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities
on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the first house on the project site.
3 Archaeological Mitigation and Data Recovery Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 2004
-13-
V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site4. The study found that
the project site is within the historic lake bed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further
found mollusk shells on the project site. Development of the site could result in
significant impacts to paleontologic resources without mitigation. In order to assure that
these potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. A surface collection of mollusks shall be completed prior to initiation of any
earth moving activity on the project site.
2. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities in areas of undisturbed lakebed soils. The paleontologist shall be
empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate
potential resources. The paleontologist shall be required to submit to the
Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report
on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2004.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (Prelim. Geotechnical
Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May 2004)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(Prelim. Geotechnical Investigation, Medall,
Aragon, May 2004)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (Prelim.
Geotechnical Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May
2004)
iv) Landslides? (Prelim. Geotechnical
X
Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May 2004)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (Prelim. Geotechnical
Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May 2004)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
`
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
(Prelim. Geotechnical Investigation, Medall,
Aragon, May 2004)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
-15-
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical study was completed for the proposed projects. The geotechnical analysis
found that the site is not subject to ground rupture, landslides, expansive soil or seiche.
The study did find, however, that the site is subject to strong ground acceleration during
seismic events. The City implements the Uniform Building Code standards for
seismically active areas, which will assure that all construction on the project site is able
to sustain a significant earthquake.
The geotechnical study found a high hazard for liquefaction on the site, due to high
groundwater and soil types on the site. The study found that without mitigation, soils on
the site would be likely to be subject to settlement and lateral spreading. In order to
mitigate this potential impact, the study requires the following mitigation measures:
1. The entire project site shall be considered a special foundation zone. Special
foundations may include deep pile foundations bearing on non -liquefiable
materials, or post -tensioned or other stiffened foundation -slab designs such as
rafts or mats.
2. All fill on the property shall consist of engineered fill. Undocumented fill and
backfill shall be removed.
3. Minimum anticipated soil stripping shall range from 4 to 7.5 feet, and shall occur
as recommended by the project geologist and approved by the City Engineer,
following the preparation of final geotechnical analyses.
4. Engineered fill is expected to be required to a depth of at least 5 feet. Final
determinations shall be made by the project geologist and- approved by the City
Engineer, following the preparation of final geotechnical analyses.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts associated with geology
are expected to be less than significant.
5 "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Sandal Beach Project," prepared by Medall, Aragon Geotechnical, May
2004.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
`
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
f)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
-17-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 if
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The residential component of the project is not expected to result in any significant
impacts relating to hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous
Waste programs through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal
of hazardous substances generated in the home. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
Any commercial enterprise which might locate in the neighborhood shopping center, and
which would use or store hazardous materials, would be regulated by county, state and
federal agencies, whose regulations are designed to mitigate for the potential impacts.
These regulations will assure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
fl Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-19-
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for domestic use, commercial uses, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has
prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources
to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is
implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will
result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including
requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least
amount of water is utilized within the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards,
requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City
standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than
significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project
includes a series of retention areas which are proposed to carry storm flows through the
site. These retention areas will be required to be sufficient to accommodate the 100 year
flood flows. The City Engineer will also review and approve hydrology and hydraulic
analyses prior to the issuance of grading permits. Impacts associated with storm water
drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial in the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with this
designation. The project will represent a logical extension of the urbanizing land pattern
in the City, and will provide a different type of housing and commercial uses to area
residents.
The project site is not within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
M. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (Prelim. Acoustical Study;
RK Engineering, June 2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Prelim.
Acoustical Study, RK Engineering, June 2004)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Prelim. Acoustical Study, RK
Engineering, June 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Prelim. Acoustical
Study, RK Engineering, June 2004)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map) ,
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) A noise study was prepared for the proposed project6. The noise study found that long
term exterior noise levels would exceed City standards for lots located adjacent to both
6 "Tentative Tract 32398 Preliminary Acoustical Study," prepared by RK Engineering Group, June 2004.
-23-
Monroe Street and the north side of the commercial center site. The report also found
that these exceedances can be mitigated through the construction of walls. In order to
assure that noise levels at the site meet the City's standards, therefore, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. A 6 foot block or similar decorative wall shall be installed along the entire
frontage of the project site on Monroe Street. The wall shall not have any breaks
or openings.
2. A 6 foot block or similar decorative wall shall be installed along the rear property
lines of lots 365 through 372, inclusive. The wall shall not have any breaks or
openings with the exception of a pedestrian path connecting the residential area
to the commercial site.
3. At a minimum, STC 25 windows shall be installed on the following units: Lots
1, 29, 30, 359-363 inclusive, 268-284 inclusive, and 365-372 inclusive. These
units shall also be provided a mechanical ventilation system which allows the
homes to maintain a "windows closed" condition.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that the impacts associated with
long term noise levels at the site are mitigated to less than significant levels.
The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary and periodic noise
increases due to construction equipment. The site, however, is bounded by streets on two
sides and by vacant or agricultural lands on the other two sides. There are no sensitive
receptors located immediately adjacent to the site. It is therefore expected that impacts
from construction noise at the project site shall be less than significant.
If the residential project is constructed first, and the neighborhood commercial site is
constructed once homes are occupied, there is a potential for significant construction
noise impacts to these homes. Should this condition occur, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
1. If the neighborhood commercial center is constructed after occupancy of any of
the residential units adjacent to the commercial property boundary, a noise
analysis and associated recommendations for construction noise mitigation shall
be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits on the site. The analysis shall
include specific mitigation to reduce potential impacts to adjacent residences to
less than significant levels.
The project site is not located in an airport land use plan area, or near an airstrip.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will create up to 392 single-family homes and up to 108,900
square feet of commercial retail space. The project is consistent with the General Plan
and Zoning designations for the property, and represents a logical extension of the
urbanizing pattern in the City. The site is currently vacant, and will not displace any
housing or people. Impacts -associated with population and housing are expected to be
negligible.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Build -out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Build -out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which
will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general
government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in
lieu fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to
those services.
-26--
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
)UV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV.. a) & b) The project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City. In addition, the project includes a park site, as well as open
r.. space and retention areas for the open recreational use of residents. No impact is
expected as a result of the proposed project.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(Focused Traffic Review, RK Engineering,
March 2004)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (Focused Traffic Review, RK
Engineering, March 2004)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Focused
Traffic Review, RK Engineering, March 2004)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Focused Traffic Review, RK
Engineering, March 2004)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32398)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
-28-
XV. a)-g) The residential component of the proposed project will take access from both Avenue 60
and Monroe Street. The commercial center is proposed to have two access points on
Avenue 603, and one on Monroe Street.
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The analysis found that
the project site has the potential to generate up to 10,769 daily trips at build -out of both
the residential and commercial components. The study also recommends improvements
to the circulation system, based on the projected access configuration for the site. It was
assumed that the residential access on Monroe, and the central access to the commercial
site on Avenue 60 would have full -turn access points. The residential access on Avenue
60, and the commercial access on Monroe would have right -in -right -out access only.
In order to assess the safety of the access points, the analysis included review of the
City's policies for deceleration lanes. The analysis found that in order to accommodate
project traffic and turning movements, deceleration lanes would be required.
Finally, the analysis included a review of the project's impacts on the intersections of
Monroe with Avenue 54 and Avenue 58. The analysis concluded that the background
plus project traffic volumes at these intersections would warrant signalization.
In order to assure that traffic flow in the vicinity of the project site operates within
acceptable levels of service, therefore, the following mitigation measures will be
implemented:
1. The project proponent will participate in fair share contributions for signalization
of Monroe/Avenue 54 and Monroe/Avenue 58 when warranted.
2. Right turn deceleration lanes shall be installed at project driveways on Avenue
60.
3. A left turn deceleration lane shall be installed at the full access point on Avenue
60.
4. A left turn deceleration lane shall be installed at the full access point on Monroe
Street.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that project traffic impacts are
reduced to less than significant levels.
The project does not include unsafe designs, and has sufficient emergency access. On
site parking will be regulated by the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the
Specific Plan.
7 "Monroe Street and 60'h Avenue Focused Traffic Review," prepared by RK Engineering Group, March 2004.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or 'wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-30-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer,
electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will
collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The
construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on
utility. providers.
-31-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have. environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) Potential impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources have been studied,
and mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area.
Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-32-
XVH. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce impacts_to
less than significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier. analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For erects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-33-
a)
0
�o
a�
kf)
>
o
o
o
o
�.
M
o
U
O
�
Cd
j o
a)
�
En
. o
o
d-
a�
O
W
V
�
�
..o
A
iiO1aU
�
oo
C
H
N
H
N
r-
o
N
4
O
�
.-.,
cn
00
°
V1
C% N
M
O
N
O
z�
Z
a
�
A
V
W
F-�
A
U
p�q
�A
a
�W
OV
a,
c
d
A.
�
Q,
a
i
a
�
U
Cd
U)
A
a
a�
rn
n
n
bA
b
Cd
..
o
C7
•°
o
4-4
a�
.o
.
F
Cd
.�
rA
Ubb
Q
O
"-' O
O
Q
bA
�.
Cd
a
a
as as �n
Q
Q
A
Q
x
0
Wz
o
4-0
4-0
0
�
;
a
A
a
a
0.
5-1
U
cis
an
C
A
bA
O
U
..
U
GQ
O 0
U A
GU
pq
pq
z
a�
C
O
cd
cl
p O
cC
.a
>
°
b
�
o
o
•�
� �
� 3
�
3b
a�i
O
Q
)
rA
>
3
�
a
ram•+
N
N
N
U
OJJ 'G
Cd
o �
PA
A
�A
a�
UV
W
a
fo
0
a�i
o
a
�
o
�
A
a
A
a
W
a
o
a�i
mo
�H
o
A
G
A
0�
pq
U A
PQ
�
bU
O
W
�• �
� v
o
O
O
1.
vs
o
.£
U bA
'Vtg
O
.tom" b4
s..,
.^'O,
U
b4
¢,
y.�
U bA
>
V
O
nE
O
E�
A
U p�q
�A
a�x
�V
V�
0
V
ab
a
y
L7
�
bn
a4
o
�
bn
b4
�
a
A
A
a
w c�
1.0
�
w
V
U
U
-d
api
O
�
o
" 7
O
tDA
O
w O
H
A
V pq
�A
a�
OU
a
W
E-�
• O
• O
A
U
U
°
V
a
a
i
O
�
a
a
G7
o
.�
a
°
p
'U
'O
.0
E•�
bA
prA
U
p
O
v
v0
A
a
O
c�
w
z 0-4�,
�.
a p
Ca
Q
b
b
z
b N
co
c
3 OM
p v�•U
v�
°
'>
O 0
'� '� 00
N
'~
C O
aUi
cn
U
,�
.b
�►
cd
ice,
3
i + N
°o r—
CA>
U cd
' `n �.
;' °'
rA
«i r'
o Cd
ICI
� M
E"i M
«i (rj
-d
cd�--.
V1
F
A
U pq
�A
a�
Ox
UU
-o
W
O
O
O
0.0
3
U
U
U
a�
cu
•O
4)
U
'O
'O
a
•w�
a�
W
W
W
W
U
U
co
co
'O
N
M
O
'cd
O
•64
�1
64
c
>
o
0
0
•b >
"C3 �
O
^C?
O
vi
Q
0
GQ o
pq
pq
N