PCRES 2004-046PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-046
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-101, ZONE CHANGE 2004-
120, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-070 ,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32070,
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-799
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-505
APPLICANT: RJT HOMES L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did
on the 131h day of July, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a
request of R.J.T. Homes, L.L.C. for approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Residential
designation, development standards and design guidelines for Specific Plan (SP)
2004-070, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32070 for the subdivision of 15.16
acres into 145 lots, and Site Development Permit (SDP) 2004-799 for five
prototypical residential plans and ancillary improvements, collectively (the
"Project") generally, located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and
Jefferson Street and more particularly described as:
A.P.N 772-410-021 AND 772-410-022: AND,
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code
Section 21092 on June 28, 2004 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project
Site, and notified all public entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice
also included a notice of the public hearing date for the City Council on August
3, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on June 28, 2004, and further caused the notice to be filed with the
Riverside County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-046
Environmental Assessment 2004-505
RJT Homes L.L.C.
Adopted: July 13, 2004
Page 2
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no
comment letters.
WHEREAS, the above recitations are true and correct,and are
adopted as the Findings of the Planning Commission as follows:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning
Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and finds that it
adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the
Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the comments received
thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be,
significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have
been incorporated into the Project and these measures mitigate any
potential significant effect to a point where clearly no significant;,
environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
2. 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 Environmental
Assessment 2004-505.
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
P:\Report=_ - PC'7-13-2004\RJT Codorniz EA505 Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-046
Environmental Assessment 2004-505
RJT Homes L.L.C.
Adopted: July 13, 2004
Page 3
5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been
identified by the Environmental Assessment.
6. The 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 Project.
7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk,
potential or public services.
8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the Planning Commission.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based is
the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495
Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253, and the custodian of those
records is Jerry Herman, Community Development Director.
11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
' 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures
during Project implementation.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the
Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is
defined in Fish and Game Code ' 711.2.
13. The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California
Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
P:\Reports - FCV-13-2004\RJT Codorniz EA505 Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-046
Environmental Assessment 2004-505
RJT Homes L.L.C.
Adopted: July 13, 2004'
Page 4
14. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for
certification.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the
findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2004-505 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 13th day of July, 2004, by the
following vote, to ,wit:
AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
T� Ifrfrk, Chairman
C of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
zxl� ,%�
OSCAR ORCI, Planning Manager
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\7-13-2004\RJT Codorniz EA505 Reso.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: General Plan Amendment 2004-101, Zone Change 2004-120, Specific Plan
2004-070, Tentative Tract Map 32070, Site Development Permit 2004-799
Lead agency name and address
3. Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. APN: 772-410-021 and
-022
5. Project sponsor's name and address: RJT Homes, Codorniz, LLC
1425 E. University Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85034
6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning:
Current: Neighborhood Commercial Current: Neighborhood Commercial
Requested: Medium High Density Residential Requested: Medium High 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.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential, up to 12 units
per acre.
Specific Plan: Specific Plan to establish development standards and guidelines for the
construction of a residential project, allowing 145 units on 15.16 acres, or a density of 9.6
units per acre, as well as a 0.58 acre common area amenity, consisting of a tennis court,
swimming pool, spa, club building with locker and meeting rooms, and an outdoor barbeque
area. The outdoor area is proposed to double as a retention basin. Residential units will be
detached and attached, two story units. Access will be provided from both Jefferson Street
and Avenue 52. Interior streets are proposed to range from 29 feet to 37 feet in width.
Building heights are proposed to 23.5 feet, with lots ranging from 1,800 to 5,500 square feet.
Setbacks are minimal, with street setbacks at 4 feet, and pedestrian setbacks at 2 feet.
Site Development Permit: Site Development Permit to implement the development standards
and guidelines in the Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Map: Tentative Tract Map to divide 15.16 acres into 145 residential lots, a
clubhouse/retention basin lot, and lettered lots for interior streets and driveways.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Avenue 52, vacant (Neighborhood Commercial)
South: All American Canal, Single family residences, golf course (Low Density Residential,
Golf Course Open Space)
West: Jefferson Street, Golf course under construction (Golf Course Open Space)
East: Vacant (High Density Residential)
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 9 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services .
Utilities / Service .
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resource's
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
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
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
une 18. 2004
3-
Signature
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
l) 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 no( expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigatidn measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
-5-
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 formal 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
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
X
resources, 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)
1. a)-d) Jefferson Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. Avenue 52
is designated a Secondary Image Corridor in the General Plan. These designations
require the implementation of landscaping setbacks and height restrictions adjacent to the
roadways, to protect the aesthetic integrity of the area. The Development Code requires
that building heights within 150 feet of any Image Corridor be no more than 22 feet. The
proposed Specific Plan would exceed this standard, and allow structures up to 23.5 feet
within the 150 foot setback area. The Site Development Permit application includes a
submittal which would have structures up to 22' 11 1/2" in height. The tract map
proposes buildings as close as 15 feet from the property line on Jefferson Street, and as
close as about 20 feet from the property line on Avenue 52. The building mass in the
project will vary from single family detached homes, primarily in the southwest portion
of the site, clusters of 4 and six units. All units in the project are two story. The proposed
Specific Plan request for an increase in the allowable setback of 1.5 feet will not
represent a significant increase in the overall permissible height in the setback. Further,
since the exceedance will occur primarily in the ridgeline of the pitched roofs, the areas
where the standard is exceeded will not involve significant building mass. The potential
-6-
impacts associated with building height within the proposed project are expected to be
less than significant.
The ultimate construction of single family homes on the site, will result in a slight
increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The
City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
Potentialh•
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
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. 111-21
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)
I1. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land which has been significantly
impacted by off -road vehicle use and dumping. A temporary bank building, housed in a
converted dwelling unit, currently occurs but will be removed. The parcel is not, nor has
it been, in agriculture. No Williamson Act contracts occur on the property. There are no
agricultural lands surrounding the property. The area is generally developed, and is not in
a rural portion of the City. No impacts to agricultural resources are expected to result
from implementation of the proposed project.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II1. 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 PMI O 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 proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow up to 182
residential units on the site, while the Specific Plan proposes 145. In order to provide the
most conservative and comprehensive analysis, the higher density has been used in
calculating air quality impacts. The potential 179 residential units on the site could
generate up to 1,343 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip
length of 10 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the
project site.
"Trip Generation, 6°' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers. category 270, Residential Planned Unit
Development.
-9-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1.348 x 10 = 13,480
PM10 PM30 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 1,208.70 31,426.20 6,446.40, 134.30 134.30
Pounds at 50 mph 2.67 69.37 14.23 0.30 0.30
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,343 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75°F light duty autos, calalytiO.'
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. Further, the project as proposed will generate only 26%
of the trips which could be generated by the approved commercial project on the sitez.
The air quality impacts associated with the residential project, therefore, are considerably
lower than those currently approved. The project's potential impacts to air quality
resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant.
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
13CM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
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 392.83 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
2 Environmental Assessment 2001-433, Pueblo Plaza Shopping Center.
to-
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
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.
Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
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.
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.
Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 shall be
installed with the first phase of development on the site, as shall 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 will not result in objectionable odors, nor
will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
•
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
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? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
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? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
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.)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
12-
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for any of the species
mapped in the General Plan. The site has been impacted by off road vehicle use, grubbing
and other activities, and contains little native habitat. The proposed project site is not
located within the mitigation fee area for the Coaphella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'15064.5? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...,"
Archaeological Associates, July 2001)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Cultural
Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...:'
Archaeological Associates, July 2001)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources
'
Assessment...," CRM Tech, March 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources Assessment
of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological
Associates, July 2001)
V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resource survey and associated report were prepared for the previously
approved commercial project on the subject property3. The assessment found no surficial
deposits, but identified the area as a high wind zone which can regularly cover or uncover
artifacts. As a result, the report recommends the imposition of the following mitigation
measure:
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 any building on the project site.
The project contractor is required by state law to report a finding of human remains,
should such a find be made during project grading. Law enforcement officials are
responsible for the proper investigation and disposal of remains.
"Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," prepared by Archaeological Associates, July 2001
14-
V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site °. 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 property, which date back to the Holocene period.
Development of the site could, therefore, 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 measure shall be implemented.
1. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities. 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. March 2004.
15-
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
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 (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
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)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. The site is not located in an area having a potential for liquefaction
hazards. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical
-16-
analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
The project site is located in an area of very severe blow sand potential. The mitigation
measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts
associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
The site is not subject to landslides, nor does it have expansive soils.
I i-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the roect:
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? (Application materials)
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? (Application materials)
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? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
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
emer enc yes onse ]an or emer enc
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 fo
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 construction of residential units on the proposed project site will not result in
significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the
standards of Household Hazardous Waste programs through its waste provider. These
regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project
itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
19-
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-87 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-87 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-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-20-
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. 111-87 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)
Vlll. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water
service for residential units, both for domestic water and landscaping irrigation. The
implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in greater
rates of water consumption, due to the residential land uses. Commercial land uses are
not significant water users, while residential land uses generally consume larger amounts
of water.
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.
Vlll. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project
includes a retention area (shown as lot 146), which will be required to accommodate the
100 year storm. The retention area is to be located in the area proposed for the tennis
court, and will be located underground. The hydrologic data submitted will require
review by the City Engineer to assure that the proposed underground system will
accommodate the flows generated by the project site. Also of concern is the route storm
flows will take in order to reach the detention area, specifically as relates to the potential
of polluting these flows with pool chemicals, since the pool is located immediately south
of the tennis court. In order to assure that the potential impacts are mitigated to a less
than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the City
Engineer shall approve a detailed hydrology analysis which includes a
comprehensive description of how the retention area will function in the tennis
-21-
court area. The study shall also address how the storm flows will be directed
away from the pool area, to assure that pool chemicals do not enter the storm
water flows.
This mitigation measure is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Signifcant '
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 currently vacant, and will not impact any existing community.
The requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in the loss of 15.16
acres of Neighborhood Commercial land, and a corresponding increase in Medium High
Density Residential land. The General Plan includes policies relating to changes in
conditions in the City, and amending the General Plan maps to reflect these changes. The
request is consistent with these policies, insofar as the approved commercial project has
not developed, and the present applicant believes that a residential product is highly
saleable on this parcel. The subject site is located in an area of the City which is rapidly
urbanizing, and does not represent leapfrog development.
The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
-23-
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-I Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? ("Noise Impact Analysis,"
LSA, October 2003)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels? ("Noise Impact
Analysis," LSA, October 2003)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA,
October 2003)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Noise Impact
Analysis," LSA, October 2003)
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)
Xl. a)-f) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would result in residential
units on a parcel previously planned for commercial land uses. The corner of Jefferson
Street and Avenue 52 is already impacted by high noise levels, and these levels are
expected to increase as the General Plan builds out, and traffic, which is the primary
-25-
noise generator in the City, continues to increase. The commercial land uses currently
approved on the project site are not considered sensitive receptors, and the impacts
associated with, noise at the site for a commercial project are considered less than
significant. Residential land uses, however, are sensitive receptors, and noise levels for
such land uses must not exceed 65 dBA CNEL exterior, and 45 dBA interior, in order to
meet General Plan requirements.
A noise study was prepared for the proposed projects. The study found that noise
generated by traffic on both Jefferson Street and Avenue52 exceeds the City's 65 dBA
CNEL exterior standard under current conditions. The study further found that residences
located within 251 feet of center line of Jefferson, and 146 feet of center line of Avenue
52 will have unacceptable exterior noise levels, without mitigation, and that any
residences located within 140 feet of center line of Jefferson, and 83 feet of centerline on
Avenue 52, will exceed interior noise standards, without mitigation. The study
recommends a number of mitigation measures, as enumerated below, to lower the
potential impacts to less than significant levels.
1. Ansix foot wall on a 2 foot berm shall be constructed along Jefferson Street,
along the entire property line. The wall shall be completed prior to occupancy of
any dwelling unit along that street.
2. A six foot wall shall be constructed along Avenue 52, along the entire property
line: The wall shall be completed prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit along
that street.
3. All units within 140 feet of the center line of Jefferson Street shall be equipped
with windows with a minimum sound rating of STC-32.
4. All units within 83 feet of the center line of Avenue 52 shall be equipped with
windows with a minimum sound rating of STC-30.
5. A five foot plexiglass and concrete wall five feet in height, shall be erected on the
perimeter of all balconies for outdoor living areas located within 251 feet of
Jefferson Street, and fronting on Jefferson.
6. A five foot plexiglass and concrete wall five feet in height, shall be erected on the
perimeter of all balconies for outdoor living areas located within 140 feet of
Avenue 52, and fronting on Avenue 52.
7. Air conditioning units shall be required in all units along Avenue 52 and Jefferson
Street.
The study also analysed the potential impacts associated with construction noise during
buildout of the site. The study found that noise levels from construction will be elevated,
and that without mitigation, residential units to the east and south will be impacted. In
order to reduce these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. All construction equipment shall be mufflered and properly maintained during all
phases of construction.
2. Stationary equipment and equipment staging shall be located in the northwest
quadrant of the site.
5 "Noise Impact Analysis 52nd and Jefferson Residential Development," prepared by LSA, October 2003.
-26-
Construction activities shall be limited to those hours specified in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise shall be
reduced to less than significant levels.
The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
-27-
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 construction of 145 residential units will not generate growth in the City, but will
rather accommodate growth pressures caused by commercial and other types of projects
in the area.
9"
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) Buildout 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. Buildout 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.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. 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 development of the site will include a common recreational area, which will provide
residents with recreational amenities. In addition, park in lieu fees will be collected to
address the project's impacts on the City's recreational facilities.
-30-
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)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.)
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)? (Tentative
Tract Map 32070)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 32070)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 32070)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a change from
commercial to residential land uses on the project site. As described in the air quality
section above, the project site, with residential land uses, has the potential to generate
1,343 average daily trips. The previously approved commercial center, and General Plan,
-31-
had an estimated 5,180 average daily trips generated from the site. The proposed General
Plan Amendment, and associated applications; therefore, will reduce overall impacts to
traffic in the vicinity of the site, particularly in the long term.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
-32-
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.)
-33-
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.
-34-
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) All impacts associated with paleontologic resources can be mitigated. The site does not
contain significant biological resources.
XVII. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing opportunities for City residents.
XVII. c) The construction of 145 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts.
The implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will have a
beneficial impact on buildout traffic generation in the vicinity.
-35-
XVII, d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for
PM10, and the site will generate PM10, Section III), above, includes a numbet of
mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have
been addressed through a series of stringent mitigation measures, which will lower the
potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels.
XVIIL 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.
Environmental Assessment 2001-433 was used in review of this application.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based- on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-36-
O
7
d
r
ro
C
0
w
w
ti
w
0
N
�
N
N
U
1
`cl
y
y
0
d
o
�
a
F
w
d
F
U
d
••
p
A
.a
U
y
a
W
r--
F-cu
CD
V d n a,
oa`nO`
o
U
C W O Cl
aM O
N
c ro
o
o
d
U
ro Y
N
P-i O G
V1
E
y
o
N C� %
.•1"i
C,3 >oH
V
ti
0 U
oz
o
zd
z
a�
A
U
W
d
W
d
A
'
z�
dA
U U
q
ro
�-!
O
O
O
�
E
•v
a,
r
y
n.
a
O
O
�GFLy
�
G
C
a�i
a�i
L:
u
('
"aC)
c�a
C
E
C
G
Q
i
ro
O
O
.+
V] I Q
Vi
P,
V7
(%]
v)
VI
to
_
to
b
O
Li
O
O
p
O
O
z
C
C
ro
w
U
E
U
E
tb ,
O
F
=O
y
=O
=O
b
b=0
C
OOwUUI
00
G
x
r
a>i
Z.F.
Ca
G
a p
o
c
a0.i
C]
�
aCi
aai
aP'i
q
O E
C
C
C
W'
W
b0
O
a
C
b
a
b
U
U
U q
0.c1
fA
W
C
N
P4
r
=
N N
z
Q
y
ro
aq
b y
0 0
E
c 'o
w to
o "
rG
n�r.i
30
ro
N
R'"
00
r7
'i•i
O
.N
W
0
N
'� .G
OD y
C
Oa
> 3
>
d�
o
oy
G
u>
= a
a
y
u
d
N
3
E
E
o
W N
a
o
a`
ti w •�
C
Q.
O t=C
.•�•
\
IT,
k(
Eu
§
2
°
\ \
2
¥
®
_
\ )
94E
)§
-
) /
\ /
)(
k
\ /
2 g
\ -
(
&
\
)\ \\
Ea
§§(
§3
*9b
�
k
*
§_
e
§
-
}
\5 \§
\
)§
q;
\\
§�
\*
2
�
o
(
;
\
(o
)k
( /
./
to
]2
/
O
2
\&
(}�
/
4
\$)
°
-
\\
7
//
W
F
d
A
W
WAW
rl aG
UU
d
0
0
o
r
G
r
c
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
u
o
0
F
OA
O
C
G
A
C
G
❑
C
C
•�
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
q
�
Op
bC11
bFA
�
o0A
OFA
w
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
w�
.a x
❑
E
E
z
m
w
ca
w
w
m
co
ca
is
wp
a�i
z
�a
N
Y
0
cq
C U C
Fto
o a
r- o "o
c
E
O M
00 . O
OA , y
o
g
a v
a E
c
O
0 o w
�" doo �
�
�
o
❑ 3
�
°—
a`i
v . ❑