Loading...
PCRES 2009-002PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-597, ZONE CHANGE 2008-136 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31434 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27" day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Monroe Dates, LLC.for Environmental Assessment 2005-536 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2008-1 16, Zone Change 2008-136 and Tentative Tract 31434, located on the west side of Monroe Street at the west termination of Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 and 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-597) and has determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effecting this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should. be adopted; and, 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: 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 2008-597. 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 p:\reports-pc\2009\1-13-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\ea 2008-597 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2009-002 Environmental Assessment 2008-597 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: January 27, 2009 or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any endangered or threatened wildlife. 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 property has not been identified as a habitat for any endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, landscaping will be installed which may provide some habitat. 4. The proposed project do 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. 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. If the project is approved as proposed, is will be in compliance with the General Plan and in conformance with surrounding development. 6. The proposed project will not have 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. 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 2008-597 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Planning 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: Planning Commission Resolution 2009-002 Environmental Assessment 2008-597 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: January 27, 2009 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 Environmental Assessment 2008-597 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 Planning Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2008-597 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`" day of January, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARROWS, QUILL, WEBER, WILKENSON, AND CHAIRMAN ALDERSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JES(JfZ^SON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2008-597) 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2008-116; Zone Change 2006-136; Tentative Tract Map 31434. "Monroe Dates LLC" 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico L La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The west side of Monroe Street, north and south of Avenue 61. Assessor's Parcel No. 764-280-014, -015. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Monroe Dates LLC 1387 Ambassador Way Salt Lake City, UT 84108 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: Existing: Low Density Residential, Low Existing: Low Density Residential, Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Proposed: Low Density Residential Residential Proposed: Low 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.) The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to remove the Lov Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential overlay from 30.26 acres located on the west side of Monroe Street, north and south of Avenue 61. This overlay provides special standards am requirements associated with lot size and land uses in this portion of the City. The Tentative Tract Map proposes the subdivision of the 30.26 acres into 94 single famil} residential lots of 8,668 square feet or more, as well as lots for a well site, retention anc landscaping areas, and streets. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy) South: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy) East: Monroe Street, North of Avenue 61: existing single family residential (Tract Mal 31733). South of Avenue 61: existing agriculture. West: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, o participation agreement.) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on 1 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. X 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. Signature Date -2- I Tract Map hi iA EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequate supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following ea question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sourc show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the proj( falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expc 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 c site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then t checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less th significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where t incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Signific< Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigati measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant le` (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 CEO process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaratic 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 we within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigati measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigati Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-speci conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informati sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to t page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; howev lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant t( 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 signifrcanc -4- 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? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and X 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)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on scenic vista The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by existing single famil development, and proposes single family homes of similar size and mass. The projei does not include the design of the homes at this time. However, the zoning ordinanc allows one and two story construction in the Low Density Residential zone, and it ca be expected that one and two stories will be proposed for the project site. The view and scenic vistas in this part of the City occur to the west and south. The propose project will not obstruct these vistas, as the site is on the Valley floor, some distant from the foothills, and views of the mountains will remain. The site is currently a date grove, and the date palms will be removed as a result of tl implementation of the proposed project. The grove is man-made, however, and dot not constitute a significant stand of trees. No historic buildings occur on the site. The proposed project will eventually construct single family homes on the site, of similar size, and on similarly sized lots as those already surrounding the site. Ti project site is the last remaining parcel on the west side of Monroe in this area which not developed. The project will therefore have no impact on the visual character of tl area. d) The project site is currently vacant. Development of the single family homes will rest in limited lighting associated with landscaping and architectural lighting. The level lighting is expected to be consistent with that already occurring in the area, and w not significantly increase lighting levels in the area. Impacts are expected to be le than significant. 5 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Imps 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. III-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; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on agricultu resources. The project site is currently in agriculture. Development of the homes whi will result from implementation of the proposed project will result in the loss of acres of date grove in the area. However, the site is surrounded by development three sides, and is not conducive to the long term use in agricultural productii Further, the site is too small to represent a significant agricultural production area the long term. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site. The site is designated residential development, and such development has occurred surrounding the site. T implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on lands currently agriculture to the east, insofar as these parcels can continue to be fanned with without the proposed project. Impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be less than significan 0 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (General Plan EIR) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (General Plan EIR) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (General Plan EIR) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Application materials) III. a) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on air qualit The implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan lar use designation assigned to the site, in terms of density proposed. The South Coast A Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which has jurisdiction over air quali management in the region, has based its air quality management planning on eai jurisdiction's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project was considered SCAQMD planning efforts, and is consistent with the air quality management plans effect for the City. b)- e) The City, and Coachella Valley, are in non -attainment for PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or smaller). The City can be subject to high winds, which can suspend dt and sand in the air, and cause unhealthful conditions. Air emissions will occur during construction and the life of the project, primarily tho associated with vehicle emissions. Construction and long term emissions a addressed individually below. Grading and Construction It is expected that the site will be mass graded. As a result, as shown in Table 1, t 7- site has the potential to generate up to 798.9 pounds of fugitive dust during the gradi process. The City will require that the project prepare a fugitive dust management pt which will include site watering or other stabilization measure, and other controls the grading process to reduce air emissions. This plan is required to reduce emissic associated with fugitive dust to the greatest extent possible. In addition, mitigation proposed below to limit the area to be graded, in order to reduce the potential fugitive dust generation. The combination of these two measures will reduce impa associated with fugitive dust to less than significant levels. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (pounds per day) Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)_ 30.26 26.4 798.9 South Coast Air Quality Management District " CEQA Air Quality Handbook" In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed project will generate air emissions from heavy equipment used in the grading process. These emissions, and the emissic generated by the worker trips associated with this phase of construction, summarized in Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading equipment air emissions v not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less tl significant. Table 2 Grading Equipment Emissions (pounds per day) # hrs/ Equipment Pieces day CO NOx ROG SOx* PM10 PM2.5 Grader 2 8 9.81 20.00 2.45 0.02 1.04 0.92 Crawler Tractors r Scrapers 1: 8 8.79 20.54 2.33 0.02 0.87 0.77 Tractor/LoaderBackhoe 1 r, g 3.06 4.65 0.69 0.01 0.35 0.31 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 $ F 1 9.99 21.49 2.49 0.02 0.91 0.81 Off Highway Trucks 5.31 16.13 1.79 0.02 0.57 0.51 Other Construction Equipment 2 8 ;; 6.16 13.76 7.83 0.14 0.04 0.04 Total 43.11 96.58 17.59 0.23 3.78 3.36 Source: EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) SCAB Fleet Average Emission Factors (Diesel) for 2012. •PM2.5 is 89% of PM on South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Final, Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and P Significance Thresholds, October 2006. PM 10 accounts for all particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. During grading, worker trips will also contribute to air emissions in the area. Tablf below, illustrates the combined emissions from these trips and the equipm emissions shown in Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading emissions will not excl SCAQMD thresholds, and the impacts will be less than significant. Table 3 Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Equipment Emissions 43.11 96.58 17.59 0.23 3.78 3.36 8,751 Workers' Vehicle Emissions 4.33 3.39 0.57 0.01 0.14 0.11 72X Total Construction Emissions 47.44 99.97 18.16 0.24 3.92 .3.48 9,471 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 l Construction activities will follow the grading process. It is expected that homes wi be built in groups on the site, and not all 94 homes will be constructed at one time. Fc purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that up to 25 units would be i production at any one time. The construction of these units will generate air emissior from the application of coatings, the paving of streets, and the use of mobile an stationary equipment. Table 4 summarizes the emissions expected during tb construction process. As shown in the Table, construction activities are not expected t exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less than significant Table 4 Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) PM1 CO NOx ROG SOX 0 PM2.5 Equipment Emissions Workers' Vehicle Emissions 23.06 17.33 41.16 13.58 5.83 2.28 0.05 0.03 2.46 M5 2.19 0.46 4,-) 2,c Asphalt Paving Emissions - - 0.52 - - Architectural Coatings Emissions - - 46.25 - - - Total Construction Emissions 40.40 54.74 54.88 0.08 3.01 2.64 7,( SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Operational Emissions The primary source of air pollutants generated by the project will be from vehicle tril to and from the project site. The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates th single family homes generate 9.57 trips per day. At build out, therefore, the proposf project will generate 900 trips per day. Based on these trips, the emissions from tl vehicles can be estimated, and are shown in Table 5. Table 5 Daily Exhaust Emissions at Project Build Out (pounds per day) -9- Total Miles Traveled per Pollutant CO NOx ROG sox PMto PM2.5 C( Passenger Vehicles 76.18 7.36 8.37 0.14 1.24 0.81 14,642.1 Delivery Trucks 2.92 3.17 0.44 .0.01 0.13 0.10 764., Total Pounds per Day 79.10 10.53 8.80 0.15 1.37 0.91 15,41 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 100.0 of Significance 0 0 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N Source: EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) Emissions Factors for On -Road Passenger Vehicles & Delivery Trucks. Passenger Vehicles are < 8500 lbs, and Delivery Trucks are > 8500 lbs. Passenger vehicles are assumed to be traveled by 98% of the total trips and delivery trucks represent 2% of total miles traveled. As illustrated in the Table, the long term operation of the proposed project will in exceed thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. Impacts are expected to less than significant. Obiectionable Odors The proposed project will consist of single family homes which will only generz cooking and similar odors. These are not expected to be objectionable. No impacts a expected. Mitigation Measures I. Grading on the project site shall be limited to no more than 10 acres of acti grading during any one day. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impac 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 Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) 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 Plan MEA, p. 78 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. 78 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. 78 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.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -11- IV. a) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on biological resources. T] project site is not in its native condition, and consists of disturbed agricultural lands. biological survey prepared in 2003 found that the site is entirely in agriculture, tw thirds of it being a date grove, and the balance an abandoned agricultural field. The o site survey found no sensitive species, and the trapping survey found no species concern. The site is within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Speci Habitat Conservation Plan, but not within a conservation area for the Plan. The proje will be required to pay mitigation fees, which are designed to mitigate all impacts covered species. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. b)-f) The project site does not contain any riparian areas or wetlands. The project site isolated, being surrounded by development, and does not provide a migratory corridc No policies relating to biological resource preservation will be affected by t] proposed project's build out. No impacts are expected. -12- Potentially Less Than Less Than N Significant Significant w/ Significant Imp Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff) V.a), b) & d) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on cultural resources. Th project site is in agricultural production. However, a cultural resource analysis wz prepared for the site. The Phase I report identified one prehistoric resource, and tw potential historic resources on the site (two wells). The wells, upon forth( investigation, were found to be of no historic significance. The prehistoric resourc was identified as a scatter of pottery and stone, which had the potential to h significant. As a result, a testing program was undertaken. The testing found that th site does not have the potential to be significant. All testing was reported, an materials collected and analyzed in an appropriate manner, to the extent necessary. N further analysis of this location is necessary. However, there is the potential that oth( resources, buried beneath the soil surface, could occur on the site. This woul constitute a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation, as follows: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present on the site during any group disturbing activity, including removal of the existing trees on the site. The monit( shall be empowered to stop and/or redirect ground disturbing activities, should resource be uncovered. A recovery plan shall be prepared and implemented shoul this occur. The monitor shall report on the monitoring effort in writing, ar provide the City with the report within 30 days of the completion of the grading c the site. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with d proposed project will be reduced to less than significant levels. I "Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, July 2003, ai "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report" prepared by CRM Tech, September, 2003. -13- The proposed project site is not known to have been the location of a burial groun California law requires that contractors immediately notify law enforcement officia should human remains be identified when grading occurs on the project site. Th requirement assures that impact to human remains will be less than significant. V. c) The project site occurs within the traditional boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. paleontological study was prepared for the project site 2. The study found mollu; shells on the site during the field survey. The destruction of these resources won represent a potentially significant impact, which requires mitigation,.as follows: 1. Surface collection of surface fossils shall occur prior to any ground disturbance. 2. A qualified paleontological monitor will be present on the site during any grow disturbing activity, including removal of the existing trees on the site. The monit shall be empowered to stop and/or redirect ground disturbing activities, should resource be uncovered. A recovery plan shall be prepared and implemented shou this occur. The monitor shall report on the monitoring effort in writing, and provii the City with the report within 30 days of the completion of the grading on the sit 2 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2003. -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? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan 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 (General Plan 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 General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on soils and geolog, Implementation of the project, however, will result in structures which will be subje, to groundshaking. The proposed project site is not located in an Alquist-Priol Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, are located in a seismical: active area, and will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. The Cil implements the most stringent building code requirements through implementation 4 -15- the Uniform Building Code provisions for seismically active zones. This requireme assures that impacts associated with groundshaking and construction will be less th. significant. The project site is located in an area of the site subject to liquefaction hazards. T1 geotechnical investigation undertaken for the project site3 found groundwater at depth of 16 feet below the surface. This indicates a potential for liquefaction during seismic event. The geotechnical analysis includes recommendations for soil treatmei which will carry forward to the building plans for the project, and will protect f structures from liquefaction hazards. As the City requires site and project specil geotechnical investigations be submitted with building plans, this standard requireme will assure that impacts associated with liquefaction are reduced to less than significa levels. The project site is flat, and surrounded by flat lands, and will not be subject landslides or rockfalls. The proposed project will be required to implement a fugitive dust management pla which will include water stabilization during grading, and other measures, determined by the City, to assure that wind erosion impacts are less than significant. Water erosion will be controlled through the City's requirement associated wi NPDES standards, to which the proposed project will be subject. These will inclu the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which w include best management practices to assure that storm water flows leaving the site a not polluted, and do not include silt. These City requirements will assure that impac associated with implementation of the proposed project will be less than significant. The City's soils are not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer facilities, and w not include septic tanks. Overall, impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less th significant. 3 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development," prepared by Sladden Engineering, May 2003. 16 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (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? (Application materials) 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 physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ti) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death 17- 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 General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on hazards or hazardol materials. The development of the homes will result in small quantities of cleanit products and similar materials being stored in the homes. These materials will I disposed of by Burrtec, which implements local, County and State requirements for tl handling of hazardous materials. Impacts will be less than significant. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed projece. TI study found that the site's use in agriculture, pesticide storage had occurred, and th waste oil and underground storage tanks were located on the site, as was suspects asbestos -containing pipe and building materials. The study recommended remediatit of these items, which was undertaken5. The storage tank was properly remediated, at asbestos testing undertaken. All hazardous materials on the site have been remediati to the standards imposed by the County and the State, thereby reducing potenti impacts to less than significant levels. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. The proposed proje site is not listed as a compromised site on any state or federal database. The propose project is not located within '/4 mile of a school. There are no wildlands locate adjacent or near the project site. 4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessors Parcel Numbers.764-270-015 and 764-280-01� prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, March 2003. 5 "Report of Underground Storage Tank Closure," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, June 2003; and "Report Asbestos Removal," prepared by Scott Morrison and Associates, 2003. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. 1I1-187 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 drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard x area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) 19- VIII. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on hydrolog The eventual development of the homes on the site, however, will necessitate domest water and storm water management. The proposed project will be connected to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) sanitary sewer system. The CVWD maintains its facilities in compliant with all wastewater discharge requirements. To protect against the potential contamination of storm water, the proposed proje will be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potenti pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. The proposed project will require potable water for domestic use and for landscaph irrigation. The CVWD will provide water to the project site. The proposed project consistent with, and less intense than, the land use designation assigned to tl property. The CVWD utilized this land use designation, and a higher intensity land u scenario, in the development of its Urban Water Management Plan. The Plan identifiE existing and future water sources, and determined that sufficient supplies exist provide domestic water to the project and City. The City will also require the implementation of water conserving appliances at fixtures, consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Finally, the project will 1 required to comply with CVWD's landscaping standards, which require wat conservation through drought tolerant landscaping and extremely efficient irrigati( systems. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with the propos( project are less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that projects prepare hydrology analysis, and such an analysis h been completed for the proposed project6. The hydrology study calculated the potenti runoff generated by the 100 year storm, and sized the proposed on -site retention has to accommodate these storm flows. The City Engineer will continue to review, at will ultimately approve, the final hydrology analysis, which will be based on fin plans for the project. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associat( with storm flows on the project site are less than significant. VIII. e}g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. No impact is expected 6 "Tentative Tract 31434 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by KIDS Consulting, June 2008. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impac 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 Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The project site is currently a date grove, and development of the site will not divide E established community. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change propose to delete tl Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Overlay from both the General Plan and Zonir maps for this parcel. This designation was applied in this portion of the City f( properties located adjacent to more rural lands, to provide a transition to these rur lands from the more suburban character of lands to the west. The proposed project si is, however, surrounded on three sides by the Trilogy project, which consists ( equivalent or more dense development than that proposed for the project site. Monr( Street borders the proposed project site on the east, further isolating it from more rur lands to the east. The proposed Amendments, therefore, are consistent with Ian( surrounding the project site, and will not significantly conflict with the General Plan 4 Zoning Ordinance in this instance. The proposed project is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Multiple Specie Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project will be required to comply with th Plan, and pay fees which are designed to mitigate the potential impacts to any cover( species. No impact is expected. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impal 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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on miner resources. The project site is and has been designated for low density residenti development, and does not occur in the vicinity of any mining activities. No miner resources are expected to occur within the project site, and no impact is expected as result of implementation of development on the site. -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? (General Plan MEA p. I I I f.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. IIIf.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two. miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on noise. Tl eventual development of the proposed project will, however, result in increases noise levels, generally associated with the increased vehicle trips in the area. TI project site is located on Monroe Street. The General Plan EIR identified this area the City as having relatively low long term noise levels. The project will include a foot wall on the eastern boundary, which will serve as a noise buffer for adjacent lol The noise levels on the project site are expected to meet the City's 65 dBA CNE noise standards. -23- The project will result in elevated noise levels during the construction process. The si is surrounded by the walls built for the Trilogy project on three sides. Although not levels in excess of General Plan standards are likely to occur for short perioc depending on the equipment or construction activity, these levels will be during t noisier day time hours, and will not significantly impact the noise environment in t. area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project's construction may also generate some vibration, depending on t construction equipment required. This condition will be temporary and periodic, and not expected to impact sensitive receptors, since the proposed project is surrounded 1 existing commercial development. The impacts are expected to be less than significai The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on population c housing. The eventual development of 94 homes will occur in response to growth i the area, and is not expected to cause growth in the area. The site is located on th City's existing street system, and is served by existing infrastructure. No significai extension of infrastructure will result from the proposed project. Impacts are expecte to be less than significant. The project site is operated as a date grove, and will not result in the destruction c housing, or the displacement of people. Overall impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less tha significant. bAll Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impel 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) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on publ services. The proposed project will result in some increases in demand for police ai fire services. However, the project will be required to pay Impact Fees, which a structured to include the additional facilities required to accommodate additional lai uses in the City. In addition, the proposed project will generate sales and property to which will help offset the costs associated with providing additional services. The proposed project will pay the mandated school fees in place at the time development. These fees are designed to offset the costs associated with ne development, and allow the school district to construct new facilities. The proposed project will pay Quimby fees for parks, and also includes an on site pa area, which will be available for residents, and which may reduce those residents' net for off -site parks facilities. Overall impacts associated with public services and facilities are expected to be le than significant. -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; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) 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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impacts on recreation As stated above, the proposed project will include an on site park area which wil offset the need for other City facilities. The project will not result in a need fo additional recreational facilities. Overall impacts are expected to be less tha significant. -27_ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa 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)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on Traffic Circulation. The eventual development of 94 single family residences will result approximately 900 average daily trips to and from the site. The traffic generated by f site is consistent with that analyzed for the General Plan, as the project is consiste with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The General Plan El found that levels of service in this area of the City, and Monroe Street in particuh will be acceptable at General Plan buildout. As the project is consistent with what w -28- analyzed in the EIR, and no significant changes in land use have occurred in thi vicinity of the proposed project, the impacts associated with traffic on local roads ari expected to be less than significant. The proposed project wll be required to provide parking consistent with the Zoninj Ordinance. The project is on the City's existing street system, and will have no impac on emergency access or response. The proposed project is not within the SunLinI service area. The proposed project is not within the influence area of an airport o airstrip. Overall impacts associated with transportation and traffic are expected to be less thaj significant. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa, 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 that 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.) XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on Utilities ai Service Systems. The proposed project will connect to existing CVWD facilities f -30- both domestic water and sanitary sewer. CVWD has sufficient capacity t accommodate the proposed project, and also has the ability to expand the wastewate treatment plant as regional needs require. The proposed project will design its storm water drainage to contain the 100 yez storm, as required by City standards. The proposed project will not require th expansion of existing storm drainage facilities. Please also see Hydrology, above. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation used by CVWD t determine domestic water demand in its service area. The analysis concluded that th CVWD has sufficient water available, now and in the future, to serve the propose project. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. Solid waste will be collected by Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrte currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste i transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badland and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate th proposed project. Burrtec is also required to comply with all City, regional, state an federal requirements for the disposal of solid waste. Overall impacts associated with utilities are expected to be less than significant -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact Mitigation Impact XVIL 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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) 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)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) Biological resources will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project, as t site is disturbed agricultural land, and does not include native habitat. Archaeologic and paleontological resources were identified on the project site, but themitigati measures included in this document will reduce the potential impacts to less th significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for the area, and w have no significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. The level of impact associat with the project is consistent with that envisioned in the General Plan EIR. XVII. c) This Initial Study has found that no cumulative impact will occur as a result of t proposed project. XVII. d) The proposed project will have less than significant impacts associated with noise a traffic and circulation, which could directly affect human beings. Impacts associat with air quality during the grading process are reduced to less than significant levels the mitigation measures in this document. -32- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ) process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativ declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the followinj on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available fo review. General Plan EIR, 2002. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist wer within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicabl legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures bases on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatiu Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from th earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -33- Y ° y5 tV o d b v 0 „ C N 0 O b V] 3 � U az c Wo Orn F W aV A O d oa, o 0 N co ti Y �1 o F-� o N •Y.y �Y C lu U N ❑ �O ctl 0 Y cy N W N r- y pp M � W N 0 F y N C . C7UMN C O °z z a.. dd �� AU W� w A z� a WUW OU N 0 U N NR� �n U .. op a F b �o A w� c a cz x z o o d � �+ 0 v o� ey �a N w C A a� a �UWt OU C C t w 1�-i F Lei N O N z C G [ F Cd m c c pa�i a°i a°i wz o 0 0 z z A ca ca y U 'C N a '��+ •C E E UQ UA UA O y vi U U .d, .N G vi FU ° o 80 °15 {i� IIOy' YO td N y O cd 00 to o o °•fl o 0 E o E E U Y 0 U st �.c o v cn 0. a °o