Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Appendix B.1 - Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) Report
Appendix B.1 LESA Report The Altum Group, 2018 Travertine SPA Draft EIR SCH# 201811023 Technical Appendices October 2023 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Travertine Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Prepared for: City of La Quinta 1515 6th Street, Coachella, CA 92236 Prepared by The Altum Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219 Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-346-4750 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank 1.0 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 1 January 2018 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA 1.1 Introduction Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines identifies the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Due to a portion of area within the the proposed Travertine Specific Plan project site being utilized for agricultural purposes, and as identified as unique agricultural land, therefore necessitated the need for the LESA Model to be prepared for the project site. The LESA Model describes an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources using specific measurable features. The LESA system is a point -based method composed of six different factors: Land Capability Classification, Storie Index, Project Size, Water Resource Availability, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Surrounding Protected Resource Land. The two Land Evaluation factors (Land Use Capability Classification and Storie Index) are based on measures of soil resource quality. The four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 -point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project. The maximum attainable score is 100 points. This project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds (Department of Conservation, 1997). 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Environmental Setting The Applicant, The Hoffman Land Development Company, is proposing development of 878 acre Specific Plan in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta for a mix of uses including up to 1,200 dwelling units of varying product types, a resort facility with up to 100 rooms or villas, recreational uses such as a golf facility featuring a clubhouse and a 12 -hole skills course, a banquet facility for formal events, neighborhood parks, and a public trails system and recreational open space (See Exhibit 1, Regional Location). The applicant is requesting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment; a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Map for the Specific Plan area to be consistent with the land uses proposed in the Travertine Specific Plan and revise the Circulation Map to remove portions of Jefferson Street, Avenue 62 and Madison Street from the Circulation Map in the local area; a Zone Change to revise the City's Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 1 January 2018 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Zoning Map to be consistent with the land uses proposed in the proposed Travertine Specific Plan; a Large Lot Tentative Tract Map; and a Development Agreement. In addition to these entitlements from the City of La Quinta, the Applicant is also requesting additional right-of-way along Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in order to widen and/or extend these roads into the project site. The Applicant must also receive approval from Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for the Water Supply Assessment and Regional and Local Hydrology/Drainage Studies. The project site is generally bounded by the future extension of Avenue 60 on the north (not part of the proposed project), the extension of Avenue 62 and the CVWD Dike No. 4 with related stormwater impoundments on the east, as well as the future extension of Madison Street (also not part of the proposed project), and the extension of Jefferson Street from the north (See Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity). The local area is characterized as an area developing with a number of golf course communities in a northerly to southerly direction toward the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Santa Rosa Mountains and their foothills and peaks are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument that will remain as open space in perpetuity, thus affording residents and visitors with permanent scenic vistas. Further, the project site is located in Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, and Sections 3 through 5 in Township 7 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base Line and Meridian, Martinez Mountain and Valerie 7.5 minute quadrangles, and at Latitude 33` 35' 53" N Longitude 116` 15' 33" W (approximate geographic center of the site). The project site consists of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 766-110-002, -003, -004, - 005,-007, and -009; 766-120-001, -002, -003, -006, -015, -016, -018, and -021, 753-040-014, 016, and -017, 753-050-007, -013, and -029; and 753-060-003. An abandoned cultivated vineyard is situated on the northern half of the project site, adjacent to the extension of Avenue 62. The cultivated vineyard has not been in operation since 2007 and is equipped with inoperable irrigation equipment. Although the project site is not located within or near Williamson Act farmlands (See Exhibit 4, Williamson Act Designated Farmlands) the cultivated vineyard is however identified by the California Department of Conservation as being located within an area designated as Unique Farmland (See Exhibit 5, Project Farmland Importance). Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 2 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 3 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 4 January 2018 Coachella Valley Preserve Tho trand Palms Indio Hills Palms Part. INDIO HILLS Coac he Ila 4'ty Natl ti`: ildhfe Refuge •j - r• ncho rairaq' rt Berm Im Desert Sonia Rosa -San Jacinto tbuntiins National Monument Legend Project Site CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA INDIAN WELLS INDIO LA QUINTA PALM DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE I�rlli�i It L u i n t a _:�huill F' a 1-. 1_, h € I l a V A L 0 Project Site AT Therm a Jacqueline Coc h ra n Regional Airport Torres Martinez Reservation Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community BB The Altum Group Regional Location Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 1 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 6 January 2018 -ye, Ea hys',tar Geographics, CNES Airbus GN, and the GIS User Community BB The Altum Group Project Location Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 2 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 8 January 2018 54th Ave Oak Tree NA / _ H 2 x 0 C E. it' m b° 3. Qa, ` PGA West Cor Course Lake Cahuilla i/Itpl/�� Farb 'f,p 58th Ave Areeena 58th Ave PGA '3\46 Herm Mage 2 /4 Geffe'r La Omuta Golf Course Greg Norman Golf Course Ztburon Dr The Palms Golf Club 55th Ave 54th Ave rS III ---C iii----- Toac he Ila Valley Hugh S hoof An pr''rt L�I Quarry At La Omuta py Fazio Ln`-' ¢ Duan", Coral Mountain Regional Perk 62nd Ave Legend Project Boundary J Active Ag Preserve 917aliri`a0, Andalusia Country Club Trilogy At La 0unla �ryl� O2 0 t" Rustic Carryon Or �n m E6 61st Ave 62nd Ave Fish 'L,l 591h Ave 601h Ave Gla (6‘ 64th Ave Van Buren St E Augus Reser, aIyU 3 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,___ Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community; 1 inch = 4,000 feet 7G The Altura Group Williamson Act Designated Lands Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 3 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 10 January 2018 Quarry At La Quints Fazio Ln Legend Project Boundary Farmland Type Prime Farmland Unique Farmland Local Importance Land Other Lands Urban -Built Up Land Waterbodies Not Mapped 5Fth Ave Coral Mountar„ Re bnal Park • f;2 rd Ave Aran ti Andalusia Country C lub Trilogy At La0uinta l c Rustic: Garlic. Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., nr=Ron, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community; 1 inch = 2,500 feet BB The Altum Group Farmland Importance Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 4 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 12 January 2018 JEFFERSON STREET AVENUE 60 AVENUE 62 nez Ro Slide LEGEND Residential - 390.6 Ac Resort - Golf Course - 71.8 Ac Open Space / Golf - 153.4 Ac 1 Open Space / Recreational - 64.1 Ac Open Space / Restricted - 162.5 Ac Master Plan Roadways - 35.1 Ac Source:Travertine Specific PIan, TRG Land Development, 2017 Total Acreage: 877.5 Ac BB The Altum Group Project Land Use Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 5 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 14 January 2018 Legend Project Site Neighborhood Commercial Tourist Commercial Floodplain Golf Course Major Community Facilities Open Space MIParks and Recreation Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Digital'iobe GeoEve. Earthsta AeroGRI Geographie GIS BB The Altura Group Zoning Designations Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 6 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 16 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA Exhibit 7 Project Site Phasing Plan Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 17 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 18 January 2018 [ J6 The Altum Group Site Photos Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 7 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 20 January 2018 The Altum Group IB Site Photos Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 7 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 22 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA Water Allocation 3.0 LESA Evaluation The Land Evaluation portion of the LESA Model focuses on two main components that are separately rated: 1. The Land Capability Classification (LCC) Rating: The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Soils are rated on a scale from Class I to Class VIII. Soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating. 2. The Storie Index Rating: The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based on a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture use. This rating is based on soil characteristics only. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey identified seven soil types on the project site. These include Carrizo stony sand (CcC), Carsitas gravelly sand (CdC), Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC), Indio fine sandy loam (Ip), Myoma fine sand (MaB), Rock Outcrop (RO), and Rubble land (RU). Exhibit 9, Project Soils Type, indicates the soils that are found on the Project site. Table 1, Soil Suitability — Map Symbol Mapping Unit Capability, details the types of soils found on the project site, along with their Capability Class and Storie Index Rating. The project site soils identified within the USDA survey comprise of only 34.4 percent of the project site. The reason why the project soils survey does not completely encompass the project site is due to the absence of available soil data according to the USDA survey. However, the portion of the project site that is absent of soil survey data covers the entire southern half of the project site, which is outside of the area within the project designated as Unique Farmland by the California Department of Conservation. Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 23 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 24 January 2018 ChC Legend Project Boundary Project Soils —I Area Soils Soils,Data From: Natural Resources Conservation Service >. 1 inch = 2,000 feet 7G The Altura Group Project Soil Types Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 8 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 26 January 2018 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Table 1 Soil Suitability — Map Symbol Mapping Unit Capability Soil Map Unit Soil Mapping Unit Name Capability Class Storie Index Rating CcC Carrizo stony sand VII 44 CdC Carsitas gravelly sand VII 39 ChC Carsitas cobbly sand VII 33 Ip Indio fine sandy loam VII 98 MaB Myoma fine sand VII 52 RO Rock Outcrop VIII N/A RU Rubble land VIII N/A Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 1981. Notes: 1. Class VII (7) — Soils that have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. 2. Class VIII (8)—Soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes. The LESA Model assigns ratings to each Land Capability Classification (LCC) and multiplies that number by the proportion of the project site that contains each soil class to find the LCC Score (Column C x Column E = Column F). A Storie Index score is calculated by multiplying the proportion of the project in each soil type by the soil type's Storie Index rating (Column C x Column G = Column H). Table 2, Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Score, provides a summary of the Land Evaluation (LE) scores. (The final LE and Site Assessment (SA) scores are entered into the Final LESA Score Sheet as shown in Table 6, Final LESA Score Summary. Table 2 Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Score A B C D E F G H Map Symbolof - Soil Acres Portion the Project Area LCC LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Storie Index Score CcC 37.9 4.3% VII 10 0.43 44 1.90 CdC 180.6 20.6% VII 10 2.6 39 32.90 ChC 1.8 0.2% VII 10 0.02 33 0.07 Ip 0.1 0% VII 10 0.00 98 0.20 MaB 3.4 0.4% VII 10 0.04 52 0.60 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 27 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA RO 24.6 2.8% VIII 0 0 N/A N/A RU 53.6 6.1% VIII 0 0 N/A N/A NOTCOM1 576 65.6% N/A - - - - Subtotal for Soil Survey Area 302 34.4% Total 878 100.0% -- -- 3.09 -- 35.7 Source: The Altum Group, 2017. Notes: See Table 1 Notes for a description of the soil's LCC rating. 1. NOTCOM indicates all land within the project site for which USDA soil data was not available 3.1 Site Assessment Factors The LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated: Project Size Rating, Water Resources Availability Rating, Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating. Project Size Factors The project size rating recognizes the role of farm size in determining the viability of commercial agricultural operations. Larger farming operations generally can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon supporting industries and food processing industries (California Department of Conservation, 1997). In regard to agricultural productivity, the size of the farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but from the acreage of different quality lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide greater economic return per acre unit. For a given project, instead of relying on a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the LCC ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis (see Table 2). Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, an abundance in acres of lesser quality soils could also achieve a high to maximum Project Size score. Table 3, Project Size Score, summarizes the Project Size score for the Travertine Specific Plan. Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 28 January 2018 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Table 3 Project Size Score Map Symbol - Soil Acres LCC LCC Class I or II LCC Class II LCC Class IV -VIII CcC 37.9 VII -- -- 37.9 CdC 180.6 VII -- -- 180.6 ChC 1.8 VII -- -- 1.8 Ip 0.1 VII -- -- 0.1 MaB 3.4 VII -- -- 3.4 RO 24.6 VIII -- -- 24.6 RU 53.6 VIII 53.6 Total 302 -- -- -- 302 Project Size Scores 0 0 80 Highest Score 80 Source: The Altum Group, 2017. Notes: See Table 1 Notes for a description of the soil's LCC rating. Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability Rating is based on the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as drought and non -drought. The proposed project's outdoor landscaping and indoor use of water demand will be provided via drilling and installation of new groundwater wells (to be located within the project boundary), which would obtain groundwater from the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The quantity of groundwater wells needed for the project is currently being determined by CVWD, which at this time, will formulate a decision upon review of the project's Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV). The majority of the project site (74 percent) is underlain on non -irrigated land that consists of alluvial sediments and rock outcrops and rubble. The remaining portion of the project site (26 percent) consists of an abandoned cultivated vineyard with an existing inoperable irrigation system that was last operated in 2007 and located on the northern half of the project site. In tandem with the existing vineyard, the existing water supply conditions of the project site consist of three groundwater wells that drew water from the groundwater basin and are located along the southern boundary of the vineyard. These three wells are currently out of commission and would require new equipment (i.e., generator, fertilizer tank, and pole -mounted transformers) Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 29 January 2018 7G Travertine Specific Plan LESA to be installed to become operable again. Therefore, the project falls under two portions (categories) of water obtainability, groundwater well obtained areas encompassing the abandoned orchard, and non -groundwater well obtained areas encompassed outside of the abandoned orchard„ meaning that the project's water supply sources are solely from groundwater. As shown in Table 4, Water Resource Availability, the project received the following Water Resource Availability Rating of 23.4 due in part to only a quarter of the project site in containing potentially irrigable lands, which in its current state of abandonment, would otherwise require new equipment to repair and reactivate onsite irrigation for the orchard. The irrigation equipment requirement poses as an economic restriction that may affect or alter water resource supply availability, either during drought, or during non -drought years, and as a result, affects (lowers) the project's water resource score. Additionally, the remainder of the project site is non -irrigated and is not suitable for dryland agriculture. Table 4 Water Resource Availability A B C D E Project Portion Water Source Proportion of p Project area Water Availability Score Weighted Availability Score 1 Groundwater 26% 90 23.4 2 Not Irrigated 74% 0 0 Total Water Resource Score 23.4 Source: The Altum Group, 2017. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands within the Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the project site. The "Zone of Influence" is the amount of surrounding lands that extend outward for up to a minimum of one- quarter mile from the project site boundary. Parcels that are intersected by the quarter -mile buffer are included in their entirety. The LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel in having a larger proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production (higher rating) as opposed to an agricultural parcel in having a smaller proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production (lower rating) (California Department of Conservation, 1997). Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 30 January 2018 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: • Williamson Act contracted land; • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources; and, • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. Exhibit 10, Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Lands, depicts the distribution and amount of land used for agricultural and protected land uses within a quarter -mile buffer of the proposed Project site. The Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Resource Land score for the proposed Project is provided in Table 5, Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Lands. Because agricultural land only occurs northeast to the project site and occupies less than 40 percent of the buffer area, the project site is therefore assigned a "Surrounding Agricultural Land Score" of zero. The project site is surrounded and encroaches upon the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to the northwest, west, south, and southeast. The Conservation Area overlaps with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat designation. Therefore, because surrounding Protected Resource Lands were found within 73 percent of the project site buffer, the proposed project is assigned a "Surrounding Protected Resource Land" score of 70. Table 5 Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Lands. Total Acres within "Zone of Influence" Acres in Agricultural Production Acres of Protected Resource Land Percent in Agriculture Percent Protected Resources Land Surrounding Agricultural Land Score Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score 4,109.92 277 3,004.6 6.7% 73% 0 70 Source: The Altum Group, 2017. 4.0 Summary The LESA Model is weighted so that half of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation and half from the Site Assessment. As shown in Table 6, Final LESA Score Sheet Summary, the Land Evaluation subscore is 9.73, while the Site Assessment subscore is 19.01. The final LESA score is 28.74. Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 31 January 2018 • ti \ a' Quarry At La Quinta Fazio Ln Qui r_. Andalusia Country Club Trilogy At La Q uinta R,.stir .. Legend Project Boundary Quarter Mile Buffer Conservation Area Boundary Farmland Type Prime Farmland Unique Farmland Local Importance Land Other Lands Urban -Built Up Land Waterbodies Not Mapped ouurces. Asn, nmr.m, LICLorme, 111lCrmap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordndnce Jut vey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community; 1 inch = 2,500 feet BB The Altura Group Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Land Travertine Specific Plan LESA Evaluation Exhibit 9 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA This page intentionally left blank Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 33 January 2018 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA Table 6 Final LESA Score Sheet Summary Source: The Altum Group, 2016. As shown in Table 7, California LESA Model Scoring Threshold, a final LESA score between 0 to 39 points is not considered significant. Therefore, with the final LESA score between 0 and 39, the Travertine Specific Plan is not considered to have a significant impact on agricultural resources. Table 7 California LESA Model Scoring Threshold Total LESA Score Factor Rating (0-100 Points) Factor Weighting (Total = 1.00) Weighted Factor Rating Land Evaluation (LE) 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC Rating) 3.09 0.25 0.77 2. Storie Index Rating 35.7 0.25 8.96 Land Evaluation Subscore 9.73 Site Assessment (SA) 1. Project Size Rating 80 0.15 12.00 2. Water Resource Availability Rating 23.4 0.15 3.51 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 0 0.15 0.00 4. Surrounding Protected Resource Lands Rating 70 0.05 3.5 Site Assessment Subscore 19.01 Total 28.74 Source: The Altum Group, 2016. As shown in Table 7, California LESA Model Scoring Threshold, a final LESA score between 0 to 39 points is not considered significant. Therefore, with the final LESA score between 0 and 39, the Travertine Specific Plan is not considered to have a significant impact on agricultural resources. Table 7 California LESA Model Scoring Threshold Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points Not considered significant. 40 to 59 Points Considered significant only. If Land Evaluation and Site Assessment subscores are greater than or equal to 20 points. 60 to 79 Considered significant unless either Land Evaluation or Site Assessment subscore is less than 20 points. 80 to 100 Considered significant. Source: Table 9 of California Department of Conservation, California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model. LESA Conclusion As shown in Table 7, a final LESA score between 0 and 39 is not considered significant. The project site received a total overall score of 28.74, which places the project site in the "Not Significant" range. Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 34 January 2018 66 Travertine Specific Plan LESA According to the USDA soil survey, nearly all soils within the surveyed project site were identified as being of the lowest Land Capability Classification classes (Class 7 and 8). The identified capability classes indicates that the soils underlying the project site are the least suitable for cultivation of crops and therefore, face the greatest limitations to production of agricultural crops. In a similar fashion, the Storie Index Rating of the project site soils indicated a relatively low degree of suitability or value for intensive agriculture. The only exception was the Indio fine sandy loam (Ip), which has a high suitability for agriculture, however the Ip identified comprised of a sliver (0.1 acres) of the entire surveyed project site and therefore, was found to not be significant. Due to the size in acreage and abundance of low quality soils of the project site, the project received a relatively high Project Size Score. The inclusion of the measure of a project's size is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations, as larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure. However, the project size score is nullified due to the low Water Resources Availability Rating of 23.4. This low rating was assigned to the project site based on only a quarter of the surveyed project site containing irrigable lands (approximate acreage of abandoned cultivated vineyard) and the economic restriction of requiring purchase and installation of new irrigation equipment (generator, fertilizer tank, and pole -mounted transformers) in order for operable conditions. Surrounding agricultural lands were minimal within the project site's ZOI. However, on the contrary, surrounding protected lands totaled over 70 percent of the project site's ZOI. According to the LESA Model, surrounding protected lands are considered as lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. The surrounding protected lands comprised of protected wildlife habitat and open space, however due to the lack of agricultural land within the ZOI, for which the protected lands could be supportive of, the Surrounding Protected Lands Rating did not prove to be significant. Therefore, the LESA Model has determined that potential for the project site to convert Unique Farmland to non -agriculture lands, and involvement of other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland is not significant. References California Department of Conservation, 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model, Instruction Manual. Prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation, 1997. Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 35 January 2018 BG Travertine Specific Plan LESA Travertine Specific Plan LESA Report Page 36 January 2018