CC Resolution 2005-055RESOLUTION NO. 2005-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-104,
ZONE CHANGE 2005-124, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2005-826
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-544
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 21 st day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, and continued said
hearing to the 5t' day of July, 2005, to consider the request of the City of La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency, for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-544, prepared for approval
of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Low Density Residential to
Medium High Density Residential designation, and Site Development Permit 2005-826
for an 80-unit multi -family residential project, a community building, and on -site
amenities collectively (the "Project"), generally located west of Adams Street, north of
Miles Avenue and more particularly described as:
A.P.N.: 604-032-022: and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
141'' day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request of City
of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for approval of a General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change from a Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential
designation, and Site Development Permit 2005-826 for an 80-unit multi -family
residential project, a community building, and on -site amenities collectively (the
"Project") generally, located west of Adams Street, north of Miles: and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.
seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the
271h day of May, 2005 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site, and notified
all public entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of
the public hearing date for the City Council; and,
Resolution No. 2005-055
Environmental Assessment 2005-544
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Adopted: July 5, 2005
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on June
4, 2005, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with Goals
of the General Plan Land Use Element for residential uses and assists in achieving the
Quantified Objectives of the General Plan Housing Element.
WHEREAS, the above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as
the Findings of the City Council as follows:
1. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's implementation procedures. The City Council has independently reviewed
and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects
of the Project, and' that based upon the Initial Study, the comments received
thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the Project and these measures mitigate) any potential
significant effect to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects
will occur as a result of this Project.
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-544.
3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history, or prehistory.
Resolution No. 2005-055
Environmental Assessment 2005-544
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Adopted: July 5, 2005
Page 3
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 by the Environmental
Assessment.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have
been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City Council.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is the Community
Development Director.
1 1 . A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in
order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project
has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish
and Game Code § 711.2.
Resolution No. 2005-055
Environmental Assessment 2005-544
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Adopted: July 5, 2005
Page 4
13. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
14 The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for certification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City
Council in this case.
2. That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-544, for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist, attached hereto, and on file in the Community
Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-544 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La.Quinta
City Council, held on this 5"' day of July, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Osborne
ABSTAIN: None
DON ADO H, Wyor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2005-055
Environmental Assessment 2005-544
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Adopted: July 5, 2005
Page 5
ATTEST:
J E S. GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. KWHERINE JE VN, City Attorne
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: General Plan Amendment 2005-104, Change of Zone 2005-124, Site
Development Permit 2005-826, Vista Dunes Redevelopment Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
4. Project location:. North side of Miles Avenue, approximately 350 feet west of Adams Street.
The site address is 78990 Miles Avenue. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 604-032-022.
5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation:
Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The project site consists of a single 9.44 acre parcel. The proposed project would redevelop
the site by relocating the residents of the existing mobile homes, removing the mobile homes,
and constructing 80 single story attached and detached units, as well as common area
amenities (please see below).
The proposed project site has been a mobile home park for a number of years. The park
contained up to 93 mobile homes, as well as accessory structures. The mobile homes on the
north half of the site occur immediately adjacent to the eastern and western property lines,
and in the center of the site, with a loop road separating them. On the south half of the site, a
loop road occurs adjacent to the eastern and western property line, and the mobile homes
occur in the center of this area. An Environmental Assessment (EA 2003-489) was prepared
to address the purchase of the mobile home park by the Redevelopment Agency. At that time,
there was no specific project proposal for the redevelopment of the site. EA 2003-489
therefore did not address the construction of a new project on the site.
This Environmental Assessment (EA 2005-544) is being prepared to analyze the project now
proposed by the Redevelopment Agency for the site. The project will consist of 80 one, two
and three bedroom rental units, both attached and detached. The units will be available for
rental by very low income households. Strict criteria for acceptance as a tenant have been
-1-
implemented, requiring that eligible tenants have a good credit history, pass a criminal
background check, and maintain current car insurance.
All units are proposed to be single story, with a unit heights of no more than 12 feet with air
vents of 17 feet. Units will be clustered in groups of 6. The site plan includes landscaped
building setbacks of 22 feet (which is integrated with an open space lawn area)on the northern
property line, 22 feet on the western property line, and 15 feet on the eastern property line.
Common areas are also provided, including a passive open space lawn on the northern
property line; a community room, pool, basketball court and park area in the southeastern
corner of the site. A stormwater retention basin is proposed for the southwestern corner of the
site, and will connect to the retention basin located immediately west of the site.
A single access point is proposed from Miles Avenue. The units will be accessed from this
central drive, with individual access from this drive to the parking areas for each building
cluster.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Low Density Residential, Open Space Park; Single family homes, park
South: Low Density Residential; Miles Avenue, Single family homes
West: Low Density Residential; Single family homes
East: Low Density Residential; Church, fire station
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
X 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 RvfPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
v June 24, 2005
Signature Date
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 significance.
-4-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) The proposed project will result in the replacement of existing mobile homes (single story
structures) with stick -built single story structures. The existing mobile homes are located
immediately adjacent to the eastern and western property lines on the north half of the
site, whereas the proposed project will include building setbacks of either 15 or 22 feet.
Under existing conditions, the homes located immediately west of the site have clear
view of the mobile homes located immediately adjacent to the property line. The building
setbacks will provide relief from this condition, insofar as the distance between structures
will increase by 22 feet.
Miles Avenue is designated a secondary image corridor in the General Plan. As such the
project site plan includes a 32 foot landscaped setback on the Miles Avenue frontage,
which will improve the aesthetic appeal of the area.
There are no scenic resources (trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings) on the
project site. The current mobile homes are old and in need of repair, and provide no
scenic resource for the site.
The primary sources of light on the property has been, and will continue to be from car
headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow
lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. The site will include a 6 foot high decorative
wall which will block both landscaping and vehicle headlights from adjoining properties.
Car headlights will represent only a temporary and periodic minor impact to light in the
area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Il. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The proposed project is located in the City's urban core, and is fully developed. No
agricultural lands occur within several miles of the project site. There are no Williamson
Act contracts on the property. The General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are
for residential development. There will be no impact to agricultural resources.
-6-
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
Project Study)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
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
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact I Mitigation Impact
X
X I I
M
X
X
III. a), b) & c) Air emissions will be generated from demolition, construction and operation of the
redeveloped site. Emissions relating to demolition and construction will be associated
with heavy equipment and dust generation. Emission relating to operations will be from
the vehicles of residents. Each of these potential impacts is addressed below.
Demolition
The demolition of the existing improvements will include primarily' asphaltic and cement
materials from interior roads and pads. Heavy equipment will be required to remove these
materials. The Table below illustrates typical daily emissions from heavy equipment
associated with demolition of on -site improvements.
-7-
Table 1
Demolition Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered
(Dounds Der dav)
Equipment
Pieces
hrs/day
CO
ROC
Nox
Sox
PMIo
Tracked Loader
1
8
1.608
0.760
6.640
0.608
0.472
Scraper
2
8
20.000
4.320
61.440
7.360
6.560
Wheeled Loader
1
8
4.576
1.840
15.200
1.456
1.360
Miscellaneous
1
8
5.400
1.200
13.600
1.144
1.120
Total: 31.584 8.120 96.880 10.568 9.512
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00
As demonstrated in Table 1, the heavy equipment emissions associated with demolition
of the existing improvements will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Construction
The Coachella Valley is designated a severe non -attainment area for the generation of
PM10, a component of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust will be generated by grading activities
on the project site. The City implements regional plans for the suppression and reduction
of fugitive dust, including the mandatory preparation of PM10 Management Plans for
construction projects. Given the previous development of the site, grading is likely to be
less extensive than for a vacant desert parcel, however it can be expected that the site will
require grading to conform to the new land use plan. Under mass grading conditions, the
site has the potential to generate 249.2 pounds of fugitive dust per day. This level of
fugitive dust exceeds the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. Mitigation is therefore required, as follows:
1. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
2. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
3. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
4. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Miles Avenue, shall be installed
immediately following precise grading.
6. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
-8-
7. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce impacts associated with
grading activities to less than significant levels.
Open
The proposed project will result in the construction of 80 new residential units, which
will generate approximately 538 trips per day'. These vehicle trips will generate the
following emissions.
Table 2
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds per day)
Ave. Trip
Total
Total No. Vehicle_ Trips/Day
Length (miles)
miles/day
538 x
15
=
8,070
PMtp
PM1O
PM1O
Pollutant ROC CO
NOX Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Pounds at 50 mph 1.60 41.69
8.55 -
0.18
0.18
SCAQMD Threshold
bs./da 75 550
100
150
Assumes 538 trips, ITE categories 220. Based on California
Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes
Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty
autos, catalytic.
The Table demonstrates that the buildout of the 80 unit project will not exceed thresholds
of significance established by the SCAQMD. The existing 90 mobile homes generate
only slightly fewer trips (449 daily trips) than the proposed project. Therefore, the
emissions associated with the redevelopment project will only increase emissions by
about 20% over current conditions. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are
therefore expected to be less than significant.
III. d) & e) The construction of residential units is not expected to generate objectionable odors, or
expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations.
1 "Trip Generation, 7t' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 220, Apartments.
-9-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
W. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service(General Plan MEA, pages 74-87)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, pages 74-87)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, pages 74-
87)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? General Plan
MEA, pages 74-87)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
-lo-
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? General Plan
MEA, pages 74-87)
IV, a)-f) The project site is fully developed, and does not contain any significant natural
community. Some existing landscaping occurs, and the redevelopment of the site will
increase the landscaped area. These existing and future landscaped areas may provide
habitat for native species. Furthermore, the site is not located in an area identified as
having potential habitat for any species of concern. The proposed project site is located
within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. No impacts to
biological resources are expected to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed
project.
are
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
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA
p. 123 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General
Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)- d) The project site is fully developed. No cultural resources are expected to occur on the site.
No historic structures occur on the site. The site is located outside the historic boundary
of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not expected to contain paleontological
resources. The site has been developed and covered in impermeable surfaces for many
years, and is not known to contain any buried remains. No impacts associated with
cultural resources are expected as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
-12-
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,'
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan pages 97-106)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
(General Plan pages 97-106)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X
including liquefaction? (General Plan pages
97-106)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97-106) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan pages 97-
106)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as X
defined in Table 18-1-13 of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
(General Plan pages 97-106)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
pages97-106)
VI. a)<e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. The site is
located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, as defined by the Uniform Building Code
(UBC). The building plans submitted for the proposed project will be reviewed by the
City to assure their compliance with UBC standards for this zone. The site is flat, and is
-13-
not located adjacent to slopes which might pose a rockfall hazard. The site is not located
in an area of the City subject to liquefaction. The site is not located on expansive soils,
and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service, which occurs adjacent to the
site, so that no septic systems will be installed.
Overall impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant.
-14-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the roject'
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? General Plan MEA, P.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
-physically interfere with an adopted
-15-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The development of 80 residential units is not expected to have any impact on hazardous
materials. The homes will utilize small amounts of cleaning products and .similar
materials, but will not transport, use or store any significant amount of such materials.
The City's solid waste franchisee is responsible for the proper disposal of these products,
and implements programs for household hazardous waste as part of its contract with the
City. Impacts are expected to be insignificant.
The site is not identified on any database as having had hazardous materials incidents.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The site is not
located adjacent to hillsides, and is not subject to wildland fire hazards.
Overall impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are expected to be less
than significant.
-16-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-17-
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The proposed project will be required to comply with all local and regional requirements
relating to water pollution prevention. The proposed project will connect to sanitary
sewers, and will have no impact relating to waste discharge requirements.
Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The redevelopment of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
and for landscaping irrigation, at levels which are expected to be equivalent or less than
those currently experienced at the site. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management
Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its
service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation,
purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long
term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures, which will likely reduce the per capita consumption of water on the site
compared to current conditions. The applicant will also be required to comply with the
City's NPDES standards, which protect surface waters from contamination. These City
standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than
significant.
VIII. c) & d) The proposed project is currently fully developed. At the time that the mobile home park
was developed, standards associated with on -site retention were much less stringent than
they are now. The site therefore does not currently include a comprehensive drainage
program. The redevelopment of the site will assure that the storm flows generated on the
site are collected into a retention basin, and not released off -site at volumes of velocities
exceeding the current condition. The proposed retention basin for the project will be
connected to the adjacent basin to the west, creating a sub -regional facility which will
improve conditions for the area. The City Engineer will review all plans for the proposed
project to assure that the retention basin is sized to accommodate the 100 year storm, as
required by City standards: Impacts associated with storm waters are expected, therefore,
to improve those currently occurring on the existing mobile home park.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-18-
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? (Aerial photo)
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,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
I X
9i
X
IX. a)-c) The project site.is fully developed as a mobile home park. The previously prepared Initial
Study (EA 2003-489), required the preparation and implementation of a Relocation Plan
and Replacement Housing Plan for all the qualifying mobile home residents. As a result,
the residents of the mobile home park will be relocated, as required by law. The mobile
home park is isolated from the surrounding neighborhoods by walls on all sides, and its
replacement with rental housing units will not divide the surrounding neighborhoods.
The requested General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will increase the density
allowed on the property from 0-4 per acre to 0-8 per acre. The property has been
developed at a density of 10 units per acre (90 mobile homes on a 9 acre site) for a
number of years, and has therefore been a legal non -conforming use under the General
Plan. The proposed redevelopment of the site will result in a density of 8 units per acre.
Therefore, the proposed amendment has been requested. Although the change in General
Plan and Zoning designations will technically represent an increase in the ultimate
number of units occurring in the City, the EIR for the General Plan included existing
development in its assumptions, so the existing impacts associated with the mobile home
park were analyzed in that document, and the redevelopment of the site will not increase
impacts associated with General Plan buildout.
_ The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will allow the
redevelopment of the site for a more intense residential land use on an arterial roadway,
providing a buffer for the less intense, and more sensitive low density residential units to
-19-
the north. The Amendments will also provide for a variety of housing options, and
increase the number of housing units available to very low income households in the City,
in conformance to the policies and programs of the General Plan Housing Element.
Impacts associated with land use and planning are expected to be less than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have
potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
Of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project(General Plan MEA p. 1 i 1 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project (General Plan MEA p.
III ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) Redevelopment of the site from the current mobile home park to an 80 unit apartment
project will have no impact on the surrounding noise environment. As a fully developed
site, the noise generated by activities in the mobile home park are expected to be
equivalent to those of the proposed project.
-21-
The construction of the 80 units will result in housing units approximately 247 feet from
the centerline of Miles Avenue. These units will be further buffered from roadway noise
by the wall to be constructed at the front of the project, and, for units on the east side of
the site, by the recreation or clubhouse building in that area. Noise levels at buildout of
the General Plan on a primary arterial can be expected to reach 35,000 trips per day,
resulting in noise levels in excess of City standards within 100 feet of the centerline. The
General Plan EIR, however, demonstrated that on primary arterials with similar trip
generation, the 65 dBA CNEL contour was achieved at a distance of approximately 170
feet from centerline, without mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project units at a
distance of 260 feet with the mitigation of a 6 foot wall, will experience exterior noise
levels well within acceptable ranges.
The demolition of the site, and subsequent construction of the units will result in
temporary and periodic noise impacts, particularly for the single family residential units
located to the north and west. The project wall will help to alleviate these impacts, and
the City's limitation on construction hours, which require that construction occur during
the noisier, less sensitive daytime hours, will assure that these impacts are reduced. The
impacts will occur for short periods during the demolition and grading of the site. Once
construction of the units begins, noise levels will be reduced, although short term noise
increases can be expected during that period as well. Overall, however, the construction
activities are not expected to exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise levels for exterior
noise levels on surrounding properties.
The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip.
Overall impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant.
-22-
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
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, P. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
— people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact I Mitigation Impact
X
M
X
XII. a)-c) The redevelopment of the project site will provide affordable housing to 80 families, and
the relocation of up to 93 families in the existing mobile home park. These populations
are generated by normal growth in the City. The proposed redevelopment of the site will
support this normal growth rate by providing an additional housing opportunity for
existing and new residents. Impacts are expected to be insignificant.
The Redevelopment Agency was required by law, and by mitigation measures included in
EA 2003-489, to prepare both a replacement housing plan and a relocation plan for the
residents of the existing mobile home park. The plan has been implemented, and housing
has been identified and secured for mobile home park residents. The relocation of these
residents did not require the construction of units specifically for this project, but was
accomplished through the use of existing housing vacancies.
Overall, impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less than
significant.
wall
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Redevelopment of the site will have no impact on public services. The site is currently
served by fire and police services, and the change from a mobile home park to a rental
housing project is likely to reduce the number of responses for the fire department, since
construction of permanent housing units will result in less flammable structures on the
site. The gating and screening of residents will also reduce the potential numbers of
police calls at the project site, insofar as some level of management and control over the
type of resident will be exercised.
The proposed project will be required to pay school and park fees in place at the time of
issuance of building permits. These payments will offset the potential impacts to schools
and parks associated with the proposed project.
Overall impacts to public services are expected to be less than significant.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed redevelopment project includes on -site recreation for residents, which will
minimize the impacts to other recreational facilities in the City. In addition, the project
will be required to pay park fees in place at the time that building permits are issued.
Impacts associated with recreation are expected to be insignificant.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Proposed site
plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Proposed site plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Proposed site plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The redevelopment of the site will generate approximately 538 daily trips. The current
mobile home park is estimated to generate approximately 449 daily trips. Therefore, the
proposed project will increase trips on City and regional roadways by 89 trips per day. On
a primary arterial such as Miles Avenue, with an expected buildout daily trip generation
-26-
_ of over 35,000 trips, this represents an increase of 2/100% (.02) in the overall trip
generation for the roadway, and will not exceed level of service standards for Miles
Avenue at buildout of the General Plan
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs, and has been designed
to meet City requirements for multi -family residential projects. The proposed project
drive and access have been reviewed by the fire department, and will allow sufficient
access for emergency personnel. Transit service is located at Washington and Miles, less
than one half miles westerly of the project site, and will be accessible to project residents.
Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-28-
XVI. a)-g) The redevelopment of the project site will have no impact on utilities. All utilities are
currently servicing the existing mobile home park, and will continue to do so with
implementation of the rental housing project. The redevelopment of the site is likely to
result in lower energy usage overall, insofar as older mobile homes have less insulation
and energy efficient appliances than will be constructed with the proposed project. Water
usage and wastewater treatment is likely to be reduced, insofar as the redeveloped units
will utilize more water efficient appliances and fixtures, and are likely to use less water.
Solid waste generation is expected to be equivalent to that currently generated at the site.
The same recycling programs currently in place will be implemented for the
redevelopment project. The landfills used by the City's waste franchisee have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the existing project, and will continue to do so with
implementation of the redevelopment project. No impacts are expected to result with
implementation of the proposed project.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The project site is fully developed and redevelopment of the site will have no impact on
biological or cultural resources.
XVII. b) The proposed project will help the City reach its affordable housing goals, as outlined in
the General Plan Housing Element. These are long term goals.
XVII. c) As discussed in this document, no significant cumulative impacts have been identified in
analysis of this project. The redevelopment project is likely to reduce potential buildout
-30-
impacts associated with water resources, energy and other similar impacts, insofar as the
new construction will be more energy efficient than the current mobile homes on the site.
XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality are expected to be less than significant with
implementation of the mitigation measures included in this document.
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.
Environmental Assessment 2003-489 was used in this Study.
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.
-31-
O
k
M
a�
N
� O
N
0000
O
N �
O
o "o
b �
oz
o
a
az
t`
0
0-1rlb
H
pUO
aGcon
A
OU
o
C
O
un
rA
a
U a
U
a�i
N
O
A
a�
oo
a
0Noo
� oN
oN
0
U
Ey
°zz
o
z
xU
Con
a
A
U
W
w
F
d
A
U
pq
aU
U�
a
W
o
0
0
0
0
0
U
/r
W
i-i
U
0
0
a
0
w
O
a�
A
aQi
a¢i
aA"i
a�i
a¢i
to
to
to
to
b
•�
b
�
b
b
.d
boCd
z
o
O
1-1
M
c vn
N N
U (n
Cd
a
o
N
a"
"
0
F
o
on 0
>4
0
°
°'
-d
CY
3
Z
p
M
Cd
U
o
0
0
cl
d)
q
uo
Y
co
4
y