PCRES 2004-070PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-070
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 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31874 AND
SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-073
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-511
STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28`h day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Stonefield Development, Inc. for Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1
prepared for Tentative Tract 31874 and Specific Plan 2004-073, located at the
northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53, more particularly described as:
APN 767-200-011
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed applications 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
2004-51 1.
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. Potential impacts associated with cultural and
paleontologic resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site
does not contain significant biological resources.
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. The site does not contain significant biological resources.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-070
Environmental Assessment 2004-511
Stonefield Development, Inc.
Adopted: September 28, 2004
providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified by 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. The construction of 101
residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is
consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with
General Plan buildout.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project
has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise
impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the
site will generate PM10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to
reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed
through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for
significant impacts to less than significant levels.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1
and said 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.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-070
Environmental Assessment 2004-511
Stonefield Development, Inc.
Adopted: September 28, 2004
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2004-511 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community
Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28`h day of September, 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger
ABSTAIN: None
M I MK, Chairman
V-bf La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 pc res.doc
F1
3.
0
Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2004-511)
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31874, Specific Plan 2004-073
Lead agency name and address
Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
Project location: Northwest corner of Avenue 53 and Monroe Street. APN: 767-200-001
Project sponsor's name and address: Stonefield Development
23333 Avenida de Caza
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
General plan designation: Low Density
Residential, with Agriculture/Equestrian
Overlay*
Zoning: Low
Density/Agricultural/Equestrian*
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.)
A proposal to subdivide 40 acres into 101 single family residential lots, as well as lots for
streets, retention basins, a well site and landscaped parkway. The site is proposed to have
access from both Monroe Street and Avenue 53. The minimum lot size is proposed to be
9,600 square feet. Lot size ranges from 9,600 to 21,608, with most lots in the range of
approximately 10,000 square feet. The project site is currently in the City's sphere of
influenced, and undergoing annexation.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant (Low Density Residential under construction)
South: Vacant (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space)
West: Vacant (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space)
East: Vacant (Agriculture County)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
*The property is currently in unincorporated Riverside County. Pre -annexation General Plan
and Zoning designations were assigned to the property during the General 'Plan Update
process, and have been assumed here.
P:\Reports - PM9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -t-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
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/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
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
September 13, 2004
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -2-
Signature
Date
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact'
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, 'Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR 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.
e) 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.
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -4-
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
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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
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)
I. a)-d) Neither Avenue 53 nor Monroe Street are designated Image Corridors in the General
Plan. The proposed subdivision will result in the construction of 101 single family
residences on lots of approximately 10,000 square feet. There are no significant aesthetic
landmarks in the area. The site is surrounded by properties designated for golf course and
residential land uses at similar grades to the proposed project. The City regulates building
height for single family homes to one or two stories, which will limit the potential mass
associated with the site. The impacts associated with aesthetics are expected to be
insignificant.
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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
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.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The proposed project site has been in agriculture, and is currently partially fanned. The
property is not under Williamson Act contract. The property is isolated from other
farmlands, and is in an area of the City which is rapidly developing. The loss of 40 acres
of partially utilized, isolated farmland is not expected to be significant.
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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 proposed project would result in 101 single family residential units on the site. These
units are likely to generate approximately 1,055 vehicle trips per day'. Since automobile
emissions are the largest contributor to air quality issues in the region, these vehicle trips
will be the most significant generators of air pollutants as a result of the project. 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 210, Single Family Residential,
detached.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -8-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(bounds oer davl
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1,055 x 10 = 10,550
PM10 PM10 PMio
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 949.50 24,687.00 5,064.00 105.50 105.50
Pounds at 50 mph 2.10 54.50 11.18 0.23 0.23
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,055 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. 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
BCM-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 972.6 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active, assuming that the site will be mass graded. If
the site is graded in sections, impacts are expected to be lower. The contractor will be
required to submit a PM10 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.
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chktst.doc -9-
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 Monroe Street and Avenue 53 shall be
installed with the first phase of development on the site, as shall the project's
perimeter wall.
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
PM10 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.
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stcnefie1d Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -to-
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, 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? ("General Biological Resources
Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc.
May 2004)
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? ("General
Biological Resources Assessment..." Natural
Resources Assessment, Inc. May 2004)
e) 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 Biological Resources
Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc.
May 2004)
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
Biological Resources Assessment..." Natural
Resources Assessment, Inc. May 2004)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ("General Biological Resources
Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -11-
May 2004)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed project site2. The study
included a records search as well as on -site investigation. The on site investigation
included particular focus on identifying burrowing owl on the site, as well as sensitive
plants. A protocol survey for burrowing owl was not completed.
The study concluded that the site's long term use as farm land, and its isolated nature in
regards to natural habitat make it of poor value for native species habitat. The study did
not identify burrowing owl on the property, and identified only common species
throughout. Because of the site's use as farm land, impacts to biological resources are
expected to be negligible.
2 "General Biological Resources Assessment Stonefield 40 Acres," prepared by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc., May
2004.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -12-
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? ("Phase I Cultural
Resources Investigation...," Keith Companies,
June 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Phase I
Cultural Resources Investigation...," Keith
Companies, June 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontologic
Assessment..." San Bernardino County Museum,
February 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? "Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation...," Keith Companies, June 2004)
V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resource survey and associated report were prepared for the project site3. The
survey found one isolate on the property, as well as one circa 1925 shotshell. These finds
are considered indicative of the potential for sub -surface artifacts. Therefore, 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 the first house on the project site. Monitors shall include a Native American
monitor. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of first earth -moving
or clearing permit.
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
3 "Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of 40 Acres......," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 2004.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -13-
3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation,
in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free,
standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior
to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be
accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data,
and the original graphics.
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.
V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site 4. The study found that
the project site is within the historic lake bed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further
found both mollusk shells and undated bone fragments which may or may not be fossils..
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 measure shall be implemented.
1. 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.
2. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -
moving or clearing permit.
3. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of the first production home building permit for the
project.
4. Collected paleontological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within
acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the
City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property. Materials will be
accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data,
and the original graphics.
4 "Paleontological Assessment Stonefield Development," prepared by the San Bernardino Museum, February 2004.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonetield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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? (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)
c) 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)
d) 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)-d) The project site lies in a Zone IV 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 City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -15-
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
The site is located in an area having a potential for liquefaction hazards. In order to
assure that liquefaction issues are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit, for review and
approval by the City Engineer, a liquefaction study which determines the depth to
groundwater at the project site, and recommends any special construction
techniques to assure that structures on the site will be protected in a seismic event.
Portions of the project site are 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. The proposed
project will be required to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks
will not be installed.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts associated with soils and
geology are expected to be less than significant.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chkist.doc -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? ('Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems
Southwest, Jan. 2004)
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? ('Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems
Southwest, Jan. 2004)
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? ('Report of Please I
Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems
Southwest, Jan. 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 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
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -17-
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
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 101 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.
The site's use as farm land has been analyzed in a Phase I Environmental Assessments.
Recommendations have been made in that study regarding a storage area which may
require further study. Since the potential impacts associated with this storage area are not
known, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Phase II investigation of the storage areas
for prior pesticide use and potential spillage shall be completed, and any clean up
required, if necessary, shall be completed.
5 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, January, 2004.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the project:
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? ("Preliminary
Hydrology..." TKC, June 2004)
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?
("Preliminary Hydrology..." TKC, June 2004)
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? ("Preliminary
Hydrology... "TKC, June 2004)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chkist.doc -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-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)
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
for residential units, both for domestic water and 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. In order to achieve
this requirement, a preliminary hydrology study was completed 6. The study analyzed the
potential storm flows resulting from a 100 year storm, and the required capacity of the
retention basin to accommodate those volumes. The study found that a retention basin
capable of containing 3.16 acre feet was required. The retention basins within the project
(shown as lots R & Q on the map) has been sized to accommodate this volume, with Lot
Q as the primary area, and Lot R acting as additional capacity. The City Engineer will
review the final hydrology study for the proposed project, and approve its findings prior
to recordation of the map. 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.
6 'Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 2004.
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
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 currently in agriculture, and will not impact any existing community.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and
will result in a total of 101 single family homes. This type of development is consistent
with surrounding existing and approved development. No impacts are expected as a
result of project implementation.
The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
P:\Reports - PM9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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-I Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
P:\Reports - PM9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -22-
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? ("Preliminary Noise
Study," Urban Crossroads, April 2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? ("Preliminary
Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, April 2004)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban
Crossroads, April 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Preliminary Noise
Study," Urban Crossroads, April 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)
I) 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 project. The study found that noise levels
for lots on Avenue 53 are expected to remain below the City's standard of 65 dBA
CNEL. However, noise levels for lots on Monroe Street, without mitigation, will reach
7 "40 Acre Residential Development Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, April, 2004.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -23-
69.7 dBA CNEL, which exceeds the City's standards. The study also analyzed the
potential well site (shown as Lot P on the Tract Map), and the noise generation potential
from equipment on that site. The study found that with mitigation, potential impacts
associated with noise from the well site could be mitigated to less than significant levels.
The study also considered the potential impacts to second story construction from
roadway noise on Monroe and Avenue 53. Noise levels are expected to reach between
62.6 and 69.2 dBA CNEL without mitigation. Although the building construction itself
can provide from 12 to 20 dBA CNEL noise attenuation, the potential second stories of
homes on Monroe and Avenue 53 could still exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior
noise standard without the provision of a mechanical ventilation system, to allow a
"windows closed" condition.
In order to assure that the potential impacts associated with noise at the project site are
reduced to a less than significant level, the study recommends the implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
1. A 6 foot high wall shall be constructed, at a minimum, along the northern
property line of lot 13, the eastern property lines of lots 4 through 12, the southern
property line of lot 8, the northern property line of lot 7, the southern property
line of lot 4, and the eastern property line of lot 3. The wall shall be of solid
construction, in block or similar material, with no breaks or openings.
2. All second story units located along Avenue 53 and Monroe shall be provided
with a mechanical ventilation system (air conditioning).
3. A final noise study shall be submitted with building permits for the proposed
project.
Noise will also be generated from the project site during construction. Lands surrounding
the property, however, are currently vacant, and planned for a golf course community.
Should this community be built before the proposed project, it will include the
construction of a wall, which should provide sufficient attenuation of the temporary noise
impacts associated with construction of the proposed project.
With implementation of the mitigation measures above, 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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 construction of 101 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
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.
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -26-
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 proposed project includes interior open space areas which will be available to
residents for recreational purposes (lots R and Q, proposed for retention basins). In
addition, park in lieu fees will be collected to address the project's impacts on the City's
recreational facilities.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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)?
(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. III-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 31874)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31874)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31874)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The project site has the potential to generate 1,055 average daily trips. The proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations placed on the
property by the City. The General Plan EIR included lands in the City's sphere in its
analysis, and found that both Monroe and Avenue 53 would operate at acceptable levels
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -28-
at General Plan buildout. The proposed project, therefore, will have less than significant
impacts on traffic and circulation in the area.
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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
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.)
I) 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.)
PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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 -tern, 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 can be mitigated to
a less than significant level. 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 101 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts.
The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with
General Plan buildout.
P!\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -32-
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
PMIO, and the site will generate PMIO, Section III), above, includes a number of
mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have
been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential
for significant 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 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -33-
L
0
G
0
b
c
M
¢
w
0
4
p
O
U
O
O
N
N
�
o
o
z
o
N
a
�
Q
U
F
�
A
Ada
a
�
U
w
°
H
o
E
O
O
v
o
p
N
O
?
o
°
a
�b
p
E
w�v
w
!n
Vl M
N
U]
oz
o
zU
W
o
v
wa
W
F
a
A
z
a0
a
U U
ro
T
U
U
d
v
N
v
a
n
v
to
v)
0-0
CM
c
;a
o
U
°
o
o
c
o
0
5
ro N
tZ
^
N
cU�d
fUOC
U
O
O Y
a
O CO
u
qq
pp
�
on
pq
U
E
a
a
as as o`b
q
q
Q
q
x
o�
E
d
acG
E
E
E
p
E
�F
r
z
°
�
p
LUl
s .0
v
7
r ro
v
b E
U
p
N
U
x
a
m
a
w
cn
°
W
F
A
z�
aA
a
o, U
U U
Q
Wa
F
�J
W
U
U
U
a
a
C7
z
CIO
a
F
�
0o
a
q
z
lz
� o
f
a Q
11
w �
3 a
E
W�
U ^a
V
ro
p O
�
aUC]
a w p
a o
w
N
=
U a
E
on U
G y
w r
y 0 a
T a Q U oq !
ctl
H y
>
y
oo
F 'o �c
a
Y
�
"
w
h
, .`
'C
a
U �
U
'C
i. ro
c
is N > c -
'�, .r CJI va 'C
:: oo
2
3
0
a
E
3
U
a aroi
°
c .
.
a
u
z
O
a.S
>
�= o
CL
E
>
a G
y�
.+
�
O
N �
c o
p 0
o
`° a
a
o
O
0 .2
ro a s
V
ro '� N
ro
0
E
U
U
p
�R
U E
O
w
o
G
O
N
a
0
ro b
CG
—
= U
v
>'
v U
U
E
o 0o
u
q
s p
U
0 �U �
o a�� to
Hw
�
`� U.?;
u m
v
a
M.�q
n..>>
a'''
o
p'o
o f
° o.0
h
o
W
y
ti
i.
7
o
y T•�
V1
ro
bq
.> ro
U ti
b
,d
ro
4
U
U-
.O
U
K
O u
R N
ro 0 CL
w�i
a
b0
O •F
ro 'O W
O
by N
cd
p
N
0
a o
yw
O conOv
.
opo
—
oYv
vt-
T
aL
O
0
ec
H
E`VWUto
O
_�>
oa
o
=
.ro°
0
e-Cl
M
c
0
U
U
Q
C
OA
C
b
R
L
00
G
y
C
Q
C �
�
R
o °
Ca �
X Q
ae
saz
ro
o
aULI
Q. O
o
.G
o .y
U
o4
° L
U
_ Cp W >
N U
C C
.L C b p
ro
U rOii `n
0
0
G
C 7°
3
G
.�
t�:
U m >T
ro
O
U rri
C
_
C
o ro G
DRE'oo
�m000a
c
x 3�
c
°aa�Fo�
o.�ooaaa
° °
8
E
U C]
L
o°�
x
a�oo°�
a
...
N
M
OU
Cr
�}\\/
�(\(\
(
§) [(
\
\�
)\
\\
/
§
°
w
\\
§
;
_
\
)y
kd
/k
»'
-
�
�
\
c
\
�&
\
\j
tj�
\
_
o
.
�
�
§
&
_
\
\�
/\
\\
)
(
_
3
(®
%\
(
;
\
(o
�
z
=
\/
\
iz
&t
k�
\\
j6
(
�3
w
§j
k
�4z
®
\�%
£
§
/
/
.
(/
u
\
\�
§\
\\
0
;
\
-
�
(E
)
k
\
\\
2
cl
_
\
\®)
{
\
[
ƒ2
u