Loading...
PC Resolution 2013-008PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2013-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-627 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 251" day of June, 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by the La Quinta Housing Authority to adopt Environmental Assessment 2013-627, prepared for Site Development Permit 2013-926, known as the Washington Street Apartments, a 42-unit affordable apartment complex, generally located on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, more particularly described as: APN: 609-040-028 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 Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2013-627) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a potentially 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 and mitigation measures have been incorporated. Therefore, the Community Development Director is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program be certified; and, WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more potentially significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision - making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less -than -significant level; and, Planning Commission Resolution 2013-008 Environmental Assessment 2013-627 La Quinta Housing Authority Page 2 WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the project could result in a number of potentially significant effects on the environment, mitigation measures have been identified, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, to reduce the significant effects to a less - than -significant level; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department mailed and published a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092 on the 14th day of May, 2013 to the Riverside County Clerk; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on June 14, 2013 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; 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 adoption of said Environmental Assessment: 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Assessment, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the project. Based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this project, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Planning Commission finds that there are no significant environmental effects resulting from this project. 2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2013- 627 that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3. The project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a Planning Commission Resolution 2013-008 Environmental Assessment 2013-627 La Quinta Housing Authority Page 3 plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified under Environmental Assessment 2013-627 that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 6. The project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the City will not be significantly affected by the project. 7. The project will not create environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program and any comments received thereon, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 9. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2013-627 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 10. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d1. 11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Project has no potential Planning Commission Resolution 2013-008 Environmental Assessment 2013-627 La Quinta Housing Authority Page 4 for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code §71 1 .2. 12. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based upon, are located in the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. SECTION 2. That it does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2013-627, which includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25' day of June, 2013, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Wright, and Chairperson Barrows NOES: Commissioner Wilkinson ABSENT: Commissioner Weber ABSTAIN: None &- z4x�� KATIE BAR S, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2013-008 Environmental Assessment 2013-627 La Quinta Housing Authority Page 5 ATTEST: ?� JOANSON, Community Development Director ity of La Quinta, California 04 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study (as required by Sec. 15063 of the Public Resources Code) To be completed by the lead agency Project Title: Phase 2 of the Washington Street Apartments Environmental Assessment 2013-627 Site Development Permit 2013-926 Conditional Use Permit 2013-151 Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Jay Wuu, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 42800 Washington Street, La Quinta. Assessor's Parcel Number 609-040-028 La Quinta Housing Authority 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Medium/High Density High Density Residential 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 project consists of the addition of 42 new apartments to the existing Washington Street Apartments projects. The additional units will be made available to low income residents of 55 years of age or older. The apartments will be integrated into the existing Washington Street Apartments project, which occurs immediately west of the project site. Phase 1 of the project, previously approved in 2012, included the refurbishment of the existing 72 units and the construction of 26 additional units. Although not yet constructed, Phase 1 is still planned for construction. Phase 1 was studied under the requirements of CEQA (EA 2011-613), and a Negative Declaration was approved, In addition to the apartment units, which will be contained in 6 buildings totaling approximately 28,866 square feet, a central common area is proposed which will include laundry facilities, recreational open space, a pool and spa, a health center and common room. Additionally, retention basins provided at the western and eastern ends of the project will serve as recreational open space. Landscaped open space will total approximately 100,000 square feet. The apartment buildings will be single story, with a maximum height of 20 feet. Parking areas are proposed between the buildings, and will provide 57 parking spaces. -1- Access to the project will occur through the existing Washington Street Apartments driveways to the west. No direct access to local roadways is proposed. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Commercial nursery South: Multi -family residential development East: Vacant lands West: Washington Street Apartment, Phase 1 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Coachella Valley Water District g 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 ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ 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 DECLA TION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant �at that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation reasures are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Jav Wuu, Associate Planner Printed name -3- Date City of La Quinta For 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 EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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 -4- significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan "Image X Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and X its surroundings? (Aerial Photograph) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a) Washington Street is designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. This is the only image corridor in the vicinity of the project. Scenic vistas in the project area result from the San Jacinto Mountains to the west. The construction of the apartments will occur to the east of Washington Street, beyond the Washington Street Phase 1 apartments. The Phase 2 units, like those in Phase 1, will be 2 stories in height. Views of the mountains will be obstructed by the Phase I apartments, but the mountain tops will be visible above the buildings. The construction of the proposed project will not impact views of scenic vistas to the west, since lands to the east of the project are currently developed in either commercial nurseries or scattered single family homes removed and easterly of the project. The views from these properties will not be impacted by the apartment construction, insofar as distance will compensate and allow views of the mountains after construction. Overall impacts to scenic vistas will be less than significant. b) The project site is vacant and does not include rock outcroppings, stands of trees or historic structures. There will be no impact to scenic resources. c) The project proposes two story apartment units. Existing two story apartments occur to the northwest and south of the project site. Commercial nurseries occur to the north, and vacant lands occur to the east. The proposed project will be consistent with the visual character of the surroundings, and will not change that visual character. No impacts are anticipated. -5- d) The proposed project will marginally increase light levels in the area. Landscaping lighting and parking area lights, as well as headlights from residents' vehicles will contribute to this increase. The project proponent will be required to conform to -the City's standards for on -site lighting, which prohibit light spillage onto adjacent properties. Traffic increases associated with the proposed project are expected to be minimal. As a result, no impact is expected. Eel 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 Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Riverside County Important Farmland 2008, Ca dept of.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site is not in agriculture. The property is not designated as Prime, Unique or Important farmlands. Lands to the north and east are designated for residential land uses, and are occupied by a mix of single family residences and commercial nurseries. These nurseries will not be impacted by the proposed project, and can continue to operate. This area is not planned for long term agricultural use. There are no Williamson Act contracts either on the project site, or on adjacent lands. The construction of the apartment units will have no impact on agricultural resources. -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 implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions X either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, X policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Project description) III. a) The Coachella Valley, and the City, occur in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans, including the recently adopted 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP). The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. It was based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project is consistent with the City -8- b)&c) of La Quinta's land use designations assigned to the subject property, and therefore, is consistent with the intent of the AQMP. The development of the project site will generate pollutants during construction and operation. Each of these generation phases is described separately below. Construction As shown in Table 1, the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD standards for oxides of nitrogen without mitigation. With the implementation of the mitigation measure below, however, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Table 1 Construction -Related Emissions Summary Pounds per day) CO NO ROG SOZ PM10 PM2, Construction Emissions' Unmitigated 81.67 118.11 39.40 0.14 27.76 13.55 Mitigated 7.58 8.29 34.21 0.14 16.67 3.88 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average winter and summer emissions. Construction is assumed to occur in 2014. Source: CalEEMod model, version 2011.1.1. Operational Emissions Table 2 summarizes the operational impacts of the projects. Impacts associated with long term operation of the project will be less than significant. Table 2 Operation -Related Emissions Summary (Pounds ner dav) CO NO-, ROG SO; PMio MIS Emission Source: Area 7.70 0.10 2.92 0.01 0.71 0.71 Energy 0.18 0.43 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.03 Mobile 27.46 15.40 3.43 0.04 4.50 0.52 Total Emissions' 35.34 15.93 6.40 0.05 5.24 1.26 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average winter and summer emissions, unmitigated. Anticipated operational year is 2015, Source: CalEEMod model, version 2011.1.1. Mitigation Measure All heavy equipment used during construction of the proposed project will be equipped with oxidation catalysts. In d) The proposed project will generate approximately 146 daily trips, which will not result in pollutant concentrations at surrounding sensitive receptors, including the Colonel Mitchell Paige School, located approximately 1/4 mile to the south. e) The project will result in the development of residential units which will generate normal household activities and odors, and is not expected to create objectionable odors. f) & g) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during the construction and operational phases of the project. Grading and construction activities are anticipated to generate 635.22 metric tons of CO2e per year during the year long construction. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with these activities will stop, however, at the end of the construction period. As shown in Table 3, operation of the proposed project will create on -going greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and the transport and pumping of water for domestic use. Operational emissions will total 1,127.48 metric tons of GHGs per year. Table 3 Annual Operational GHG Summary Mitigated (Metric Tons/Year) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area 84.55 0.02 --- 85.36 Energy 265.15 0.01 --- 266.25 Mobile 720.10 0.03 --- 720.74 Waste 9.99 0.59 --- 22.38 Water 31.62 0.02 --- 32.75 Total 1,111.41 0.67 --- 1.127.48 Source: CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.1. There are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. The GHGs generated by the project will be reduced by new statewide programs and standards, including new fuel - efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. The proposed project will also be required to implement the CalGreen Building Code being implemented by the City at the time that building permits are issued. These standards include energy efficiency standards which are much more stringent than they have been in the past. Finally, the City is implementing its recently adopted GHG Reduction Plan, which includes construction and operational techniques designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the GHG emissions generated by the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality in the region. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 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, X or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan Biological Resources Element) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or X other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) -11- IV. a) The proposed project site is currently vacant, but has been impacted by off -road vehicles, and contains meager creosote bush scrub habitat, the most common habitat type in the City, which is likely to support common native species. The project site is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan boundary, but is not located in or adjacent to a conservation area. Development of the project will require payment of the mitigation fee in place at the time that development occurs. This fee is designed to mitigate impacts to locally sensitive species by allowing the purchase of conservation lands in sensitive habitat areas. The payment of the fee will assure that impacts associated with sensitive species are less than significant. b-c) No riparian habitat or wetlands occur on or adjacent to the project site. Lands surrounding the project do not include streams or rivers. The proposed project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive natural community. d) The proposed project area is highly urbanized, and does not provide substantial wildlife corridors, which would facilitate migratory species' access. The project site is surrounded on three sides by urban development, and is an isolated parcel of land. No wildlife preserves or similar areas occur in the vicinity of the project area. The project will therefore have no impact on migratory species or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) & f) The City implements the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project will be required to pay the mitigation fee when development occurs. This fee is designed to offset potential impacts and assure that impacts to sensitive species are less than significant. -12- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in'15064.5? (General Plan Cultural Resources Element) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan Cultural Resources Element) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? (General Plan Cultural Resources Element) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? (General Plan Cultural Resources Element) V.a) The project site is currently vacant, and does not contain historic structures. Development of the proposed apartments will have no impact on historic resources. b) A cultural resource reconnaissance was conducted for the project area as part of the CEQA review for the Phase 1 development of the apartments. The assessment included a records search, which found that multiple analyses have occurred surrounding the project site, but none had occurred on the project site. An on -site survey was also conducted, and no evidence of human activity was identified. In addition, the City will require that all ground disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to assure that no buried resources are disturbed during the construction of the proposed project. This City requirement will assure that impacts to archaeological resources will be less than significant. c) The project site is located outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which is the only locality in the City where potentially significant paleontological resources have been identified. The soils on the site are dune sands, which have been deposited on the land in relatively recent times, as a result of Aeolian transport. These soils are not suitable for paleontological resources. Therefore, there will be no impact to paleontological resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project. d) No known cemetery or burial site occurs on the project site. State law requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease if human remains are discovered during excavation or grading, to assure proper disposal. The coroner is responsible for contacting Native American tribes should identified remains be determined to be Tribal in nature. The proposed project will be required to comply with State and will have no impact on human remains. -13- 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, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area X or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan Soils and Geology Element) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan Soils and Geology Element) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan Soils X and Geology Element) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Soils and X Geology Element) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Soils and X Geology Element) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property (General Plan Soils and Geology Element) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Project description) VI. a)i. The proposed project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site is located approximately 4 miles south of the San Andreas Fault Zone. There will be no impacts associated with fault rupture on the project site. a)ii. The project site is located within an area identified as having significant potential for groundshaking during an earthquake. The City requires that all new construction meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. These standards are -14- designed to reduce impacts related to strong ground shaking to less than significant levels. a)iii. The project area is not located in an area subject to liquefaction. The City will require the submittal of site -specific geotechnical analysis for the apartment units when grading permits are issued. This analysis will further analyze site soils to assure that foundation design is adequate to support the structures, based on the site -specific conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction are expected to be less than significant. a)iv. The proposed project site occurs on the Valley floor, far removed from hillsides. There will be no impact associated with landslides. b) The project site is susceptible to high winds that can cause wind erosion. The project will be required to implement a dust control and management plan as part of the grading permit process, which will reduce impacts associated with blowing dust and sand. Once completed, the project will include impervious surfaces and landscaped areas which will stabilize soils. The impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil will be less than significant. c) The Aeolian soils found on the site are categorized as having a "very low" expansion potential in Table 18-1-B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. There will be no impacts associated with expansive soils as a result of project implementation. d) The proposed project occurs in an urbanized area of the City. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer lines in the area, and no septic systems will be permitted. No impact is expected. 31611 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the ro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of X hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan Hazardous Materials Element) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan Hazardous Materials Element) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X 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 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (General Plan Hazardous Materials Element) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving wildland fires, including where -16- wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Wildfire Susceptibility, Riverside County RCIP) VII. a)-c) The development of the apartment project will result in the use of small amounts of household cleaners by residents, and the use of pool cleaning chemicals in the common area pool. The use of these products will be no more than would be expected in any residential project. The City implements, through its solid waste provider, household hazardous waste disposal programs to assure that these materials are properly disposed of. No transport of hazardous materials or air emissions are expected to occur as a result of the construction of the apartments. Overall impacts are expected to be less than significant. d) The project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact is expected. e)-f) The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes airport, and was identified as being outside the hazard zone by the Riverside County ALUC. g) The proposed project will be accessible from Washington Street and from Hidden River Road, through the existing driveways within Washington Street Apartments. The project will have no impact on emergency response. h) The project site is located on the Valley floor, and is in a highly urbanized area. There will be no impacts associated with wildland fires. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan X Flooding and Hydrology Element) b) Substantially deplete groundwater 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- X 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 Flooding and Hydrology Element) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would X result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan Flooding and Hydrology Element) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase X the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan Flooding and Hydrology Element) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan Flooding and Hydrology Element) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan Flooding and Hydrology Element) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard -18- area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (General Plan Flooding and Hydrology Element) VIII. a) The proposed project will be required to connect to the existing sewer system in the area which is owned and operated by CVWD. CVWD operates two treatment plants, both of which meet or exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards. CVWD has capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The City requires the implementation of National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm flows for all projects. These requirements include the preparation and implementation of SWPPP and WQMP, which include Best Management Practices for the control of polluted runoff. The proposed project will have less than significant impacts on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD. The CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that addresses how the District will supply water to its service area over the next 20 years. The Plan was developed using existing development and land use designations for future development as a basis for water demand. The proposed project is consistent with the City's current land use designations for the property, and has therefore been considered in the UWMP. There are no water recharge facilities located in the vicinity of the proposed project. The closest facilities are located in the southeastern extremity of the City. Overall impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge are expected to be less than significant. c)-e) The City requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project includes retention facilities on the eastern and western boundary of the project site. The design of these facilities must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the initiation of project construction. All storm flows will be required to be retained on site. All hydrology improvements will also be required to comply with NPDES standards, to assure that no polluted storm water enters other surface waters either during construction or operation of the project. The City's requirements assure that drainage patterns will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. 0-g) The proposed project does not occur within a 100 year flood zone, as mapped by FEMA. No impacts are expected. -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo; project plans) b) Conflict with any applicable land use 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, X or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Map) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) IX. a)-b) The proposed project site is existing community, insofar a; Washington Street Apartments. currently vacant, and represents an extension of an it will increase the number of units available at the The project site is zoned for High Density Residential, which is the appropriate land use designation for apartment units. No impacts associated with land use policy are expected. c) The project site is within the boundary of the CVMSHCP, but is not within a conservation area. The proposed project will be required to pay fees in conformance with the CVMSHCP. There will be no conflict with the Plan. -20- 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 known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of X the state? (Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey X. a) & b) The proposed project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. -21- 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 of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan Noise Element) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (General Plan Noise Element) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan Noise Element) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (General Plan Noise Element) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan Noise Element) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan Noise Element) XI.a) & c) The construction of the proposed project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels. A noise study was prepared for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Washington Street Apartment project found that existing noise levels along Washington Street are approximately 62 dBA CNEL. The analysis found that the future exterior noise levels on building patios will remain below 65 dBA CNEL, consistent with City standards. The analysis also found that interior noise levels will be less than 45 dBA CNEL, with doors and windows closed. As the units will all be equipped with HVAC units, the interior noise levels, and living conditions within the units will be at acceptable levels. -22- b) Construction of the proposed project may result in short term ground borne vibration, but these activities will occur during the City's prescribed construction hours, which are limited to daytime hours. During the daytime, noise sensitivity is less, and although temporary and periodic nuisance may be experienced by the surrounding residents, it is not expected that these levels will be significant. d) The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary increases in noise levels associated with construction activities. The contractor, however, will be required to conform to the City's construction hour restrictions. The construction activities will be separated from existing units by the project drive and parking area, which will provide a reduction in noise levels. It is expected that temporary noise impacts will be less than significant. e)-f) The project is located approximately 3 miles to the south of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. Although an occasional overflight is likely, the approach patterns do not occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. There are no private airstrips in the region. Therefore, there will be no impact associated with airport noise. -23- 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 in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials) XII. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, so no displacement of persons or housing will occur. The proposed project will result in a net increase of 42 units of affordable senior housing in an urbanized area of the City. These units are not substantial in number, and will provide housing to area residents in need of affordable housing, which represents a beneficial impact. Overall, there will be no impact to population or housing. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan Chapter V) X Police protection? (General Plan Chapter V) X Schools? (General Plan Chapter V) X Parks? (General Plan Chapter V) X Other public facilities? (General Plan X Chapter V) XIII. a) The proposed project is located approximately one mile from fire station Fire Station #93, located at Dune Palms and Fred Waring. The addition of 42 units will marginally increase the demand for fire services. However, the project will participate in the City's Development Impact Fee program, which includes fire facilities. As a result, impacts associated with fire protection are expected to be less than significant. The City contracts with the County Sheriff for police services. The addition of 42 units will marginally increase the need for police services at the site. The new residents will generate sales tax, which will offset the costs associated with the added services. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less .than significant impact on police services. Senior housing projects do not generate a demand for schools. The project will therefore be exempt from the payment of school fees, and will have no impact on schools. The addition of 42 units will generate a marginal need for parks. However, the project includes recreational facilities such as a pool, spa and common room which will address the majority of the needs of the residents. The added population will not significantly impact existing City parks. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Project Description) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Project Description) XIV. a) & b) The addition of 42 units will marginally increase demand on City recreational facilities, and the senior center. However, these existing facilities are not at capacity, and can accommodate the population generated by the units. No impact to recreational facilities is expected. -26- 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 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 X trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (ITE Trip Generation 81h Edition, Public Works Memorandum, January 27, 2011) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? (ITE Trip Generation 8"' Edition, Public Works Memorandum, January 27, 2011) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a-b) The proposed project will result in the addition of 42 residential units occupied by senior households. Senior households are documented to generate fewer daily trips than family households. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual estimates that the proposed project would generate about 146 additional daily trips. In order to assess the project's potential impacts on area roadways, the Public Works Department prepared a Memorandum, consistent with the Department's requirements for traffic analyses, to assess both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Washington Street -27- Apartments. The Department found that the project as a whole would generate up to 45 peak hour trips, 20 of which would occur during the morning peak hour, and 25 of which would occur in the evening peak hour. The Department further analyzed the impacts of these peak hour trips on three intersections: Fred Waring and Washington Street; Avenue 42 and Washington Street; and Washington Street and Highway 111. The analysis found that all three intersections will operate at Level of Service C or D with or without the proposed project. This level of service meets or exceeds the City's standards for Level of Service. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on roadway capacity or level of service. c) As previously stated, the project is located 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The addition of 42 senior housing units will have no impact on the airport, or on air traffic patterns at the airport. d) The design of the apartment driveways will be integrated into the interior driveway system of the existing apartment project. This interior drive system includes 90 degree internal intersections. The apartments will be designed to meet the City's sight distance standards, and to maintain the limited access currently occurring on Washington Street. No impact associated with design features is expected. e) Emergency access to the project will continue to occur from Hidden River Road. Hidden River connects to Washington Street, where northbound emergency vehicles will be able to turn right to access the project. No impact to emergency access is expected. 0 SunLine Transit Agency currently operates bus service on Washington Street, and has bus stops in close proximity to the project on both sides of the street. No change in service is expected, so the new residents will continue to have access to transit services. The proposed project will have no impact on alternative transportation. -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan Chapter V) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan Chapter V) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan Chapter V) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan Chapter V) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan Chapter V) 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan Chapter V) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? (General Plan Chapter V) XVI, a), b), d), e) The addition of 42 new apartments will marginally increase the demand on wastewater treatment facilities. However, CVWD has capacity at its plants, and operates within the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact is expected. 29- The proposed project will not significantly increase the demand for water or wastewater treatment, and CVWD has indicated in its UWMP that it has water available to serve the build out needs of the City. There will be no need for additional facilities. c) The City requires on -site retention of the 100 year storm for new projects. The proposed project will be designed to meet or exceed the City's requirements for storm water management, through the construction of retention basins on the western and eastern boundary of the project. These will be constructed to include Best Management Practices that meet or exceed NPDES standards. There will be no need for additional public storm water facilities. f) & g) The City contracts for solid waste disposal with Burrtec, a private contractor. Burrtec transports solid waste generated throughout the City to a transfer station on Edom Hill, west of the City. From that point, solid waste is transported to the Lambs Canyon Landfill. This landfill has capacity to serve the proposed project, and three additional landfills are available to accommodate solid waste in the future. Burrtec is required to comply with all regulations regarding the proper disposal of solid waste. This includes the disposal of household hazardous waste, which is handled through community events, or through the ABOP facility located in Palm Springs. The development of new apartments will only marginally increase the waste stream. The project will include recycling facilities and programs to assure that the amount of solid waste transferred to local landfills is minimized. No impact is expected. -30- 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 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 X 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 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) The construction of 42 senior housing units will have less than significant impacts on biological resources. The development of the project will result in the loss of creosote bush habitat, which is the most common habitat type in the City. No sensitive species are expected to occur on the property. The project will be required to pay mitigation fees in conformance with the MSHCP. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. No cultural resources have been identified on the site. The City will impose cultural resource monitoring requirements at the time that development occurs. These requirements assure that any potentially buried resources are identified and properly handled. Impacts will be less than significant. -31- b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area, and the project will provide additional affordable housing for the City's seniors, meeting the City's short and long term Housing Element goals and policies. c) The addition of 42 housing units will not cumulative impact environmental resources. d) The proposed project will result in higher emissions of nitrogen oxides that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Mitigation provided in this document, however, will reduce these emissions to less than significant levels. -32- 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. General Plan EIR, 2012. Environmental Assessment 2011-613 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. -33- w A z = �A a� av UV 4 W o � U U � a� �n Q a as z� Q °o a� 3 a o cd�; En r� v un Cd U x a 6' o . O ' U rA Igs x o •� � U �w k q Q U� \Q q \ � uQ f / } 2 % �\) � K ) H f § ./ / � 2 0 ) \ /\ 20 > � (2 �\A . 2 / cc 2.§ ± / / / { § q \ "o 00) o _ « d 5§ 7 t&®�%7, b%° p§\ 2 +%_ f b 2Z. ° I / °� \'\]}\ K §* \^§±2a&/k\�° § b & A '\./ k\\ j L° 4. / \\2°°�\§\a\&\ f w e= a t u§/§ §.t4= �7\m'bn �; S«3 $§\\��ES+' \/\� ; 4&@ak\&%&@U3§d