Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model
La Sierra Ave. & Victoria Avenue
Prepared For:
Matthew Esquivel
Warmington Residential
Southern California Division
[email protected]
Prepared By:
EPC Environmental, Inc.
11801 Pierce Street, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92505
951-710-3010
December 26, 2024
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Document Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 AGRICULTURE IN CALIFORNIA .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Williamson Act ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Farmland Classification.................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 6
3.1 LESA Model ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 California LESA Model Scoring System ........................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Land Evaluation (LE)...................................................................................................................... 6 A. LCC Rating ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3‐1 Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units ....................................... 7 B. Storie Index Rating ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Site Assessment (SA) ...................................................................................................................... 7 A. Project Size ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3‐2 Project Size Scoring ........................................................................................................... 8 B. Water Resources Availability ........................................................................................................ 8 Table 3‐3 Water Resources Availability Scoring .............................................................................. 9 C. Surrounding Agricultural Land.......................................................................................................... 9 Table 3‐4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score ............................................................................ 10 D. Surrounding Protected Resource Land ......................................................................................... 12 Table 3‐5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score ............................................................. 12
4.0 PROJECT SITE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Land Evaluation (LE) ....................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Land Capability Classification ................................................................................................... 13 Table 4‐1 Land Capability Classification Score ............................................................................ 13
4.1.1 Storie Index ................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4‐2 Storie Index Score ............................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Site Assessment (SA) ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.1 Project Size ................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4‐3 Project Size Score ............................................................................................................ 14
4.2.2 Water Resource Availability ....................................................................................................... 14
4.2.3 Surrounding Agricultural Land ................................................................................................... 14 Table 4‐4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score ............................................................................ 15
4.2.4 Surrounding Protected Resource Land .................................................................................... 15 Table 4‐5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score ............................................................. 15
4.3 Total LESA Score .............................................................................................................................. 15 Table 4‐6 Total LESA Score Sheet – Project Site ............................................................................ 17
5.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5‐1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds .................................................................... 18
Figures
Figure 1 Aerial Photograph of Project Site........................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Important Farmland ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 Zone of Influence Map ........................................................................................................ 151 Figure 4 Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Resource Lands Map ..................................... 146 Figure 5 Surrounding Agricultural Land .............................................................................................. 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Document Purpose
The proposed Project (hereafter, “Project”) includes Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37764 and proposes the subdivision of a 9.91 acre parcel into 14 residential lots ranging in size from 21,781 sf to 30,797 sf. The purpose of this Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is threefold: 1) to determine the presence or absence of important agricultural resources on the Project site; 2) assess potential effects, if any, to any important agricultural resources that may be present on the Project site; and 3) if any impacts to important agricultural resources would occur, determine the significance of impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a) requires that environmental documentation “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines definition of environment “means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance.” (emphasis added, CEQA Guidelines § 15360). Per the CEQA Guidelines, the Project will result in a significant effect on the environment if the site contains important agricultural resources that would be converted to a non-agricultural use. According to CEQA Guidelines § 21060.1(a), “agricultural land” is defined as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.
1.2 Project Location
The Project site is comprised of a 9.91-acre lot (gross) located on the south side of Victoria Avene and the east side of La Sierra Avenue in the City of Riverside in Riverside County, California. Specifically, the Project site is surrounded by single-family residential houses on all sides and contains no notable structures or development . The Project site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 136-220-016. (see Figure 1, Aerial Photograph).
1.3 Project Summary
The Project is not identified as part of a specific plan or within a general plan policy area. The proposed Project is identified by T entative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37764 and is a net total of
8.81 acres according to the RivCoView Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Map.1 The proposed residential project development would subdivide the property into a total of 14 parcels each between 21,781 and 30,797 square feet in size. The Victoria Street frontage would have the same 10-foot wide DG path with two rows of existing mature orange trees protected in place and a third row of shade trees in compliance with the General Plan 2025 Tr
1 https://rivcoview.rivcoacr.org/#/Property-Search/136220016 Accessed 12-15-2024
ails Master Plan and the Victoria Avenue Ad Hoc Committee Design and Development Standards for Victoria Avenue.
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Project Site
2.0 Agriculture in California
2.1 Williamson Act
In 1965, the California Assembly established the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, in response to the increasing pressure occurring throughout California during the post-World War II period to convert agricultural lands to urban development. The Williamson Act allows local governments to enter contracts with landowners to restrict property to agricultural or related open space uses for a minimum of 10 years in exchange for a lower property tax assessment to the landowner. After the initial 10-year contract term, the contract remains in effect until canceled by the landowner or the local government.
Once canceled, a contract winds down over a period of 10 years. 2 The Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract or agricultural preserve.3,4
2.2 Farmland Classification
As part of the State’s efforts to protect agricultural resources, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to provide data to public, academia, and government entities for the purposes of making informed decisions regarding the use of California’s agricultural land resources. The FMMP is required by California Government Code § 65570 to report on the conversion of agricultural lands in the California Farmland Conversion Report and maintain the Important Farmland Maps databa se system to record changes in the use of agricultural lands over time.5
• Prime Farmland: “Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.”
• Farmland of Statewide Importance: “Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.”
• Unique Farmland: “Farmland of less quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.”
2 California Department of Conservation, 2016. Land Conservation Williamson Act Program Overview. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/wa_overview.aspx 3 Riverside County, 2023. Map My County.
https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public Accessed 12-15-24 4 California Department of Conservation, 2022. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html Accessed 12-15-24 5 California Department of Conservation, 2019. California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
DLRP Important Farmland Finder Accessed 12-15-24
• Farmland of Local Importance: “Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee.”
• Grazing Land: “Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.”
According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Important Farmland Finder Map (see Figure 2, Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program Map), the Project site is classified as “Prime Farmland”, and approximately 15.2% of the land in the surrounding vicinity is also identified as “Farmland of Local Importance”.6
This space was intentionally left blank
6 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
Figure 2: Important Farmland
3.0 Assessment Methodology
3.1 LESA Model
The LESA Model is a point -based approach that uses measurable factors to quantify the relative value of agricultural land resources and assist in the determination of the significance of agricultural land conversions. Many states have developed LESA Models specific to their local contexts. The California LESA Model was created as a result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993) and provides lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the environment associated with agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process.7 The California LESA Model is the methodology used by the County of Riverside to determine whether important agricultural resources are present on a property.
3.2 California LESA Model Scoring System
The California LESA Model is made up of two components, known as “Land Evaluation” (LE) and “Site Assessment” (SA), that are scored and weighted separately to yield a total LE subscore and SA subscore. The Final LESA Score is the sum of the LE and SA subscores and has a maximum possible score of 100 points. Based on the Final LESA Score, numerical thresholds are used to determine the significance of a project’s impacts on agricultural resources.8
3.2.1 Land Evaluation (LE)
The LE subscore consists of two factors, including the Land Capability Classification (LCC) rating and the Storie Index rating, which were devised to measure the inherent soil -based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural production. The LCC Ratin g and Storie Index rating scores are based upon the soil map unit(s) identified on a property and the acreage of each soil mapping unit relative to the property’s total acreage. Data for the soil map unit(s), LCC, and Storie Index are obtained from soil su rvey data provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service.9 A. LCC Rating
There are eight (8) classes of LCC (I through VIII). Soils designated “I” have the fewest limitations for agricultural production and soils designated “VIII” are least suitable for farmland. The LCC is further divided into subclasses (designated by lowercase letters e, w, s, or c) to describe limitations, including a soil’s susceptibility to erosion (“e”), limitations due to water in or on the soil (“w”), shallow or stony soils (“s”), or climate (“c”). 10 Once the LCC for each soil mapping unit is obtained from the USDA NRCS soil survey, the LCC classification is converted into a numeric score established by the California LESA Model. Table 3-1, Numeric
7 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997 pg. 4 8 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997 pg. 31 9 United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed 12-13-24 10 United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Accessed 12-13-24
Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, summarizes the LCC numeric conversion scores used by the LESA model. The LCC Score accounts for 25 percent of the total California LESA Model Score.11
Table 3‐1 Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units LCC I IIe IIs, w IIIe IIIs, w IVe IVs,w V VI VII VIII
Rating 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
For properties with multiple soil mapping units, the LCC Score used in the LESA Model is determined by multiplying the LCC Rating for each map unit by the corresponding map unit’s proportion of the property’s total acreage. The LCC Score for each map unit is summed together for a total, single LCC Score for the property.12 B. Storie Index Rating
The Storie Index is a quantitative method of rating the agricultural capability of soils. The Storie Index has been used in California for over 50 years, with the most recent version of the Storie Index being published in 1978. The Storie Index is based on four factors: 1) degree of soil profile development; 2) surface texture; 3) slope; 4) other soil and landscape conditions including drainage, alkalinity, nutrient level, acidity, erosion, and microrelief. Soils are graded on a 100- point scale that repre sents the relative value of a given soil when used for intensive agricultural purposes (University of California, 1978, p. 1). The Storie Index Score accounts for 25 percent of the total California LESA Model Score.13
For properties with multiple soil mapping units, the Storie Index Score is calculated by multiplying the Storie Index rating by the map unit’s proportion of the property’s total acreage. The Storie Index Score for each map unit is added together to provide a single Storie Index Score for the property.14
3.2.2 Site Assessment (SA)
The SA subscore consists of four (4) factors that measure social, economic, and geographic features that contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. The SA factors include Project Size, Water Resource Availability, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Protected R esource Land.15
A. Project Size
The Project Size rating evaluates the potential viability of potential agricultural productivity on a property. Generally, high quality soils (high rate of economic return per acre planted) only need to be present in relatively small quantities on a proper ty to be considered important,
11 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997, pg. 7 12 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997, pg. 7 13 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997, pg. 12 14 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997, pg. 15 15 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997 p 31
whereas lower quality soils (low or moderate rate of economic return per acre planted) need to be present in larger quantities to be considered important.
The Project Size rating corresponds with the acreage of each LCC Class identified on a property. Table 3 -2, Project Size Scoring, summarizes the different Project Size scoring combinations. For properties with multiple map units within the subject property, the mapping unit that generates the highest Project Size score is used as the final Project Size score for the Project site. The Project Size score accounts for 15 percent of the total California LESA Model Score.16
Table 3‐2 Project Size Scoring
LCC Class I or II LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points
80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100
60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80
40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60
20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40
10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20
Fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 Fewer than 40 0
10-19 10
Fewer than
10 0
B. Water Resources Availability
The Water Resources Availability rating measures the reliability of a property’s water resources that could be used for agricultural production during non-drought and drought years (water availability score) and the proportion of the property served by each water source (weighted availability score). The water availability score established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3 -3, Water R esources Availability Scoring. The total Water Resources score is the sum of the weighted availability score(s). The Water Resources Availability score accounts for 15 percent of the total California LESA Score.
16 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf 1997 pg 13 - 15
Table 3‐3 Water Resources Availability Scoring
Non-Drought Years Drought Years SCORE
Restrictions Restrictions
Irrigation
Feasible
Physical
Restrictions
Economic
Restrictions
Irrigation
Feasible
Physical
Restrictions
Economic
Restrictions
Yes No No Yes No No 100
Yes No No Yes No Yes 95
Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 90
Yes No No Yes Yes No 85
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 80
Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 75
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 65
Yes No No No - - 50
Yes No Yes No - - 45
Yes Yes No No - - 35
Yes Yes Yes No - - 30
Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both drought and non-drought years
25 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 20 Neither irrigated nor dry land production feasible 0
C. Surrounding Agricultural Land
The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating accounts for the potential effect of development on properties containing important agricultural resources that surround a project site. The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is dependent on the amount of agricul tural land or related open space within a project’s “Zone of Influence” (ZOI). The ZOI is determined by drawing the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the Project site on a map (Rectangle A) and creating a second rectangle that extends 0.25-mile beyond Rectangle A on all sides (Rectangle B). All parcels that are within or intersected by Rectangle B are included within the project’s ZOI (CDC, 1997, pp. 23-25). The ZOI for the Project site is illustrated on Figure 3, Zone of Influence.
The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is determined by the proportion of land within a project’s ZOI that is currently used for agricultural production. The Surrounding Agricultural Land score established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-4, Surrounding Agricultural Land Score. Data for surrounding agricultural land can be obtained from the Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources’ Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, and/or i nspection
of the site. The surrounding agricultural land score accounts for 15 percent of the total California LESA Model Score.17
Table 3‐4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score
Percent of Projects ZOI in Agricultural Use Surrounding Land Score 90 – 100 percent 100 Points
80 – 89 90
75 – 79 80
70 – 74 70
65 – 69 60
60 – 64 50
55 – 59 40
50 - 54 30
45 – 49 20
40 – 44 10
< 40 0
Source: (CDC, Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Guidance - 1997)
This space was intentionally left blank
17 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf pg. 26, 29
Figure 3: Zone of Influence Map
D. Surrounding Protected Resource Land
Similar to the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating, the California LESA Model considers the potential effect of development on protected resource lands surrounding a project site.
Protected resource lands include Williamson Act contracted lands, publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources, and lands with natural resource easements (e.g., agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space).
The Surrounding Protected Resource Land rating is determined by the proportion of protected resource lands within a project’s ZOI. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land scoring system established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3 -5, Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land score accounts for 5 percent of the total California LESA Score.18 Table 3‐5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score
Percent of Projects ZOI in Defined as
Protected
Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score
(Points)
90 – 100 percent 100 Points
80 – 89 90
75 – 79 80
70 – 74 70
65 – 69 60
60 – 64 50
55 – 59 40
50 - 54 30
45 – 49 20
40 – 44 10
< 40 0
Source: (CDC, 1997)
18 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf pg. 28 - 29
4.0 Project Site Evaluation
In this section, the California LESA Model is applied to the Project site to evaluate whether the Project site contains important agricultural resources.
4.1 Land Evaluation (LE)
As discussed in Subsection 3.2.1, the LE subscore measures the agricultural suitability of soils identified on a property by using the LCC Rating and Storie Index for each present soil map unit. The Project study area consists of two (2) soil map units including: Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (GyC2) and Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HcC).
4.1.1 Land Capability Classification
Refer to Table 4 -1, Land Capability Classification Score, below, for the LCC Scores of the Project site. The Project site’s overall LCC Score is 46.2.
Table 4‐1 Land Capability Classification Score
Soil Map Unit Acres Proportion of
Protected Site
(Percent)
LCC LCC Rating LCC Score
GyC2 4.08 41.2% IIe 90 3.67
HcC 5.83 58.8% IIe 90 5.24
Totals 9.91 100% LCC Score 8.91
Source: (USDA, 2023) 1Rounded to the nearest 10th. The non ‐irrigated LCC was utilized because , under existing conditions, the Project site does not have an irrigation system.
4.1.1 Storie Index
Refer to Table 4 -2, Storie Index Score, below, for the total Storie Index scores for the Project site. The Project site’s overall Storie Index score is 42.0.
Table 4‐2 Storie Index Score
Soil Map Unit Acres Proportion of
Protected
Site (Percent)
LCC Storie Index Storie Index
Score
GyC2 4.08 41.2% IIe 87 35.85
HcC 5.83 58.8% IIe 82 48.22
Totals 9.91 100% Storie Index
Score
84.06 Source: (USDA, 2023) 1Rounded to the nearest 10th.
4.2 Site Assessment (SA)
As previously noted, the SA subscore is based on a combination of a property’s size, the availability of water resources, the presence/absence of surrounding agricultural lands, and the presence/absence of surrounding protected resource lands.
4.2.1 Project Size
Refer to Table 4 -3, Project Size Score, below, for the total Project Size scores for the Project site. The Project’s overall Project Size score is 20.
Table 4‐3 Project Size Score
Soil Class
LCC Class I – II LCC Class III LCC Class IV - VIII
Acres of Project Site 0 0 0
Project Size Scores 0 0 0
Source: (USDA, 2023) Refer to Table 3‐2 for Project Size Scoring, which is based on LCC Class and acreage.
4.2.2 Water Resource Availability
The Project site does not have existing irrigation systems; therefore, the California LESA model considers irrigated production to be infeasible on the Project site.19 Notwithstanding, the LESA Model analyzes the potential for dryland production. The County is characterized as having an arid climate and receives little rainfall throughout the year. The average annual precipitation in the general Project site vicinity is approximately 11 inches (Best Places, 2023).
Dryland farming can be productive with as little as 10-12 inches of rain per year (CAWSI, 2022).
Accordingly, at the Project site, dryland farming is considered feasible during normal years but not feasible dur ing drought years, which corresponds to Water Resources Availability scores of 20 (refer to Table 3-3).
4.2.3 Surrounding Agricultural Land
The Surrounding Agricultural Land score is dependent on the presence or absence of active agricultural production land within a project’s ZOI. Figure 4, Surrounding Agricultural and
19 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Documents/lesamodl.pdf pg 18
Protected Resources Land, illustrates the active agricultural production lands in the ZOIs for the Project site. As illustrated on Figure 4, there are no active agricultural production land with the Project site’s ZOI. Table 4 -4, Surrounding Agricultural L and Score, summarizes the Surrounding Agricultural Land score for the Project site; the Project site’s Surrounding Agricultural Land score is 0.
Table 4‐4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score
Zone of Influence Surrounding
Agricultural Land
Score
Total Acres Acres of Surrounding
Agricultural Land
Percent Surrounding
Agricultural Land
208.79 31.67 15.2% 0
4.2.4 Surrounding Protected Resource Land
The Surrounding Protected Resource Land score is dependent on the presence or absence of lands within a project’s ZOI that have long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses. Figure 4 illustrates the protected resource lands in the Project site’s ZOI. As illustrated on Figure 4, there are no protected resource lands within the Project site’s ZOI. Table 4 5, Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score, summarizes the Surrounding Protected Resource Land score for the Pro ject site; the Project site’s Surrounding Protected Resource Land score is 0.
Table 4‐5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score
Zone of Influence Surrounding
Protected Resource
Land Score Total Acres Acres of Protected
Resource Land
Percent Protected
Resource Land
208.79 0 0 0
4.3 Total LESA Score
The total LESA Score is calculated by summing the Project site’s LE and SA subscores. The Project site’s LESA subscores are summarized in Table 4-6. The Project site’s final LESA score is
35.25.
Figure 4: Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Resource Lands Map
Table 4‐6 Total LESA Score Sheet – Project Site
Factor Scores Factor Weight Weighted Factor
Scores
LE Factors
LCC 8.91 0.25 2.23
Storie Index 84.06 0.25 21.02
LE Subtotal 23.25
SA Factors
Project Size 0.00 0.15 0
Water Resource
Availability
80.0 0.15 12
Surrounding
Agricultural Land
0.00 0.15 0
Protected Resource
Land
0.00 0.05 0
SA Subtotal 12
Final LESA Score 35.25
This space was intentionally left blank
5.0 Conclusion
The Project site received a LESA score of 35.25. As shown in Table 5 -1, impacts to land that receives a LESA score between 0 and 39 are not considered significant under CEQA. Thus, the Project site is determined to have a relatively low value for agricultural production and Project impacts on agricultural resources would not be considered significant.
Table 5‐1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 Not Considered Significant
40 to 59 Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscores is less than 20 points
80 to 100 Considered Significant