AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
APPROVED BY: Miguel Figueroa, City Manager pf JI
PREPARED BY: Lisa Tylenda, Planning and Building Services Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Introduction and First Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Adopting a Zone Change from RC (Residential Condominium) to RA (Residential Apartment) and General Plan Amendment with Conditions of Approval in "Exhibit A" for the Following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 058-180-080, 058-180-081, 058-180-082, 058-180-084, And 058-180-085 Located Within the City of Calexico; and Certification of an Updated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Zone Change/General Plan Amendment for the Proposed Remington Apartment Project.
Public Hearing: Adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of Calexico Approving a Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development, Updated Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Conditions of Approval in "Exhibit A" for the Remington Apartment Project on the Following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 058-180-080, 058-180-081, 058-180-082, 058- 180-084, And 058-180-085 Located Within the City of Calexico ======================================================================= Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and introduce ordinance and conduct first reading by title only adopting a zone change from RC (Residential Condominium) to RA (Residential Apartment) and General Plan Amendment with conditions of approval in "Exhibit A" for the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 058-180-080, 058-180-081, 058-180-082, 058-180-084, And 058- 180-085 located within the City of Calexico; and certification of an updated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Zone Change/General Plan Amendment for the Proposed Remington Apartment Project.
Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution approving a vesting tentative map, planned unit development, updated mitigated negative declaration, and conditions of approval in "Exhibit A" for the Remington apartment project on the following assessor parcel numbers: 058-180-080, 058-180-081, 058-180- 082, 058-180-084, and 058-180-085 located within the City of Calexico.
AGENDA
ITEM
Background:
The proposed site was subject to previous development effort that was approved in 2008. The previously proposed project was not initiated due to traffic mitigation requirements that were not feasible for the developers in 2008. The proposed project is tiering off an initial study and mitigated negative declaration that was prepared in 2008 and an updated traffic study has been prepared for the newly proposed development in accordance to California Environmental Quality Act.
Discussion & Analysis:
The applicant is proposing the new construction of 180 new residential apartments that will be distributed among three total residential buildings. Two buildings will be 3-story and one building will be 2-story. Lot 1, 2, and 3 are
roughly 2.5 acres. Parcel 4 is proposed to be a Public Park/ Retention Basin, and lot 5 will be an HOA lot for the Remington Condominiums and will be owned by a private party with whom Chelsea Investment has an option agreement to purchase. The apartments will be constructed in Phases, in which there will be a total of three buildings each composed of sixty apartment units. There will be a permanent onsite apartment manager and the apartment complex will offer various amenities. Please see attached project summary provided by the applicant.
The applicant is requesting a zone change and general plan amendment from the current zoning of RC (Residential Condominium) to RA (Residential Apartment) to allow for the construction of the proposed residential development complexes for affordable housing within the City of Calexico.
Remington Apartment Project- UA 2020-01
2 Fiscal Impact:
No impact on the General Fund .
Environmental Impact:
Please see attached initial study, updated traffic study, and mitigated negative declaration.
Attachment(s):
1. CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Updated Traffic Mitigation Study
3. Resolution with conditions of approval
4. Ordinance with conditions of approval
5. Site Plans and photos provided by the applicant
3 Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Uniform Application No. UA2005-30
State Clearinghouse No. 2006081041
Remington Condominiums
Calexico, California
Prepared For:
City of Calexico
Applicant:
Dat·U-Joe Realty, Inc.
Prepared By:
8690 Balboa Ave, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
October 2006
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................................. , ............ 1.1
2.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 2.1
2.1 Revised and Supplemental Text ....................................................................................... 2-1
3.0 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 3-1
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR REMINGTON CONDOMINIUMS ......... 4·1 Appendices
Appendix A Revised Air Quality Report
Tables
Table 3-1. Comment Letters Received Remington Condominiums Draft IS/MND (August 2006) .................................................................................................................. 3-1 Remington Condominium
Final ISIMND
City of Calexico
October 2006
1.0 Introduction and Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.), County of Imperial, and the City of Calexico CEQA procedures.
CEQA Guidelines Section I 5074(b} and (d) state:
"(b) Prior to approving a project, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decisionmaking body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis." "(d) When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects."
In accordance with this requirement, the Remington Condominium Final IS/MND is comprised of the following:
• Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (August 2006) (SCH No. 2006081041 ). • This Final IS/MND document, October 2006, that incorporates the information required by §15074.
Format of the Final IS/MND
This document is organized as follows:
Section 1.0
Section 2.0
Section 3.0
Introduction and Summury
This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final EIR.
Corrections and Additions
This section provides a list of those revisions made to the Draft IS/MND text as a result of comments received and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft IS/MND for public review.
Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft IS/MND This section provides copies of the comment letters received and individual responses to written comments.
Remington Condominium
Final ISIMND
1-1 City of Calexico
October 2006
Section 4.0
1.0 Introduction and Summary
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This section provides a program of monitoring or reporting to ensure that the provisions or revisions are complied with during implementation of the project.
Remington Condominium
Final /SIMND
1-2 City of CaleKlco
October 2006
2.0 Corrections and Additions
2.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 contain revisions to infonnation included in the Draft IS/MND (August 2006) based upon: (I) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) updated information required due to the passage of time; and/or (3) typographical errors.
See copies of the letters and responses in Section 3.0, Responses and Comments; of this Final IS/MND, as applicable.
2.1 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENT AL TEXT
Table of Contents
The page numbers for the list of tables were updated to refl ect the correct pages.
Project Description (Section II)
In Section II.A, the word "northwest" was changed to "southwest" in the first line under the heading "Project Location and Setting."
In the last line in Section II.A "single-family and" was inserted in front of the word "multi-family." In Section II.A and the rest of the document "SH 98" was changed to "SR 98" to correspond with Caltrans road designations.
In Section 11.B, the second sentence under the heading "Construction Phase I,'' "toddler-play area," was inserted after "covered patio."
In Section 11.B, the sixth sentence under the heading "Construction Phase I," "General Plan" was changed to "Zoning Code."
Acreage values in Table I were revised as follows:
Table I. Zoning Changes Proposed for Phase I
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Acres on Maximum Allowable Density Acres on Maximum Allowable Density Project Units/ Units/ Project Units/ Units/
Zoning Type Site Net Acre Project Site Site Net Acre Project Site Residential -Apartment (R-A) ~.59 20 lo 30° 270131 lo 4'15197" - - - Residential - Single-Famlly (R· 1) &..a-12.54 6 3375 - - - Residential-Condominium (R-C) - - - 18.7 12 lo 20· 224 lo 374• Total 19.0 - 393 207 to 438-272° 19.D - 224to374'
Sources: BJ Engineering and Surveying 2006, and City of Calexico Municipal Code Noles: •tn the R·C and R·A zones, approval of projects at the maximum density shall only be given on the basis that the project exceeds the standards of the zone and the General Plan. Any density beyond the maximum of 20 units/acre pennitted by the zone will require Planning Commission and City Council approval.
Remington Condominium
Fma/IS/MND
2-1 City of Calexico
October 2006
2.0 Corrections and Additions
Agricultural Resources (Section IV.fl)
In the first sentence in Section IV.11.b) ''residential" was inserted before the word ''development." Air Quulity (Section JV.Ill)
In the second paragraph, the date of the air quality report was changed from "June I" to "September 22." In Section 111.111.b), the first sentence was revised to read: "The Salton Sea Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone. carbon dioxide (CO}, and respirable particulate matter CPM-1 O}." The fifth paragraph in section Section 111.111.b was revised as follows: The URBEMIS2002 model indicates that the maximum simultaneous project disturbance size during grading will be 4.2 acres. With minimum dust control, emissions of particulates (PM-10) from construction activity soil disturbance would be 111 pounds/day. This is below the daily PM-1 0 significance threshold of 150 pounds.
Subseguent to the release of the CEOA Handbook. The Board of Supervisors adopted a countv-wide dust control rule (Regulation Yim that requires use of best available control measures CBACMs) on construction projects. The ICAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains a number of standard dust control measures that must sltetttd be implemented at all construction sites. For sites larger than four acres, such as !M.Remington proposed proj ect, ICAPCD reguires the implementation tl5e-Of additional discretionary measures that should be implemented. as appropriate and feasible.beyond the stwul1ue et1sl eontFol pFogFBm is reeomlfte1uleEI. The matrix of reasonably available measures (RACMs) derived from Chapter 7 of the ICAPCD CEOA Air Quality Handbook (2005) is detailed in Appendix A. With implementation oflCAPD's mandatory standeFe dust control measures, PM- 10 emissions from surface disturbance will be reduced to 42 pounds per day as a worst-case condition, or 28 percent of the adopted significance threshold of 150 pounds per day. Because the proposed project exceeds ten acres. ICAPCD requires that a dust control be submitted and approved by ICAPCD. Failure to comply with an approved plan subjects a construction contractor to possible fines and a cease and desist order to chronic or willful violations. The proposed project will implement nil ofICAPCDs steAderEI mandatory dust control measures, will submit a dust control plan, and <once approved) will comply with the project dust control plan BREI eaneidete diseretionaf}' mell5UFes.
In the tenth paragraph in Section 111.111.b), the following text was inserted before the first sentence: "The City of Calexico requires implementation of nil reasonably available control measures for both construction and operation."
In the first paragraph in Section 111.III.c), the following text was inserted after the first sentence: "In addition, the CO and PM2.5 standards are considered unclassified for Imperial County with exception of the city of Calexico which is non-attainment under the State standard." In the second sentence of the first paragraph in Section llI.111.c), the word "and" was repeated. The extra "and" was deleted.
In the first sentence of the first paragraph in Section 111.111.e), the word "proposed" was deleted.
The Air Quality Analysis for Remington Condominium Project was revised in response to ICAPCDs comments. The updated Analysis and a current URBEMIS printout, are included in Appendix A of this Final IS/MND.
Remington Condominium
FmallS/MND
2-2 City of Calexico
October 2006
2.0 Corrections and Additions
Cultural Resources (Section 111.V)
In the second paragraph, the date of the cultural resources report was changed from "2005" to "2006." Recreation (Section Ill.XIV)
In the third sentence in Section II.XIV.a), "toddler play area' was inserted after "clubhouse." Insertion of additional mitigation measures in previous sections resulted in the renumbering of mitigation the measure in this Section. "MM-19" was changed to "MM-22." Transportationffraffic (Section III.XV)
The following text was added to the end ofMM- 20: "Caltrans and the City shall coordinate to detennine the appropriate design and timing for improvements to SR 98." The following text was inserted between the first and second bulleted items ofMM- 23: "The TMMP shall be implemented per City Council Resolution as a part of proposed project approval." The following text was added to the end of MM- 22: "The proposed project shall contribute to the appropriate fare-share percentage based on the following equation: (Project Traffic) -;- (Existing + Project Traffic + Cumulative Project Traffic) - (Existing Traffic). At the time of project approval, the traffic analysis for the Remington Project concluded that far share contributions for the proposed project would include the following percentages:
Location Fair Share Percentage
SR 98 and Kloke Road 5.98%
SR 98 and Eady Avenue 7.53%
SR 98 and W. Williams Avenue Part of SR 98 v.idenlng
Fairshare contribution
Widening of SR 98 between
Dogwood Road and Ollie Avenue 6.47%
Traffic Striping of Eady Avenue
South of SR9B 100%
The following mitigation measures were added to the end of the section:
MM-25: All lighting shall be placed and shielded so as not to be hazardous to vehicles traveling on SR 98.
References (Section VII)
The following references were added to the Final IS/MND:
Albert A. Webb A sociates. 2006. City of Calexico Service Area Plan. May 31.
Lau, John. Allied Waste. Personal communication regarding the capacity of Allied Imperial Landfill.
September 28, 2006.
'[_ Y""\"':> Remlnglon Condominium
CLJ ... ~ Fmal ISIMND
2-3 City of Calaxlco
October 2006
2.0 Corrections and Additions
Mitigated Negative Declaration
The word "northwest" was changed to "southwest" in the first line under the heading "Project Location." In the last line, under the heading "Project Location," "single-family and" was inserted in front of the word "multi-family."
The second sentence under the heading "Construction Phase I," "toddler-play area," was inserted after "covered patio."
Acreage values in Table I were revised as fo llows:
Table I. Zoning Changes Proposed for Phase 1
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Acres on Maximum Allowable Density Acres on Maximum Allowable Density Project Unitsf Unltsf Project Units/ Units/
Zoning Type Site Net Acre Project Site Site Net Acre Project Sile Residential - Apartment (R-A) .59 20to 30' 131 to400197' - - ..
Residential - Single-Family (R-1) a,&-12.54 6 3375 - - - Residential-Condominium (R·C) - - - 18.7 12 to 20• 22410 374• Total 19.0 - 303 207to 433-272' 19.0 - 224to 374'
The sixth sentence under the heading "Construction Phase I," "General Plan" was changed to "Zoning Code."
Remington Condominium
Final IS/MND
2-4 City of Calexico
October 2006
3.0 Response to Written Comments
3.0 RESPONSE TO WRIITEN COMMENTS
Section 3.0 contains responses to all comment letters received on the August October 2006 Draft IS/MND. A total of eight comment letters were received during the comment period, which closed September 5, 2006. A response to each comment letter follows this introduction. A copy of each letter with bracketed comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response for each comment as indexed in the letter.
The comment letters are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Comment Letters Received Remington Condominiums Draft IS/MND (August 2006) Letter
No.
1 2
2A
3 4
5 6
7 8
Commentor
Governor's Office of Planning and Research State
Clearinghouse and Planning Unil
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
NAHC
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Department of Toxic Substances Conlrol
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
(ICAPCD)
Imperial County Public Health Department (ICPHD)
Quechan Indian Tribe Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation
Reminglon Condominium
Final IS/MND
3-1
Letter Date
September 19, 2006
September 19, 2006
September 21, 2006
September 14, 2006
September 14, 2006
September 14, 2006
September 14, 2006
September 14, 2006
September 14, 2006
Date Received
or Malled
September 6, 2006
September 21, 2006
September 21, 2006
September 5, 2006
September7, 2006
August 31, 2006
September 6, 2006
September 8, 2006
August 23, 2006
City of Calexico
October 2006
e STATE C1' CAL1'0RMIA Oonr:aor'• OUice or Plu:alar an4 Be1ncell Beata Clnria1Ja1aH aad Plaaabi Valt _..._
-,....4_
..........
a.,. otCllooloo '1111We!AClllllllQ.C:.UZ211
SClll:-1
Dow ...........
........
-
no-a.11a11--..... ..-ar......_111 .. -... .. __ ..,..,...._..,. .. .. -.....- ..... \ _
..
_ _. ....... __ 1'11 ................. --..,.-. ... ---...-.:-Cllll•hllt--lf ... _,..,,_ ........ ..... ...., .. .... ....-.....
..........................
..,..,.........,.
-
__ ._""""'JtlDICclol .. alllftk ..... _Cola __
."._....__.._ ................. ,,... _____ .. ,,,,, .......... .,_....., _ .. _..._ ... ..... "' _____ ., .. __ ,_ __ .. _..."' ............. ,__ .. _.,._ .. ,.,...._1111 ________ ,__
.. --,..--
'NI .............. ,.. .... _.. ... ... *"' ""'""--1-.,.-... ....... __
..... _*_ _
T_ ....
.......
"'-"""""'
m.0111-U _ _..,_
J
1-1
Letter 1
Governor's Office or Planning and Research
Stale Clearing House
1-1 This comment docs nol address rhe adequacy of the cnv1ronmcnllll document This letter conlirms tluil lhe DmR IS.IMND for the Remington Condominium project 1v:is subminc:d lo lhe Slale Clearinghouse for public review.
"'.
ep===- - am=r
llA'llVI AlllRICAH ll!larADll............,,. -----..-· r.:i...-:.. --- -·- ___ ......,.
-
., ...........
...............
_..,_.., __
REOENED
AU& U.2a06
=n:z==--- -""""' ·-!?O"!rl D'P*s .......
-.......... -===:r::.ti:.:::r..;.-:::=--...::.= .... ====--::.:-..=-.-:.:=-::-;··--:""-=- ---- -----· ..... ...... ·--- ............. ...... -==-==- -.1 ......... - .. .... ________ .. _____ _ -... • ,.., ,. _______ .... _...., __ .......,_.. .. .... __ ._. .... RC. . . ,._ ... ,....,.., ._... .. ___ _ . .., ___ .._,. ____ ... _ .... _
.
_ ·=,.,... ........ ---- ...............
____
......,._,._..,.. _ ... .,...... ............ ____ _ ....... ...... _ . ,.. _ ____ ....,._ __,..,._ .. _, .............. __________ - ...... __ _ 4-N--lllllllt-MCll:r. .............. • A_ ......... --. ..,,_ .... ,..._..,..._ ___ lltlt .... . .. =
. .....
......
ii.If ---·-'llll----
-
--
_____
__ ...
--
,,......,.. ....
......... -___ .................. .,..,_. ,,_,,.._..._ ..... -. ......__.. .. ........ -------. =""--=- .......
.
--- '------·- ...... ·-------=- .-=:----- --· ......, ___ __ ., ..... .. ________ _ -- ....... .
} 2-1
} 2-2
} } } 2-S
} 2-6
Letter 2
Nutivc Amcricun Heritage Commission
RespaiHc to 2-1
This comment docs not the adequacy of the document. This lener confirms thnt the Draft ISIMND fortlte Reminglon Condominium project hns been submiued to the Slnte Clearinghouse for public revtew.
Response to 2·2
A record for the proposed project sile, wns conducted on November 8, 2005 at the South Enstem lnformntion Center (SEIC). Imperial Desert Museum.
Ocotillo, California. The study nlso reviewed
records of nil known cultural resource survey nnd excavation reporu. Other sources consulted include lists the Nnuonnl Register of Historic Places, the Colifomin lnvenlory of Historic Resources and California Register of
Historical Resources nnd California Historical Landmarks, Califom10 Points of Histoncnl Interest. and the Office of
Historic Prcserva1ion Datnbnse of Determinations of Eligibility. Historic mnps reviewed include
USGS Heber IS 1957 quadrangle; Blnckbums Imperial Volley 1936 map. updated 1955 and 1964: and the USGS 30 ' 1908 Solton Sink map on file at the information center. Aerial pho1ogrophs viewed at http:l.' tenuservcr microsoft.com tnken in 2002, nnd the 1949, 196S and 1992 aerial photographs from the hazardous molcrials report for the property were also reviewed. Results of the record search ore summnnzed in Section V. Culturnl Resources, of the Remington Condominium IS/MND. Detniled information on the record search is described in Appendix C, Cultlll'lll Resources Phase I Cuhural Survey Report, of the Draft !S/MND.
Rcspoa.c to 2-3
A copy of the Phase I Cultural Survey Report for the proposed project wns submitted to the City of Calexico Planning Department and the South Enstem lnformalion Center Imperial Valley College Desert Museum. AIL scnsiti\'e site cbto nre provided inn confidential addendum .
Response to 2-4
The NAHC was contocted, and a Sacred Lnnds File s=h was condueled (Sec comment letter 2A). All of the Native American Contllcts on the on the Native American Contuct list wen: included in the distribution of the Draft IS/MND (including Appendix C, the Cultural Resource Phase I Survey Report} durin& the public review period .
Rcspon•e to 2-S
Miugnlion mensurcs MM-2 m the Draft IS1MND includes provisions for the identilic:ition nnd evaluation ofaccidenl.:llly discovered nrcheologicnl resources per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(1}.
Response to 2-6 Mitigation measure MM-4 in the DraO IS/MND Includes provisions for discovery of Nntive Americnn human remains or unmqrked cemeteries.
··
- llD'-1.t- ,,di m1I ctall-91
- :·-
_____ CfllA ________ ,,,_
.. _ ... .....,_., _____ _,_
.. ... =--·--.. m = egz;,r:m-W*"t'09"'M0
__ $ ............ .................
-
.. ··--·11111-··""-""--- l1L_
}
2-6
(cont)
}
}
2-7
2-8
r>s ... f'JAt1c e PAc.'B!l.L· v u
"""" ··-
RC!lponsc to 2· 7
Mitigation measure MM-4 in the IS/MND includes provisions for discovery of Native American humnn remains or unmarked cemeteries.
lo 2·8
No cultural resources were idcnlilicd during the planning and environmental review. Then:forc, the PIOJCCI has DVOtdcd all cultural ICSOUrccs.
D''M_., - "mW'
llA1M! AllEISAll ll!JITAD COlllll!llDf
.-. _ .... .. _ -- __ .. __
... -..---- .....,_21.-
... __ ....,T ....... ......
-----
Sin mo,.. CAJZm
--.....,,
............ ,- 2 c 2 -
llWlll.'lll,lr.
-t.oflllca'llllf .. -""'""' ... _.., __ .. _., ._ ___ ..... __ ,...._ 'ltlm_r#,._ ... .... -&.Ill ... _____ .. _"' __ .. ..,
......,_ 1!1111' _____ .. __ .... __ .. _
.....,.._..._ .......... ....
-
....
--
emi· -----..o1-- a ........... -.a ... r ,,._,... ,,____ - • _,__.,...._ .... -·-· ....... . _ M1*1 ... _.._.., _ .. ,....,. ____ . ..,_...,,., ,...,,.., ·--•-Ila '11'111 ts ., .. __ loar_N..._ll"'fla ... Lldrfll_....._"' ....... --......... -d
.. C-....--GlllWMICllW-..-. .... -f/lllM .. --., ..
__
......................... ...
____
__...
_.,"'..,,._ .. --............ ............... _____ .. ---·-· .. -· _ .. -
.119r ..... Nt-·-...-.......... .__ ..
} 2A-1
} } 2A-3
r k:'lc- I.Ad [,;;,('-
rrffo., t;xS....
Lcttcr2A
N11tivc American Heritage Commission
Response to 2A-I
This comment docs not address the: adequacy of the environmental document This lcncr confirms that the Sacred Land Files Search failed to indicate the presence or Native American culturnl resources in the immcdtatc project a= .
Response to 2A-2
This comment docs not address the adcqu:u:y of the environmental document. All or the Not1vc Amencon contacts from NAHC were included on the public review distribution cf the ISIMND (indudins Appendix C. Cullural Resource Sul'llcy Report).
Response ID 2A-J
Sec rcsponrcs. to ccmmcnl
i
-.
n/l'J/2W5 Ur"7 1"X71M2 llM:loteft -=. - Mir.
•rmci=·- -z=-·-==··mos·mee: '"Zft'C"· ......._
-" --- 8
.__CAl!IUO
=-..:a::r·
.....,.,.2006
11r. ai.m J!llllioa
cn,.tCllal..
l'llmllalliporlmail
...
Cllcdca,CA mn
Dec Mr.Bilojaa:
l'IUIM
....... Cmbll: .•
lOI> (Aopll2006)
.-T".r:::
.. .....,. ..........
WidplOI Nlpllft oom - 211111) ..... ....- ....,._
c 7 'h+ ....,_. ..... - ....... (la.ti) ..... .Allor - 1!lllJ ..
• ClllJllll ..... '* 1111119 -a.i-- Ill Cllllllilld9o ....... mldplo& M¥it .......... ... .... air-
.....si-................... .......... .,a...... , •• SM'L 1119'Dllllc ..... Malllodlll,._(?MMP) illldWJ& 1llo MMD It amla ....................... ...,..w. .... .r ............... ..,.....,.cn,a.aa..w. ....... ..... --· 1111 Jlljod==.,._,__,_....,._. DmM ... looolot.-.,.•IMI ... -. .. Clip lillliild _, ... i-"llaiW!ll--..
-
,..po!llllll .
• '1111MIO llllllli ladlllo Nr-. .................. la wllld& a.. p.;.:r _.m _.... .. ,.....IDS6oMND"'lor:lllll e..
aliUllcm.
• 1111 ........ ..,..._ _ _. ........... ,...,.s.......... ... fl. ...................... lldllr.'n.-ilOfs "'- .................. ,..;..t"I.................. l&llUC. "'9lila-.W.,... ._ • Cllr a-.....i. Ollr el Dldlmioa ODDI_. •W,. llPa'l* r -"' lldor• ,_.... 1111 _, • All ...... wllllllllMl,...d ...,.ll&filolllmdlar- •••• - --• ..... •IML
-----·
} 3-1
} 3-2
}H
} 3-4
Lc11cr 3
Department ofTnmsporllllion
Response lo 3-t
The following 1eJ11 w:is added 10 the end ofMM-10 "Cahrans 1111d the City shall coordinate to de1ennmc lhe npproprin1e design and liming for improvements lo SR 98 " The foll owing 1ex1 w.is inserted between the first nnd second bullc1ed items or MM- 23: TMMP shall be implemented per City Council Resolution ns n p:irt of proposed project approval." The lost bulleted ilem of MM-23 includes lhe following SIDlement: "Should level of service. for the intersections and segment on SR 98, n::ich unncceptoble levels. lhe City will deloy issuance or building pcnnns fo r any project (thnl could potentially contribute to lhe above-mentioned cumulauve impacls) until the SR 98 widening project is completed."
Rcsporuc to 3-2
The fair-share pcrcentoge calculations for the proposed projcct"s contribution to traffic impaclS (DI each or the study intersections and SR 98) is included
with the lS.'MND on page 28 or Appendix I. Traffic Impact Study.
The followini; texl was added 10 the cndofMM-22· "'The proposed project shnll contribute to the approprinle fare-share peiuntoge bnsed on lhe following equation (Project Traffic) • (Existing+ Projcct Traffic + Cumulative Project Traffic) - (Exis1ins Traffic). At 1he time of project approval. lhc traffic analysis for lhe Remington Project concluded that far shore contributions for lhe proposed project would include the following pcrcentngcs:
loC11tion
SR 98 and Kloke Road
SR 98 ond Eady A venue SR 98 and VV. Willillms Avenue
Widening of SR 98 between
Dogwood Rand nnd Ollie Avenue
Traffic Striping of Eady Avenue
Sou1h of SR98
Response lo 3-3
Fuir Shure Percenroce
S.911°/o
753%
Pan of SR 98 widening fairshnre contribution
6.47%
100%
In the Draft lS:MND mitign1ion measure MM-20 includes the following text:
'·Proj ect applicant shall dedicate right-of-way. per California Dcpanment or Transponation (Callrans) rcqu1rcmcn1S, extending from the centerline of SR 98 to the northern project boundary frontage to Caltrans for fu1urc improvements lo SR 98 Project applicant sholl nlso oblnin from the Cily of Calexico nn Irrevocable OITer of Dedication (!OD) nnd a slope rights/drainage cnsemenl in order to preserve the necessary right-of,wn)' for n 4-lone fac1l11y on SR 98".
Response to 3-4
The following m1ugation measure wns added to the end of Section XV. Transportation/Traffic· l\ll\1·25: All lighting shnll be placed and shielded so ns nol to be hllZllrdous 10 vehicles traveling on SR98,
Hlltl:iem 1<1•r 7U 1!1711S2
Mr. llilla»lllaoj-.
.AllPlt29, 2GOC
l'lp2
. .. .,..-......
.......... ___....otSML
· • AllJ!pl a..,,..,._. wldllt • ---_ID .. -....i b...,._wllll Cllmq ml • ,.,,..._ •poojlol _,.....,Q-11....s.-....... .-.111111 - ... _..,..... .... 6'jl)ld,....
• Alll' mldpllDa - ...-... Clllt.- lllP of
w., cvv.'l .m ..... ..
.........._...... ........ Jiiii,. ....... Wlflirc:.itaii JN - ........ ............ ...-.i.-... ................ .... .... .... lllalpCll bJ ................. 111111 n
,......,... .. ..,....._ ne.-.aa .. M-111 ,_,_ '1)11111 ...... ..i,.....tw.,do4-_ ................. All"'* ..-w11111a ...... ...,.,""'CJIW>.....,i.a11M_.w.ldir . ._.m.i.. All _,,, ..... ( .... ._,.... .............. C,} ...... lbl ... lt/'tl' _ ... ,....,. ....... .....,. ........ ,.., _ ....___ ..
.. ..,..... .... rt'..._._ ...... _. ___ _ ,....
...,..._.._ _____ ,_,. ............. ... of ..
---
,..,. ,._, 61 ...... - _.w. I (aQA) ...... tir_.. w· I iq:l<la 11 C*.-11191. 'Dmdofdopt II ......... - QllWlll)tos .. as:k r ....... rtl 1111 lap (p:ljocl '"'"' .....,._..... .. n.u.in.
... "•llldolilDwtrMllQilli:=ol/ff __ ........... """"""'-"• ... ..,...... .. ,..,.... __ ,... ..
- tl/22
}- 3-S
}- 3-6
}- 3-7
3-8
3-9
_,.............. Mllloml ......... •
,..._,,'-....... ., ...... CllllaPlllllfaOllca• IMdy
.......... wkkc.i...ta ............. 111_......padl&.
If i-.... .., .,..._,pi..-....... A-. lowilw Jlrwob, ll . . .
-zy_
.....
Cl: Mt.Hlll.ll.Cll.7r..i- .
..... -----
Rcoporue to J.S
The analysis conducted in the Drafi IS showed lhnt, with miligalion, lhc proposed project, along with other approved and pending projects. would rcsull in a less than sigmficant level of 1mpac1 from exposure of people 10 noiJ<:. Please refer to Section XI Noiic. and Appendix G, Noise Impact Anulys1s, of the
DraO IS!MND fo! detailed discussion of the noise analysis for the proposed project.
Rcoponsc lo 3-6
Any construction of musl adhere to all regulatioM in effect ut the lime of construction .
Rcoponsc lo 3-7
In the
Draft IS Section 118, ProjC1:t Construction Phase !, includes the following description. ""The sidewu
Dk will be extended approximately 300 feet from the
westerly propeny line of the proposed
project site lo the westerly propeny line of the ad; acent uparunent complex (lmpenal Manor). The proposed sidewalk will include 11 curb and sun..- and will be built per City of Calexico December 2005 Design Procedure and Improvement Standards." In lhc: Draft !Si'MND miti!,'lltion measure MM-20 included the following text: "'Improvements to frontage along SRSR 98 shnll include curb, gu\\cr, and sidewalk to 11ccommod:11e pedcslri11ns and diiabled persons." Rcoponsc to 3-8
In the Draft ISIMND mitisntion measure MM-20. 2 l. 22. and 23 provide m1tigntion for impacts to Cnltrnns jurisdiction. All improvements will be designed and constructed according to Caltrnns requirements. Also sec response 10 3- 1.
Response lo 3-9
Mitigation measure MM-20 of the Draft IS!MND includes the following requirement "'The project applicant shall obtain nn encroachment permit from the California Department of Transponation (Callrans) for any improvements within Caltrans righl-of-wuy of SR 98." The project must adhere to any and all requests, cst.abli&hed by Caltrans, while working fn lhc st.ate RJW . e .,. Department of Toxic Substances Control -F.0--,-
--
U...11.MN
--
--•
!eplerrmr 7, 2006
Mr. Rlclrda Hlnojcai
l'!IMlna o.p.rtnwll
Cly Clf Clledco
a H9bw Jnnuir
Clllaxlc:a, Callbnla 8223f
112CLARA110H ING) FOR REMIHGTON CONDOMINIUMS
ee. Mr. Rolllll!lan:
-
Tiie C:Oftltol (OTSC)llla rec.Md)Ollrll\Onllllld
doc:ulnenl larllie pnijec:t. ""llBIDd In Taul'clDcumenl: "The prapoeed pcjad lnc:llldoa tllode1elapi1u• ol a 272-unll r:=ndrllnlnln dllvelopment(1Sll d faur ..... 1adl) - awllllicl mmenlllla an &14iiwflllllelr 111-. A llelctfpllcll ... IWiilllllUiill
DllO lndlld.r'.
9IMd Oii the ...... cl'lht lllbmlllld docllmllit DTSC NI commentl as faDowl:
t)
2)
The NO e/icdd ld9rllfy and clNrn*lo wlwllller Cll!l'lllil or hlsloilo imes Ill the prllfect slbi matt... ...*9d In DI llimlldous.....,_,bslancaa.
Th& ND tihadr! ld9dy arwv"'-n nr palMWJ canl8rnNllld ll!ae wllllln Iha pnlpCliC8d PftljKf-. The ND llilluld aim ........ wtMlllw' ccnd!llarw If llilt 1119 llW)'IMIM a flilMl lo hllllmn hNlll nrlhe FCllloliMg 111'8 llie • NDanll PllCirlllcs Lisi (Nf'l.): Abt lllllftlllnllll bylhe Ullbid Sblel ErMmllMll!:lll l'nlllldlon /4glllrt:f (U.5.EPA}. • Enwioallar (fOl'mltly CllSlll9): A Di118bu. iftnmlr llMd bi .. c.iirorftlll t)epeltnwnlafTa»c CerMll, eeilaelblo llliOUllll DT8C'1 webd. c- belaor). ·-
..
--
}- -1-1
4-2
Leuer 4
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Response lo -1-1
Scclion VII, Haznrds nnd H=dous Mnlcrinls, nnd Appendix E, Ph11Sc I ESA Report. of the Draft IS/MND discuss current or historic use$ nl the project Sile lhnt 11111)1 have resulted in nny relcnsc of hnznrdous w;istcs!substnnces. The DrnO IS.'MND concluded that 1here hllS been no release of lumirdous wnste/subslllnccs on or near the project sile.
Response to -1-2
Section Vil. Hl!.Zllrds and Haz.nrdous Mntcrinls, and Appendix E, Phnse I ESA Report, of the Draft ISIMND disc= the and results of the Environmental Dntnbnse Review conducted for the project site. The Drnft IS!MND that !here arc no known contnminntcd sites with lhe propose project area
I
I
I
I
I I: .
c;>
~ ~ ~ ~ 4 =i
~~~~~~
Ml1t'21K 1•1n 'IH:mnn --IPllICG
_.,_, .. 7 I
DISWmll>n' OF l'l1l1ROL
R.CDlllllllMA zs:tt---• "-'til.CA_,
...., __, CTTrlllDI
A .... '1,200'
hcHa.: IUJ"I
llllkllor A-•
Olaloo,CA '22>1
_.
w ::
"
,..,,,,.-,,. .. ...... Tnlllll!ll*'._,.,.. .. · bk-. b!llO,,_,._ .. .... ---... --· ..... , ,.,..,._"'1-Wc:.., . ...a .........
It ... ,,_.,., t.lado2Z41aJnC a•lo'-wlllt...adp!lkml"'-t .. ._..... ................ ...,.._, T!.Tnlllol.,...sSlafJ.•-4'ofllll n.llla .... .......... - ......
'r\ki..-...m.a.. ........... ..-..
...... j«WI,,..._...... ... ....._, 11111..w,.......,...,._olall!Q. ........ _......--i..r.._wv•. au.r .. 11io1amr-,1.....w...-l!rll..,, ,._., ........................ lilc:..Anaila'lllr• ............ ... i....i-t1 _...,._._...,_ ............ a""1alllof.-.t ....
SlmWJllllYN.,ti-d-_.,tbk_,pr-.. m..._11 _0tllelrAlali.d llH•C1fD>.41WSA ·
Jw: s,..w,,...._ ...-r>nwm a
}
} »
Letters
Department or California Highway Patrol
Rcoponsc to 5-1
This comment docs nol uddrcss lhc ndequncy of lhc environmcntul document. The com men I describes lhc extent of the Culifomia Highway Putrors (CHP) jurisdiction in the proposed project on:u.
Rcoponse to 5-2
Section XV, Transponation und Traffic and Appendix I, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the Draft JSiMND indicate that SIBie Route (SR) 98 has adequate cnpucity to accommodate lr.Jffic generated by the project.
However. SR 98 would be significantly impacted by cumulative traffic from both the proposed project nnd other pending and approved projects, resulting in an unsatisfoctory "F" level of service, Section XV and Appendix I oh o describe proposed mlllgation measures that would mitigute the above· described cumulative impacts to a less thnn significnnt level. Most of the measures consist of trnffit improvements. including widening of SR 98 nnd tmffic sii;nal upgrading for euch of the impacted intersections. Becnuse the completion date for the widening of SR 98 1s not currently known. odditionllll mitigntion, in the fonn of development and adoption of 11 Tmffic Mitigation Monitoring Program (TMMP). wns described The City-developed und adopted TMMP would be used to continuously monitor the operating levels of service for SR 98 and each of the cumulative traffic impacted intersections along SR 98. The TMMP would track unused traffic c:tpncity on the existing 2-lnne segment of Stnte Route 98 .
The City
would conunue issuing building pcnnits until SR 98 rcnches a critical level of service or until the widening of SR 98 has been completed
To assist the Cnlifomin Highway Patrol (CHP) in assessing and planning traffic enforcement services requirements, 1he City will provide the CHP El Centro Division up-to-date traffic level of information from the TMMP.''
nt1112111 u:a ?ta5771H ,_!fin
&.T•.ttc:, \>-
mmms.ai11mr
& ...... CA ...... -===
Nr. RblllO Hlnojosl
lnlllfm D1rtC1Dr SeNJcm Cll'lofCllaico
toetteberAwnu
CalalcD, CA 822:11 a
SUBJECT: lnllbll NeplMI o.danllle11: UllllMll No.
DarNr, Hinojou:
W!llm lie dtf af Clle:llCO 19 unique In Nt Of 111;,,g • lnllmdonll g1ir.ny la Mdea Md llMlg cllmdlr irlllumlced, impllc!Dd Md lllOIWlll8d bf' .. pm.r,. dly fll _, t mllott peoplo, 11 ,_.,,. lo b9 lull _, lalaMI "8lr palullon prognms kl Malco 11111 nclblblt ftlcluclnQ the ln!e!!ollr of !IW 1llr 8llllada dudna llC!l!llJD llCl1b 1111111 , 111111 ...... "811 :;a =:a:. ..... .,....,,.,..,_..,.ICllll ......
·16--l 6-2
6-3
6-4
l:
6-7 6-8
6-9
Lcttcr6
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
R"5pon•c to 6-1
The oflhc oirqWllity nsse$1mcnt ore: that the pro;cct impacts ore: less thnn $igniliconl.
RC3ponsc to 6-2
The miligotions in lhe document arc mondatory. To cmure thot there is no confu.iion, the text will be clorilicd in the revised Air QWllity Technical Repon. It $hould be notecl thot compliance with AJ>CD Regulation VIII is mondotory. ond is therefore not miusotion ot oil. Comphnnce 1s pan of the project di:scripuon. ond nol d1scre1iom1ry mi11gotion. This conclusion hns been highlighlcd more strongly in lhe updntcd m r repon.
R"5ponse to 6-3
Cumuloll\·e projects ore: tncluded 1n the traffic study which wns the basis for the Dir quality onolysis Figure 8 of the traffic study shows nil the cumulative proj,ccts th:it were considered in developing lroffic forecasts for the project vicinity. Poges 24-25 of the traffic study identify oll the cumulative project impacts that were: for ony micro-1cale air quality impuct potential. Traffic i& shown to incrc:ISC from 3.099 vehicles per hour inf out of the SR 98/Kloke mtcrsection to 6.749 vchidcs in/out in Traffic Study Table F under the heading "Existina + Project + Cumulative Traffic from Other Thus, the n1r qunlny assessment hos addres!ed cumulative impacts.
Re!ponsc to 6-4
The traffic study c:vuluatcd the interaction between school ond project traffic to verify that no unocceptoblc congestion would occur near Mains Elcmentory School that would hove ony 01r quality impocts Thus. the potential imp:icts lo sensitive rcccp1ors were addressed.
Response to 6-5
The role of Mc.'<icoli in affecting Calexico air quality is well known. The statement thot Calexico air quality hos been improving is shown in the
Draft IS/MND. In eomp:iring Tobie 3 of the nir quolity repon between 2000 ond 2004. one observes o substontinl reduction in the number of violations of standards for ozone and carbon monoxide, and also substantial reductions in the frequency and intensity of violations of panicul:uc molter. The stn1ement thot this dramatic improvement is nssoclnted with air pollution control programs in Mexico is probably true, but ncvcnhdcss speculative, ond hns been deleted 1n the revised nir rc:pon.
RC3ponsc to 6-6
Comment noted.
Re!ponsc to 6-7
The change tn the stnlus is noted. The updated rcpon hos incorporated this stotus change Rcspon•c lo 6-8
Comment noted. The oir rcpon ocL:nowlcdges that state standards arc either equal to, or more stringent, thon the corrcspondtng fcdcrnl stnndarcl. Sec Page 3 nnd Tobie I of App01dix E. Air Quuliiy Anolysls !Appendix E).
Response to 6-9
Commcnl noted. the updated air rcpon hos been revised to more clearly identify nltninmcnt clossilicntions.
Hflll- ,.,., 7W"""'2 ,. 11/ZZ
c..a ..... ............_
. I 6-10
6-11
Fuldler, .,. llNmtnt '11lht CtJaco -. 1111\io nat pl fonnaQr dmlanatld • aucll. bu met ..... lnment dal;llllllaft fot .. - ldandalda." Plllae nalll !Mt ID such ll'Cllll ellh8t Ille ARB ar "-Dian IX Calllon.i.
PnMclGn "9tN:I .... ll9M -- « ..-i. c.i..ica. ........
baundlllesof Ille Slllon StaNrlasln, &tllndl fllr-.
N• QUAUTY llPACT• CM!lr'5!lpn hnptct!
} 6-12
} 6-13
6-14
} 6-15
Response lo 6-10
Slllte standards have no set anainment deadlines. The wording was changed as follows The state slllndartl become enforceable in 2003 when it was incorporated into lhe Californ111 Health and Safety Code. There ore currently no Slate PM-2 5 standard altninment deadlines.
Rcsponsc to 6-11
Comment noted. See 10.
Rcspon•c lo 6-12
The statement lhat the Ethel Street met all criteria tn 2002-2004 for being eonsiden:d an atlllmment area for federal ozone standards is correct and supponed by the monitoring dnlD in Tobie 3 of the oir quality tcchmc:al report. The updated air n:pon will add that the basin ns n whole is considered non11ttninment for ozone.
Respon5e to 6-1 J
The acreage shown rn the uppcndi" for surface disturbance 1s 4,:? 11cres for o 272-umt condom mi um project If the model output shows 3.5 ocres os slated in this comment, it is perhaps from a previous model run and JCAPCD did not receive the mosl current technical report. The current URBEMIS printout hns been attached to the updlltcd Air Quality Analysis. Both, the updated Analysis and URBEMIS printout arc included in Appendix A of this Finni ISJMND.
Response to 6-14
The requirement for compliance with Regulation VIII will be mon: strongly stated in the updated air qualiiy report. As noted above. compliance with n:gulations is not 1echnically mitisation since there is no discn:uonury nspcc1 10 compliance.
ft/111- lotO 'llaS7'9U __,_,_ ,,_ .,,22
e.iaa....-c I II
..,__1 no dllla ar-"* i. piMded ID.......,.hlll ouch • llilllrnMt. Thll pal!lntlll far 11111 picjKt flt emit • lllgnllant Ml af llllialoM, mpecldy c:umulallv.i,. Is IUI unllla _,.,.., 11,- 1111 lff WENm;URBEM!l200ZMpd!!Output
To mdd,_ 1111& actb1 11111 Nr D11111c:t lb ta Jus1. llftlFlmls flll)f 11111 .mr.-.
Rtt, .. ptlljlcl lllCallDll "Sautll COlll IJI Basin (I.CS -l ll 1*1"111 nat .. mael 1epomlalhL CounllD 81111 l'bnl .. =:!' ..... """" lpr 11111 •Ir secand, .. lcltlll iliililiiiiii ---few ml ........, Niii* UlldW.. DUlpul..,. Ole alrdlllrlc!. Tiw .....,._ AalaoDlolulbld Pw Llld.-11111 URBEUIS UpUl by 1119 NI Dlllrtd W-I tDlal of 4.1 -.a. 11*1dlallglllIlle1*111'1 lhli PM10 emlsllona perdlJ. In fld Ille.,.__ - tam 11 JlllUlldldllY .. 11t 1111P1$ctPIOPOll'l't111 ta poclnll.'day, w. flt - II *9g Ha tMt lie UM of b SCAQMD YI,,... of 2f 4
paund/!a!lday is Iha - .. lalal wfll* * IUDCllllld wlltl II* paJed - 1111W 1111 N Dlllltc:t modal !If 411.11 ¥lllim. llllt'I n ._,. 'dlfll._ ...,. lndllllclml inodell .. aal9d and dllll.- do not •lllCUll ID.,, 91gn11can1-. Hawwrl,,.. polllnllal !llr ... dllllll'lflCeS lr:l l lleel ... .,. Niii ..... "' - .. ,,. "' Dlllllel. Wllll IM AJt Dillllct Wlll*l .,.1& - II - elaliliaellell u tll 1111 dtfllulla or 1111 1111 'llftm ta madel-run.
Ill daslng, Ille lik l1Alct 1111111111 aa ID 181 a ·clalllcllllarl llf 1119 1111 dlll;ndans, Ille ltmand ...... llllndanlalnd lllllllDl1I QOITllllllld lo nalllc:lllani&:.:llld Faryaur Ali' W e1111 on Wllll It
l!!!p;Ml!wwJir!!!!!!WM!!yd!!lf lllldet "Alt PelUIDn." 9IOUlll 71111 1181111 any qunllDM _..clonal ...... lr:IOIL
Monie. N, !oucllr
APCD 6pacilllt Cl>-- --
} 6-15 (conL)
6-16
6-17
6-18
} 6-19
Rcsponsc to 6-15
The Air Quality Report submitted for the Remington project concluded thnt with inclusion of all ICAPCD·rcquircd best mnnagcmcnt practices. the proposed project would have a less than signilic.nm impact on air qunlity.
The Air Quality Attninment Pllln (AQAP) for the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). through the implementation of" lmpcrial County Air Qu:ility Attainment Plan for Ozone" nnd "State lmplementnt1on Pinn for PM-IO in the Imperial Volley", sets forth o comprehensive program that is intended to result in the air basin being brought into complmncc with all federal nnd stnlc n1r quality stondanls. The AQAP prob'TDm includes emissions projections for the future dcvclopmcnl scenario derived from land use, populotion. and employment choracteris1ics defined in consultn1ion with local governments, This is based upon the General Plans for the various loc:il Jurisdictions. Accordingly. confonnonce with the AQAP for development projCC1s is determined by evaluating whether the project is in compliance with locnl land use plans and/or population projccllons: meeting the land use designation sci forth in the local General Pinn, and comparing assumed emissions in the AQAP to proposed emissions. Typ1cnlly. incn:nscs in lnnd use density or intensity result in potentially significant impacts to nir quality The residential land use of the proposed project is consistent with land use designations in the General Plan_ The project would include a lotnl of'.!72 units This is the same density as proposed in the City General Plan.
Table I .
Zoning Changes Proposed ror Phase I
EwlincZonmr. Propo,W Zonlnr.
Muimum ADow11b1e l\la1imum
Density Alloweble Density
Acres on Units/ Acres on Unicsl
Project Units/ Projed Project Unicsf Projtc1 Zonine,Type Site Net Acre Site Sile Net Acre Site Residen1inl - Aportmenl 659 201030• 131 to - - -
(R-A) 197•
Residcn1ial • Single- 12.54 6 75 - - -
Fmnily (R· I)
Residen1iAI- - - - 18.7 12 to 20• 22410
Condominium (R-C) 374•
Toral 19.1 - 2071ol7l" 19.1 - 22410
374•
Sourm: BJ Engineering and SurveyingZD06, 1nd City ofCalctico Municipal Code •Jn the R.C and R·A ZDO<S, •ppn>val or project• 11 lhe maximum density 1hall only be given on the buis thot the pTOJect cxccc:ds lhc Wndards of the zone and ttic General l'l1n. Any density beyond the mu:imum of:?O units/acre permitted by the zone will n:quire Planning Commission and City Coon<!! approval. """'- 1<1C7 7'Ulnta
---- - 19122
Pntvloua Soctlon 185A Nonat1:11lnmont Ara11& No Longer
Sub)9ct to Iha 1.fmur Slandard
,..,,, ..... '18,2DOS
actlGllUAo
CludU.C l•CGlllf.l•te o.u Ir••• nit. Lftcl11cs.L Pd.u Dldfft&U• rtt.l:ltle4 "" t'PH"•d• •f .. Mt .... , .. ri•UU••· lectltn 1HA ., ... .,... 3 ,..... O't data. Iaomilplet. llltl .,.... bad - .uu « 11•1 tt.an l J'Nl'I oj O&U et. da Ct! cl.P•l.Ue&t.lDQ,. -sKU09 itll.• ••• pn•J .. .ir •a11ed 9Tnu1ci-a1•. ft• f01Mr l"'hMr ot._ d111.,.at1•• lltlld c1•111'lat19l'l1 •• ef .,,.... Uir "°''' •n ... ,.,. rec&t.Md l• C et PHt 11 tor - et - Md 1NakdUh1 -1.Jt..c or•• en U.llS. '° en. S1.t05(CI rain.as Mbpan: c If pan. 11 !etc H•U &Ueet .. bf th• .. f"l>u ...
This land use is conaained in the General Plan and is QSsumcd lo have been used for lhc evaluation in the AQAP. Therefore, the residential IW1d use associated with the Remington Condominium project is consis1en1 with lhe anticipated regional projections included in the AQAP. Thus, no significant impacls would be: altribulcd to this project_
The cumulative impacts from the proposed project and other mnjor City-approved projects, or projects pending approvnl. were The following table shows all of the projecls considered in lhc traffic and air qunlity analyses.
Tablc2.
Cumulative Projeel5
Development Avmtic DAily
Project Slll!US Trips
Rcminston Condominiums (proposed project) Pending 2.176 Venezia Pending 10.288
C.M. Rnnch Approved S6,S38
usBrisns ? 5,760
TiCIT'll5Ql11B 7
Riverview Pending 4,022
Los Lagos Pending 27,4SS
Senior Aponmcnt 7 112
Total
Two projects (CM Ranch and Los Lagos) descnl>cd in the trntric and nir quality Malyses account for 73 percent oflhe impacts. Projects, with the size and scope ofthc CM Rnn<:h and Los Lagos projects were not contcmplntcd in the current Imperial County AQAP for ozone or the State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in the Imperial Valley. The current Imperial County AQAP for Ozone is based on the City's General Pinn growth forecllS!s developed in 1992. These larger projects rcquirc(d) General Plan Amendments Therefore, updated growth projections far exceed lhe pncc of previously plnnned growth included in the AQAP and the cumulative air quality impact from growth (even without the proposed project) is considered sii;mlicant nnd not fully mitigatablc.
The impacts associated with 1he proposed project arc consistent wilh the air emissiom forecasted in City General Plan and llS!ociolcd AQAP. Because the project would not exceed the anticipated emissions, the project docs not contribute to any excccdanccs. Although there 1s cumulative degradation to the air qunlity, this project is not contributing to the cxceedanccs bc:couse the emissions were nnticipatcd. If this project conlributcd to emissions that oxcccd the projected emissions, lhen it would be considc:rcd as contribu1ing 10 the cumulative condillon. It is rccoi,'h1zcd and disclosed veiy elelll'ly that the project will create emissions; however, using thresholds of significance based upon the CEQA Initial Study Checklist. these emission:; will not contribute lo the non-ottoinmem of the AQAP.
Addiuonally, II should be noted thot, even with the i,>reatcr-than-an1icipatcd development in the C11tcxico orca, air quality hos generally improved since 2002. This improvement is shown in doto collected from oir monitoring station that is closest to the project site, Calexico's "Ethel monitor. Attainment may still be years aW11y, but the (rcquency and magnitude or air pollution episodes, cspcci111ty those considered unhcahhy for all people. has dropped considerably in the last dccadc. Table 3 in the Remington Condominium Project Air Quality Report (summarizes the last live yenrs of published monitoring data from the Ethel Street air monitoring station.
Table3
Air Quality Monitoring Summary
(Days Standards Were Exceeded and l\lndmum Observed Conccnlmtions) Pollu1111u/S111ndlU'CI 2000 2001 2002 2003 200.&
Ozone
I-Hour > 0.09 ppm (5) 17 28 4 2 4
l·Hour>0.12 ppm (F) s 7 0 0 0
8- Hour> 0.08 ppm (F) s II I 0 0
M4'< I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.11
Carbon Monoxide
l·Hour>20. ppm(S) 0 0 0 0 0
8· Hour>9. ppm(S, F) 7 6 4 0 I
M4'< l·Hour Cone. (Imm) 19.9 17.4 IS.6 I l.8 12.S
Max 8-Hour Cone. (ppm) lS.S 12.3 ll.6 8.8 10.3
Dioxide
I-Hour> 0.2S ppm (5) 0 0 0 0 0
Mu l·Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.IS 0.11
Rcspirablc Particulalcs (Pl\1-10)
24-Hour > SO ll1!fm' (S) S2/61 SJ/62 Sl/61 46/S9 36/60
24°Hour > ISO µgfm1 (F) S/61 3/62 3161 4159 1/60
Mox. 24-Hr Cone. (µgfm') 279. 422. 361. 238. 161
Ultni-Finc l'ilrllculatcs IPl\1-2.5)
24-Hr. > 65 µgtm' (F) IJI 13 01101 01322 01283 0/352
Mox. 24·Hr Cone. (µgtm'J 84.2 60.2 46.S 6S.O 48.S
Summer ozone levels routinely exceed stlindards, paniculady the more stringent State one-hour standard.
However, since 2002. there has been 11 dmmntic improvement in ozone air qU11lity. Since 2002, there has been an average of only tluee dnys above the slllle ozone slllndard. nnd then: have been no violations of 1he federal one-hour. and only one violation of the federal ciuht·hour stondard in three years. Any airshed that docs not exceed federal standards more than three times m three years is considered to be m attainment. The Calexico 11ren, based upon monitoring data Crom the Ethel Stn:ct monitor, did meet redcral clean air criteria for ozone from 2002-2004.
In summary, the proposed project is consistent with land use: and regional nir quality stnndards (RAQs), and the project would comply with nll ICAPCD applic:ible rules and rcgulallons, the proposed project docs not result in sisnificnnt contribution to cumulntive impacts to air quality. Therefore. with the documented vicinity trend tow:mls improved air quality. the project would not result ma cumulatively considerable ncl incl'CllSe of any criteria pol!utnnt for which the project region is non-ottninmcnt under an applicable federal or stnte ambient air q1111lity stnndnrd (including relcnsing emissions which exceed quantilOtive thresholds for ozone precursors). Therefore, the conclusions in the MND nrc accurate nnd adequate.
Response to 6-16
The "Mountain Counties" is not the appropriate prototype for Calexico an:a trip-making. The ICAPCD hns adopted South Const AQMD CEQA significance thresholds even though Imperial County hns different air quolity chnrnctcristics !hon the South Const Air Bnsin. In the absence or Imperial County ns a uniquely defined basin in the URBEMIS calculation, the existing and proposed commercial and industrial development in the Calexico nren creates driving patterns that nrc mon: prototypical or all Southern Cnlifomill rather thnn n location within the Sierra Nevada. Furthermore, the mnrgin of safety between project operational emissions and the ICAPCD thresholds is so large, the: use of longer Mountain Counly trip lengths would not alter the conclusion thnt impacts arc below APCD thresholds.
Response to 6-17
The URBEMUS output model used for the nir qunlity analysis is Version 8.7. Version 8.7, the most recent vcr.;ion of the moclcl, shows 4.2 acres for the proposed project. The use of26 4 pounds per acre per day wns the default value before n comprehensive dust control proi,'Tilm under Rcsulation VIII wns adopted. Under Regulation VIII ICAPCD requires the use of best nvnilnble control measures (BACMs) for nil construction projects in its adoption of Reguhuion VIII. With mandatory use of BACMs. the ncccpted fusitivc dust (PM 10) emissions factor is reduced to 10.0 pounds per acre per day (Colifomio Air Resources Board). Project-related construction activity PM 10 emissions will be reduced to 42 pounds per dny as a wor.;t-cuse condition, or 28 percent of the adopted sisnificance threshold of I SO pounds per day Response to 6-18
The trip generation rate for this project is s101ed in Table A of the project traffic study to be: 8 trips per unit times 272 units. or 2,176 dni!y trips as used in the URBEMIS print-out in the appendix.
Response to 6-19
Comment noted. The air n:pon has been upd:ited lo correct the nren des1gnntions, and the rcpon wording was modified for dust control mcnsurcs from recommended to mandatory as required by Regulation VIII. ltl'Ut:llK tr."7 7'mT1112 --- 1'1111£ 29122
.1' I
. .
m COUNTY OF IMPERIAL
-
-llODCZIH.MrA.
snnmf -W.-,.T,MD.>c& -l)Olm.
Mm:v...-
Cllaicol DMlopllall saw. '°' ....... Clblc:e. CA mss
.DMSrOHOFDn'ZRDNICl!M'ALBEllUHS!KYJCES
ma
-17q-•fiUCC1fllllR-IJll
RE:-....e=1 .. J>idmllan
a
Do.M<.Vlllis Ider"""""" "' ftll!ld. for - ....,.i;.,. !tie dllllta ol last>ll 10 lllopt • lllidJll<d ....-. .,.....-""'fiislll'li=. &+nm'n!pgl ?rc'fva wht! Helt! t ltft:tt Swirl: v .. ··
.
-·
.
Br......_ 1k PftJPll'lld ......... """' _.....,.,. wldl lbe ........ ,all'f } canfomla lloollll .t S*7 C.... -4 Tklol 22 Al' · p.i.r *- 7-1 _ _.....,._,.._ ... w111 ....... 111e,..r ..
• i'• ·it; " . • · \
.... rOlllllf i--
....... pools .. lmpocllol .... _,a, ... Mo.. • - haft
---&acllaalac -----w-. IDll "'6aleriqof u ,...i fKlllda (C\'al -.IQ._ II a Dlllaloalll llmdldan); · iepnl!ns .ballll 11111llflsJ..-.&:11111 lacbd pa llld ........... dmodi . • • - - •
. .. • . •. ( 72
Ia .S-0.,. !Im - '"" .... ... . ... "'"*' i,s·lll ..... _ ............. ,..._b\oullt.llla-lll
....... -w .. ,...,..... larlila..,.m.bl ... llllllllmdai IDliflldlaa 11ir...-.....,POl'l.lmd •...a.Mo .. .......,.,.,.r..,..,,... ... Baldi ""l:t:":: all!dol (J:acWal!IDr,...,.... .. .....-r-. "- ......... '·.
!'qi) DfJ . • • a e-:.. t•: . , 'I ... " .. --.. -· .
. .
... --r;.c-:c::"'lz::=:i.::."""-...
Letter 7
County of Imperial Public Henlth Department
Rcopon•c 107-1
This comment docs not address the adcquncy of the environmental document. This commeni stales that the County of Imperial Public He3lth Dcpanmcnt. Dcpmmcnt of Envuonmenllll Henlth Services (DEHS) will review the pool's construclion plans. issue nn operating permit. and perform routine inspections 11ner the pool is operatlornil .
Responu 107-2
The project nnd subsequent operations arc required lo odherc to nil applicable codes and regulations. including the following:
• Section 6552 l(a) of the California Code of Rcgulotion Title 22) requires thot every pool be under the supervision of a person who is fully Cllpablc of. 11nd shall assume responsibility for, complinncc with nil rcquircmenis rclnling lo pool opcrnt1on. maintenance and safety. • Section 116055 of the California Health and Snfcty Code requires that ony DEHS inspcc1or mny ot oil rcnsonablc times enter oil p3rts of the premises of a public swimming pool to moke examination and investigation to determine the sonilllry condition 1111d compliance with regulations.
It is the rcsponslb1lhy of DEHS to enforce these regulations.
W\91- &0141 nntl'7112
1911'119' JJ;lll
1GQIACHf -JCD °"' IOl.'IH l'llE '1112
-
.,
llio........., 11(111111-i otllllr Nllclaldol ---.,.., limp' I I P'O"I'*' __.
.r11ia.-.--.=wn1111111111*-..rt1ia-crpallda1lllldlaa . ........ ,... .._.._ . - . 111,,..-d 11111 .....,.i.e.. .,ii,mi - be lalllll ID 61 lmpaill Ylollli' ID ..... 111117 to Ila JiN'lllJ ... cdlelll lillplClllm. J*liealadr It lk .......... _,I* _. -111111-.Mli• _... ....... cad. U,, mr.u,pad "*1 oa:. .. llM fOls.m.d.,. --......_ ... II - bt ollllloak 11> pla - to a 11114 ·
.... ..... 77' . """'
1spa1, !'Cll:llllca- air 1111n11-lllYll ,,.V.. 11> bt a.-:aollllllllpdlDM lllllMI-. t.rlilllloa.; ll'OPllll' ilallllldllld-..... no,..,., 111U1 i.......,. .. ..,,.ea-DJar_....., _...,..,. - ..... -72 .... ID-""'*r.moequlloc,"'cli>ID-..hmlllDdla&-16w111r911dlift. ....... ................. _ha_ po)ed'1m--• rr. ......................... ...... --.---.- 11 _______ .... -......., .. dlllplll•p111wmlill- ........ .._...n ....... _......-i-. ........... od.lit5oal ..... lo tlilt Ti. !=pedal c:_,, 1IMoloa .,. • 11 R.-............ "'" lioirw'" ...... wltilboCflrrlOlalb latiomlowllf'.Wpplom ......... 'lli!m., c-n:iladaloll---.............................. -atllcadlllil .... il ' ......... .,,,, ......... .,,........_. c-lalJ.,._....., .... ..,..._ ... llllPl'flll*. .... .......... ..... .--. ........ _ (lMllldllsui.o..,..iililli ... _.... ..... __ .___. ... ........ -i.. .... llb ___ ......_ ... _._.wa. .. 11111,..n, -.,.Sbf llll ...._& ........ Jm.ieai Ill 8.m_.,..., 119 --ftllllfml ID .
............
.......... _ .. ....,.. .. ,,..... __ "' .... 'J)plWIJr,laa&lllcielJOJ611. •llilll.......,miatiadilill--ototrdilarNIYI....,.._
Tlio lflsll WW .,,.,,,, - ms-w r.-i IS ........ ID:......, tbc ,.... -
....... .............. ii.illlllll ... ....... -lllo lm!ID • ldlll:lld 111-car.llidllll - .................... (21116 ...S 20m. "' r... llio acitis Soll4 W-J'll:tl!l1Pmalllllied IJO .. ..,alllirWlied lmpllll Im.) a Jml 25, 2002. Im 111eollmDd ol-. .. atl012.' CJlodadr, Gia ........ llllllca. ftmllalla CIJlllllll1 la ........ lad8IL .a - 11e ..........
- 11 ...
ClldmlzD.- limaW la ........ Ill ..... ti .............. .s.,.i ..-.,. l'or ......,.._._lfO-diltlr_._1-'-1"'6111mAIWl..,.wl.ID!llll.'---...itr.-a 18192.0
}
7-2
1 (cont.)
l
7-4
JM
Response to7-J
The project is required lo comply wuh all opplicnblc codc:s_ The r<:tention basins will be designed 10 comply wilh the September 20{)6 Guidelines. or those in clTcct when the pmjccl is constructed.
Response to74
The project is required lo comply with nll existing code8 and n:gulotions in effccl al lhc nme of construction. Should conlnlctors illegally dispose of mnlcriiil. the nppropriate legal action con be 1mplemenled iflhcse contractors violalc the low.
Roponsc to7·S
This year Allied Wnslc Services plans to stnn the pcrmiuing process for expansion of the landlill by on odditionot 60 ocn:s. The expansion would provide on addluonal 15 years of solid wosle capacity.
Pcrmiuini; for the expansion is cs1imo1ed 10 take lhn:e yeors. If Allied is unnble to obtain the l:lndfill pcnnil or if pcnniuing of the exponsion is delayed. Allied plnns 10 conslruct a transfer stttion on the exisling landlill site. Solid wnsle would then be cxponcd lo the Copper Mounlllin L11nd Fill m:m Glamis/Yuma. Arizona The Copper Mounlllin Londlill sile hos 11n estimated life of90 yeors. Permuting of the Allied Imperial transfer station would toke npproxim11tely one ycor (Lou.. 2006).
Additionnlly. on Morch 14, 2006 the Imperial County Boord of Supervisors nppmved o condi1ionnl use pcnnit for the Polo Verde Material Recovery Facility/Lllrgc Volume Transfer St11tion. Once construcicd. the Palo Verde Facility would hove enough pcrmillecl cupacity to process Imperial County's entire waste strcnm. Aller recycling. the wustc from Polo Verde would be hauled to lhe Mesquite Reb>ional Lnncllill (operated by the Los Angeles County Sanillltion District (LASCD)). or to ony other lnndlill in the nrc:i.
The Mesquite Regionnl Lllndlill is a new land lill locntcd in the m1d·enslem scc11on of Imperial County.
This londlill is scheduled to become operational in 2008 and has a projected life of 100 yenr.;. The County if Imperial currently hos an ogrccmcnt with LASCD for up to l,000 tons per day of disposal cnp3eity nl the Mesquite Regional Landfill. This capacity would meet the solid waslc disposal n..:tls for the entire Counl>'·
Therefore. with the projected modificntions to Allred Imperial Landlill, The life expecroncy oflhis landfiH would exceed the lifl..:n·ycnr threshold by the California Integrated Wnsre Mnnagemenl Board {C!WMB}. However, if Allied Waste h unable to accommodate the project's solid waste, The City of Calexico would obtain service from one of the other above-mentioned rnlid wnsre disposal facilities.
Therefore. the available landlill fncilities would be nblc 10 accommodate the solid waste generated by the proposed project.
'11197?9Q
7'8ZD1ft IC- Ht&.1M
Po01:E um
rOl:E .,
pllllll:led ludllll .-., - ... It noMic ltlll Nlqll!nt 4llW r..,.;.i ...... -.... dncloPDl'lll "' 11U-.•m11111111mem-i. .. ,_..._1s ................ J-dlCllllia flt ............ tl"kll llm lilDISaat' llpld!ls' lnllD apmolt:f. (XVI I, JLU"> Oimidlllar Ilia ..... ..., ... l'llld..ill ..... wlll-\e ....... _.....,,......... .
Bter•1mzrnnt
na 1a111a1 -'tW-...Ctiio '211e1Colall:O ..-a..badl-.-a""" S--,tlla91tlllllml1D..._, ...... Pl'l"!dlll ... ...-. Ill ....,..._., 1iotr 61 l!io aer ._..ms lrcmld ....-a-...m. .am .i. ..-.m 111o ....... .,_._,
pgm;Mpn
1 ........... "_,_-....,. .. - ·i1imtr..W1opiW1&W!hi...r.taa1...,,..,... ........ _,..f/f_ 'l1la polcelb llilDbl!-i_ .. ......__ot91.-SIP"'IF"OJI HJ •J!adr ,.._... ...... Id . (Id 11-" .. b:do4-11a ----- J ..... - tn!I flMldallill - .... _ .,. Jl!Djodllldllib""6mm.ead! .... moilWlmllJ......... • u.ic,.. 1u--.
...... 111.tiildW. . .
-...it.
...
C!=' .,._.,.,,.....8-t-,fAX(71G)lS1.s5U 14''-lap:dol Cmllt!!iP" I 'Bmlbllctka __
.lllllMlmikt, Clllomlf PlllllllllU.,C.
__ .,..._
,...,.,,,
}
7-5
(cont)
} 7-li
} 7-7
Rcspon!c to7-6
The proposed project sile was included in 1he sphere of innucnce assessed ror water dcrnondfscrvicc c:ipa:iiy ond sewer fiowitrcounent cnpaciiy in tlte 1999 Cny of Cnlexico Service Arco Pinn. The recently approved Calexico City Service Arca Plan (Albert A. Webb AMOciatcs, 2006) describes implemcnlotlon or \Wier supply provisions for an expanded sphere of influence.
WATER
The current Service Aren Pion describes provision for implementing the Ciiy's lon11-1erm waler supply goals relating to s1ora1,>e, tre:nmenl and pumping facilities. Th""e goals include the following:
I The City will always moinloin at leost five days wonh or total storage ot overage do}' demand. In add111on. over 1he ncxl 20 ycnrs 1hc Ciiy will work to\vanls having seven days ofto!ll! Sloroge available 01 olltimes
2. The Ciiy will hove lhe obilily lo meet maximum day demand at 80% or its lrcatmcnt plant copacity .
3. The Ciiy will hove the ob1lity lo meet peak hour now rotes ot 7S% of its pumping capacity.
The number of unilS proposed ror the projcc1 is consislcnt with the maximum density allowed under the existing zonins on the project site (Tobie I in the Drnfi IS/MND. l Therefore. the water dcmond for the proposed project fs consistent wilh the \VOler demand ond supply projections described in the 1999 1111d currenl service orco plons. The City received 1.856 mg of wntcr from llD in 2000. The City of Colex1co used 2,897 m:g of water in 2005. Usa!.'C is expected to rise lo 6.296 mg of wo1er by 1he year 2020.
Currently. the maximum waler the City of Calexico Water Treatment Plan con trc:it is 2.2 billion gallons or \VDter annually. Thrn:forc, the projected potable wnter usage foils well within the expettcd \Wier supply. Thus, there will be ndcqW1te wolcr supply 10 mecl the Cily ofColcxico demond 1hrough 2020.
Sl'.WER
The existing sewer syrtem provides odcqW1le copacily ot overage doily now but experiences full now conditions in some locatfons during peak wet weather now. The Service Arca Pion coils for a series of improvemenls lo expand capacity lo 8 5 million gallons per doy (gpd) by 20 10 ond 12.5 i,-pd by 2025 .
Therefore, the water treounent system will hove adequate eopacily 10 occommodllte lhe addition of 124 • 800 gpd i;eneratcd by 1hc proposed project.
It is imponant to nolc that the wostewoter treatment facility is currenlly at copacily during inclement weather conditions, which occur inrrequcnlly in lhe City o r Colexico. The 20U6 Service Arcn confirmed that proposed ru1urc improvemcnlS will compensnle for 1hcse cnpacity deficiencies Response to7-7
In the Finol IS/MND. the word " northwest" w:is changed to "soulhwcst" in 1he following loclltions:
The first line in IS Section !IA, Project Loca1ion nm! Setlmg. • The first line in the MND under the heading Project Location In the Fino! IS.IMND. the words '"sinsle-fnmily ond" were inscned in front of the word "mulli·fomily'" in following locations
• The lost line in IS Section llA. Project Location nnd Senins. • The last paragraph line in the MND under the heading " Projcc1 Location"
..
I . . . 9' ,.. ,. !"' :·-s~1
. ... ~ ~ r ,,. r JI it.rl 11t> 1· •l JiJ 'r·1k1 !I~ .. Ii . 1 J 1 .. J 1 1 r r 1, !
1 111 1 _ it 11 J, 1
1 , 111~ ~! J r !· i f I 111 r. ~ 'II If r I r 1 '1.
· 1• .. -
1 ; .
1 1t Jo.· .ff ! 11
1 f 111 fl!I ~gt 1i iif ii 'i dr II I ~,. I J • rr" t I I J r tr f lJ .. I r ft n I { I '!~ lh iwF~l Jf I l•
I
. t t I l! I f. J r;I l!J' il tJr i ! " f .f. I II f · t JI~ (• J'' Jsj t J l'l ;;1 . ., J f i i . ! . !1 fit ·. A~ fl? i · l f! p I ·
1 i l Hp i riuf t 1
! i!f f r !l . ·i
· I 11 JI f i'J lf 1 • •J( r l lt 1
. i . i . s ~h tr! PH f l b ~s
QUECllAN INDIAN TRIBE l'l. 'ftlma lndian Rettroolio1'
•
Al>lllllt2J,2*
Cll]o.tc.laiai
Mr. lllCllllo HliialliUl Kollot Nlma
calmeo, CA '22JI
0.. Mt. Hlllajml,
M .. 1.,,
V-,.ut.-11*-M
... (7fl)m.ml
nat-filrllllll6Usae!,.,,.rpopMll ....t ..,., .....,... Omilomlaham peJect.
WclilllS,..._.tbt_la..wQ,.,.-illbo ....... .... -...
.......... 1 •• ,......i 1iapoc1 .. ..,ca1....i-alDlllled """'"" &illaantbe.
Apia,_ dmt,...1or,_llO!ISallas. l!yua .... .,,,.. labmotlcam!oiwa l'llllol m..ie ;,,;;;;;;; _...::.::,)
l 8-1
J
Letters
Queehan Indian Tribe, Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation
Response to 8-1
TI11s comment docs not nddress the ndequacy or the cnv1ronmcntnl documenL This commcnl Stales that the commenter has detcnnined that the proposed proj ect would hnvc no potential impact on nny cullurul resources nffilintcd "ith the Quechan lndi1111 Tnllc
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR REMINGTON
CONDOMINIUMS
Remington Condominium
Final /S/MND
4-1 City of Calexico
October 2006