HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-010 CC Resolution
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 08-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY
(HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH
959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0202, PA07-
0200, PA07-0201)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural FindinQs. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning
Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change
to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through
959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (the "Project"). The Project
contemplates a maximum building height of 115 feet, a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed
hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000
square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all
totaling 566,160 square feet and a parcel map.
B. The Planning Commission initially considered the Project on April 6, 2005,
at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify regarding this matter.
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
I
I
I
C. The Planning Commission, based in part on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project.
D. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the Authority and
principal responsibility for approving the Project.
F. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR")
was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other
regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
section 15082.
G. Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of
Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft EIR.
H. The Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the
Project implementation pursuant to CEQA.
I. On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30-day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR
(SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent
with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research
for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 ofthe Public Resources Code.
J. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated September 26, 2005,
the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with
the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005.
K. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of
the Draft EIR at the City's library and made copies available for review at City offices.
L. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR,
the City received eighteen (18) written comments, all of which were responded to by the
City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR).
M. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all comments on and before November 22, 2005, including those received
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
2
I
I
I
after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency commentators
were provided on or before November 12, 2005.
N. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005, November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on
the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to
present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft EIR.
O. On January 24, 2006, the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly
noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons
interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and
the Draft EIR.
P. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
proceedings, including testimony received at the public hearings before the Planning
Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR
THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700
FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-
080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)."
Q. Two lawsuits were timely filed seeking to set aside the certification of the
Final EIR and approval of the Project by the City Council of the City of Temecula. The
lawsuit filed by Petitioners California Nurses Association (Riverside County Superior
Court Case No. RIC 445394) was filed on February 24, 2006. The second suit, by
Petitioners Citizens Against Noise and Traffic (Riverside County Superior Court Case
No. RIC 445411), was filed on February 24, 2006.
R. On April 6, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including, without limitation, its
certification of the Final EIR and all related approvals and permits. In its Order, the
Court concluded that the EIR failed to adequately address the construction noise
impacts, siren noise impacts and mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and did not
address potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes
potentially generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to
migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas
vapors.
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
3
I
I
I
S. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4)
geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
T. UHS and the City sought clarification of the Court's judgment in the
matter, and on August 22, 2007, the Court issued an order stating that its order "only
includes those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA." The
Court clarified that to comply with the order, the City need complete further and
sufficient CEQA analysis in only the areas of 1) analysis of MTBE Plume, 2) siren noise,
3) construction noise, 4) direct traffic impacts, and 5) cumulative traffic impacts.
U. In response to the Court's order, the City commenced preparation of a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to address the issues identified in
the Court's order.
V. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on July 6, 2007 and requested
those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project to describe that
authority and to identify additional relevant environmental issues that should be
addressed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Six entities
submitted comments in response to the NOP.
W. On July 12, 2007, a scoping session was held to determine the extent of
issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project.
X. On or about November 5, 2007 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30-day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital SEIR
det~rmining that such a review period is consistent with the criteria set forth in the
written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for shortened reviews, and
Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
Y. Therefore, upon completion of the SEIR dated November 5,2007, the City
initiated a 30-day public comment period and circulated the SEIR for public review from
November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. The City received three comment letters
consisting of a substantive comment from the State of California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, a letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
summarizing the review process from the State's perspective, and a letter from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District stating that the District
had no comments. Reponses to each of the comment letters were prepared, and none
of the comments raised any issues that would require recirculation of the SEIR.
Z. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each
significant effect identified in the SEIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
4
I
I
I
1.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
2.
3.
AA. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that if the Project will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the Project. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if
expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
BB. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR that are found to be less than
significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section III of this
resolution.
CC. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but
which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of
all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section IV of this Resolution.
DD. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section V of this Resolution.
EE. A discussion of the Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures.
FF. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone
Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and
PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by
reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on
the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road,
known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-
007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
5
I
I
I
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
GG. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
HH. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment;
PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010.
II. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula regional Hospital Project at a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this
matter.
JJ. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198,
PA07-0199, PA07-0202, PA07-0200, PA07-0201)" The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
KK. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The
recommendation of the City Council as set forth in this resolution, and findings
contained herein reflect the independent judgment of the City Council and are deemed
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related
actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
6
I
I
I
produced any substantial new information requIring circulation or additional
environmental review of the SEIR under CEQA require additional public review because
no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increase in
the severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
Section 2. Further FindinQs. The City Council finds that the economic, social
and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable short-term,
long-term and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the
maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights identified in the Final EIR,
siren noise, construction noise, and direct traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts
identified in the SEIR and in the record. In making this finding, the City Council has
balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated
its willingness to accept those adverse impacts.
The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project,
independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding
the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project and hereby makes the following
findings:
A. All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen
Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that
alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while they generally have similar or
less environmental impacts, they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are
otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of
Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification
of Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to biomedical,
research, and office facilities.
C. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide superior, easily
accessible necessary medical services to the local community, including but not limited
to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation
services. Southwest Riverside County in general, and the City of Temecula
specifically, is in need of new and expanded hospital facilities to enhance the ability to
provide medical services to the area which continues to experience substantial
population growth and related increased demand for medical services.
D. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with
new employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services
workers.
E. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access
from a major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and
the region.
Section 3. Certification of the Supplemental EIR. The City Council hereby
adopts a statement of overriding consideration, certifies a Supplemental Environmental
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
7
I
I
I
Impact Report, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project on a site located on the north side Highway 79
South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor
Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-
010 (Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as shown on Exhibit A, Statement of
Overriding Considerations as shown on Exhibit B, Mitigation monitoring and Reporting
Program as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set
forth in full.)
Section 4. Severabilitv. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 22nd day of January, 2008.
~ <tclYleJ -
Michael S. a ar, Mayor
[SEAL]
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
8
I
I
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution No. 08-10 was duly and regularly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 22" day of January,
2008, by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts,
Washington, Naggar
NOES: 0
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
~
. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-10
9
I
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Introduction.
I.
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA
Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one
or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or
carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the EIR.
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
I
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed
Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions (the "Project"), as more fully
described in the EIR. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record
of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Supplemental EIR and all of its
contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIR, and
staff and consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
II. Proiect Obiectives.
As set forth in the Supplemental EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula and
the Project Applicant seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as
follows:
City's Objectives:
A. Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within
the City of Temecula.
I
I Ca!. Pub. Res. Code! 21081; 14 Ca!. Code Regs.! 15091.
I
B. Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medial
offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally
efficient state-of-the-art facility.
C. Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services.
D. Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to
diversify Temecula's employment base.
E. Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with
surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials
and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other
environmental conditions.
F. Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of nose, light, visibility of
activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses.
Applicant Objectives:
A. Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
surrounding communities.
I
B. Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services,
with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices.
C. Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally
efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital
directors.
D. Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center
adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need
ready access to the hospital for medical procedures.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Siqnificant With Mitiqation in the
Supplemental EIR.
The Supplemental EIR found that the proposed Project would have a less than
significant impact without the imposition of mitigation with respect to the alleged methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plume. A less than significant environmental impact
determination was made for the MTBE plume based on the more expansive discussion
in the Supplemental EIR.
A. Hazards
a. MTBE Plume
I
The Supplemental EIR examines the potential risk arising from plumes of
MTBE in groundwater caused by leakin9 underground storage tanks at three nearby
I
service stations. Although the groundwater would not be used for drinking, a potential
risk to workers and visitors arises from potential toxic vapors that might migrate upward
if the MTBE plume migrated under the proposed hospital site.
1. Findin9s
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically the following mitigation
measures have been imposed upon the Project, to mitigate any potential impacts to less
than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Petroleum affected soils at the
proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered)
shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate
facility, as required by the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be
disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws
regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials.
These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste
hauler.
I
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to issuance of any encroachment
permit for the Project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor samplin9 program
shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE or other VOC
impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately
licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during
demolition of structures. The Project applicant shall provide documentation (for
example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring text results) to the
City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE or other VOC containing soil
identified in the Project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable
regulations and approved by the appropriate re9ulatory agency(ies).
2. Facts in Support of Findings
No detectable concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) or MTBE were found in vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings, and
thus there is a less than significant risk of exposure resulting from soil vapor migration
and flux, and a less than significant related human health risk. MTBE bearing
groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along the southern
boundary. Nevertheless, there is a less than significant related human health risk due
to the possible presence of MTBE bearing groundwater beneath the proposed hospital
site.
I
The Project site is located within 1,000 feet of three former gasoline
stations. These gasoline stations experienced leaking underground storage tanks
(UST). Groundwater monitoring has occurred regularly since 2001 in response to the
leaking USTs.
I
Chevron Station No. 204029 is located approximately 200 feet
southeast of the Project site and has six groundwater monitoring wells. Monitoring and
remediation of the Chevron site is under the active jurisdiction of the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The maximum concentration of MTBE reported
at the site was a concentration of 1,400 micrograms per liter, and the maximum
concentration of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) reported was 420 micrograms per liter. On
January 24, 2007, groundwater was sampled at the Chevron site. The reported
concentrations of MTBE at two well locations were 11 micrograms per liter at a well 300
feet southeast of the Project site, and 4 micrograms per liter at a well 255 feet southeast
of the Project site. No other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were detectable at
this facility. Based on the Project site's gradient, the direction of groundwater flows, and
the low levels of MTBE detected, the likelihood that MTBE from the Chevron facility has
migrated onto the Project site is very low. This opinion was corroborated by
groundwater sampling conducted at the Project site in 2006, which did not detect MTBE
in groundwater samples downgradient from the Chevron release. Further, the October
2005 Holguin Fahan & Associates report concluded that "MTBE concentrations are
consistent with the historic levels and show a general overall concentration downward
trend." Thus the concentrations identified above are likely to continue to decrease due
to the ongoing remediation activities at the Chevron site. Based on the reported
gradient and the proposed Project's proximity to the Chevron release, it is possible that
MTBE impacted groundwater has migrated onto the Project site, however, MTBE was
not detected in any current groundwater samples collected from borings at the Project.
I
A Shell station is located approximately 840 feet east I southeast of
the Project site. In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at
the facility to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs.
Monitoring and remediation of the Shell site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight
of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. In response to detection of
MTBE in 2001 and subsequent assessments, 32 9roundwater monitoring wells at
downgradient locations and a thirty-five cone penetration test location were installed.
Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling has been conducted at the facility since
2001. Remedial action was taken in the form of groundwater extractions between May
2002 and June 2003, resulting in the extraction of a reported 1.6 million gallons of
groundwater. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction
wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the facility as a
groundwater remediation system to minimize contaminant migration and to capture and
treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The
groundwater remediation was in use at the facility from July 2004 to August 2006, at
which time the system was taken off-line due to the reduction of MTBE in the Shell
station's 9roundwater monitoring wells network. No evidence has suggested that there
is any "rebound" in contamination levels. Nonetheless, based on reported groundwater
gradient in the shallow groundwater regime and groundwater sample analytical results,
MTBE impacted groundwater has the potential to be mi9ratin9 onto the Project site at
very low concentrations even though MTBE was not detected in any groundwater
samples collected from borings on the hospital site that are downgradient from the Shell
release.
I
I
An Arco service station (No. 5695) is located approximately 240
feet east of the proposed hospital site. Monitoring and remediation of the Arco site is
under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego Water Quality Control
Board. In 2002 a remediation system consisting of groundwater extraction pumps was
installed. In June 2003 three groundwater injection wells were installed along Dartola
Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the Project site. Since the third quarter of 2003
groundwater pumped from the proposed hospital site remediation system has been
treated and then reinjected using the three groundwater injection wells. These activities
minimized contaminant migration onto the Project site. Nonetheless, reported
groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results suggest that
MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to be migrating towards the proposed hospital site
as a result of the Arco release. However, MTBE was not detected in any 9roundwater
samples collected from soil borings B10 at the Project site, which is downgradient from
the Arco release.
I
In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was preformed in order to
assess the possible presence and concentration BTEX (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, total xylenes) and MTBE in the subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the
footprint of the proposed buildings at the proposed hospital site. Soil vapor samples
were collected from seven locations within the footprint of the proposed buildings.
Three additional samplin9 locations were located in the southwest portion of the
proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept any off-site MTBE groundwater plume
that may have been intruding onto the Project site. The samples collected reported no
detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory detection limits.
In July 2006, ten groundwater sampling locations were bored in the
vicinity of the Project site and in places most likely to intercept migrating MTBE
contaminated water. Samples were taken and analyzed in accordance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Method 8260B. MTBE was detected in groundwater
at boring B5 at a concentration of 1.3 migrograms per liter, which was the only boring to
have any detectable vac concentration.
In July 2007 SCS Engineers assessed the Project site to evaluate
shallow subsurface soil vapor. SCS Engineers conducted a soil vapor survey on July
16 and 18, 2007. Soil vapor samples were collected from 14 locations within the
proposed Project site. Additional soil vapor samples were taken on August 21 and 24,
2007. The soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with California Department
of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) guidelines. As set forth in the Supplemental EIR,
No MTBE or any other analytes were detected at concentrations above the laboratory
reporting limits.
I
The SEIR analyzes the potential health risk associated with
potential groundwater and soil vapor issues. Various scenarios were studied using the
DTSC Screening-level Model for Groundwater Contamination. Conservative
assumptions were used, such as the unrealistic but conservative assumption that MTBE
concentrations in groundwater would uniform across the proposed hospital site.
I
Assuming that the highest reported concentration of MTBE of 97
micrograms per liter from 2006 (which was measured to be reduced to 55 migrograms
per liter in that sample from April 2007), and conservative exposure assumptions, the
DTSC model indicated a less than significant cancer risk of almost one order of
magnitude below the typical risk threshold. The risk of non-cancer health effects is also
less than significant. Other scenarios considered 1.3 micrograms per liter as the
highest concentration potentially migrating from the east, which concludes even lower
levels of risk under the DTSC model.
Based on the information set forth in the SEIR and the various
technical sampling, analysis and modeling, the City Council finds that even assuming
unrealistic worst case contamination from sampling, health risks are less than
significant. Further, concentrations levels are likely to continue to decline and become
even less significant due to the ongoing remediation efforts at each of the three service
stations, which are being overseen by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the foregoing mitigation measures are
proposed to further ensure that no significant impacts will result from the construction or
operation of the Project.
I
Notwithstanding this less than significant hazardous impact,
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 will be implemented by the project applicant to
ensure the impact remains less than significant. Thus, if MTBE or VOCs are detected in
groundwater and vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings during
construction, any contaminated soils shall be handled and disposed of in compliance
with any local, State, and Federal regulations. Further, if any such contaminated soils
and or MTBENOC impacted soil is discovered during construction or prior to
construction, applicable mitigation will be implemented to address each discovery and
reduce any health risks to acceptable levels. With the implementation of applicable
mitigation measures, the impact will continue to be less than significant.
IV. Environmental Effects that Remain Sianificant and Unavoidable After
Mitiaation
In the areas of noise and traffic, there are instances where environmental
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These areas are
discussed below.
A. Noise.
The proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable noise impacts for:
a. Construction Noise
1. Findings
I
I
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Supplemental EIR. Mitigation includes:
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The following measures shall be
considered in the Project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts:
i. Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility
buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met
with windows and doors closed.
ii. Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the
hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal
Code.
iii. All construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with
properly sized mufflers.
iv. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far
as practicable from the surrounding residential properties.
I
v. The Project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept
complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned
mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1(a): The following measures shall be
required by the contractor of the Project in order to mitigate the significant impacts:
vi. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far
as practicable from the surrounding residential properties.
vii. In order to minimize the time during which any single noise-
sensitive receptor is exposed to construction noise,
construction shall be completed as rapidly as possible.
viii. The quietest construction equipment owned by the
contractor shall be used. The use of electric powered
equipment is typically quieter than diesel, and hydraulic
powered equipment is quieter than pneumatic power. If
compressors powered by diesel or gasoline engines are to
be used, they shall be contained or have baffles to help
abate noise levels.
ix. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained.
Poor maintenance of equipment typically causes excessive
noise levels.
I
I
x.
Noisy equipment shall be operated only when necessary,
and shall be switched off when not in use.
xi. Storage areas shall be located away from sensitive
receptors. Where this is not possible, the storage of waste
materials, earth, and other supplies shall be positioned in a
manner that will function as a noise barrier to the closest
sensitive receivers.
xii.
I
Public notice shall be given prior to construction identifying
the location and dates of construction, the name and phone
number of the contractor's contact person in case of
complaints, and the name and phone number of a contact
person at the City of Temecula in case of complaints. The
public notice shall encourage the residents to call the
contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person
rather than the police in case of complaint. Residents shall
also be kept informed of any changes to the schedule. The
contractor's designated contact person shall be on site
throughout project construction with a mobile phone. If a
complaint is received, the contractor's contact person and/or
the City's contact person shall take whatever reasonable
steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. If possible, a
member of the contractor's team shall also travel to the
complainant's location to understand the nature of the
disturbance.
2. Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas
would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various
pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise
ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made
and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment
generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying.
Noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise
at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's
ordinance limiting the hours of construction provides no mitigation of construction noise
during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from
construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest
residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the
south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level
of 65 dB by more than 3 dB. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents
adjacent to the Project site. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the
construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with this mitigation measure the
noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the
northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed Project site.
I
I
b.
Siren Noise
1. Findings
Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the EIR. Specifically, noise standards that can be enforced through a mitigation
measure do not apply in emergency situations and the social utility of loud sirens to
make way for emergency vehicles leads to the conclusion that no mitigation measures
are feasible.
I
2. Facts in Support of Findings
Traffic noise impacts generated by the proposed Project would be
less than significant. When ambulance siren noise is added to the equation, traffic
noise generated by the proposed Project would be considered a significant impact.
Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB. Also, residents along
emergency routes would be exposed to unmitigated maximum noise levels of about 94
to 117.5 dB(A) from ambulance sirens. However, the City does not regulate noise from
ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations and sirens
are needed in order to increase speed and efficiency in transporting those in some need
of medical treatment to hospitals so as to increase the possibility of effective treatment.
Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, the need for loud
sirens to improve emergency transportation efficiency leads to the conclusion that no
mitigation measures can or should be placed on this type of noise.
B. Traffic Impacts
Based on the established significance criteria, the following significant impacts
were calculated:
a. Direct Project Impacts
Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway
and Margarita Road. This is a direct impact because with the
addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from
LOS D to LOS E.
Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79 I Country Glen Way (Project driveway).
This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main Project
driveway and the Project is responsible for providing the north leg
of this intersection, which does not exist currently and will serve as
the Project access.
1. Findings
I
i.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or
I
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Supplemental EIR.
Specifically, as more fully discussed in the
Supplemental EIR, there are a number of planned
infrastructure improvements under way which will be
partially funded by the Project applicant through the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), City of
Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF), the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Program, and the Project's location in an assessment
district and/or Community Facilities District. To the
extent that the improvements have not been
completed by others, the hospital must complete
those improvements before the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy as provided for in the
various mitigation measures. The following mitigation
measures address the Project's direct impacts:
I
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79
between Pechanga Parkway and Mar9arita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79
South/Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield
Stage Road". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to
issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be
in place at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase
lA, the applicant shall fund the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement
agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf
of the City. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the
Year 2008.
In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the Project proposes three
access driveways, two on SR 79 and one on De Portola Road. The following
improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any
building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new
access driveways, on existing transportation facilities:
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2:
i. Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth
(north) leg of the SR 79/Country Glen Way. This intersection is
currently a signalized T-intersection. Modification of the current
signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg
serving the Project site and other related changes to geometry.
The project shall provide the following additional intersection
geometry:
I
ii.
A dedicated westbound right-turn lane on SR 79.
I
iii.
Dual eastbound left-turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left-turn
lanes and a shared through/right-turn lane in the southbound
direction exiting the Project site.
iv. Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be
located at the west boundary of the property and will provide
unsignalized right in/right-out only access. This 40-foot wide
driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane.
v. Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De
Portola Road will provide unsignalized right-in/right-out and
left-in only access. Left-turns out of the hospital shall be
prohibited. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one
inbound and one outbound lane.
vi. The hospital and other related buildings are located
approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by
parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be
provided to access each facility and to provide adequate
parking.
I
b. There are no feasible mitigation measures beyond 3.3-1 through
3.3-2 that would reduce the direct traffic impacts because no other Project specific
improvements would address the primarily regional circulation improvements necessary
to address impacts, many of which cannot be accommodated due to the fact that the
area is nearly built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained, as
discussed more fully in the discussion of cumulative impacts below.
2. Facts in Support of Findings:
I
As noted above, the Project is found to have direct significant
impacts at two intersections with the construction of Phase 2 of the
Project.
Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and
Margarita Road (Phase 2 Specific).
As indicated in the Supplemental EIR, the roadway segment of Highway
79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road under existing conditions
operates at LOS C with a v/c ratio of 0.724. On Project Opening Day Without the
Project which consists of Existing Conditions plus a 3% ambient growth rate for
three years, the LOS level will remain at C with a v/c ratio of 0.789. According to
the significance thresholds articulated in the Supplemental EIR, a project impact
is considered significant if there is an increase in the v/c ratio on a roadway
segment greater than two percent. Further, the significant impact is considered
direct if the Project causes a reduction in the LOS to below D. With the addition
of phase two of the Project, this roadway se9ment goes from a v/c ratio of 0.789
I
on Opening Day to a v/c ratio of 0.906, an increase of well over 2 percent.
Further, with this increase in vIe ratio, the roadway segment will operate at LOS
E resulting in a direct project specific significant impact. With the addition of the
cumulative impact noted below, this highway segment will be reduced even
further to LOS F with a vIe ratio of 1.530.
In an effort to reduce this impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 has been
required which will mandate traffic signal coordination efforts on Highway 79
between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road. With the implementation of
this measure, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
I
Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79 I Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) (Phase 2
Specific).
As indicated in the Supplemental EIR, the Highway 79, Country Glen Way
intersection currently operates at LOS A in the A.M. peak hour, and at
LOS B during the P.M. peak hour with a 5.0 second per vehicle delay for
the A.M. peak hour and a 10.1 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak
hour. This delay increases slightly at Project Opening Day Without the
Project to a 5.2 second per vehicle delay in the AM. peak hour and a 11.1
second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour with the LOS levels
remaining the same. As articulated in the Supplemental EIR, a significant
impact will result for intersections if the increase in the delay caused by
the Project at the intersection is greater than 2 seconds, and will be direct
if the Project causes a reduction in LOS to below level D. With the
addition of the Project the delay increases to 22.9 second per vehicle for
the A.M. peak hour and 34.1 seconds per vehicle for the P.M. peak hour
with the LOS levels both at level C. Although this increase in delay does
not constitute a significant impact, this impact is still considered to be a
direct project impact because if not for the project the improvements
required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would not be required.
b. Cumulative Impacts
I
Impact 3.3-3: SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps
Impact 3.3-4: SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps
Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 I La Paz St
Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 I Pechanga Pkwy
Impact 3.3-7: SR 79 I Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 I Avenida De
Missiones; SR 79 ICountry Glen Way; SR 79 I Redhawk Pkwy I
Margarita Road
Impact 3.3-8: SR 79 I Avenida De Missiones
I
Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 1 Country Glen Way
Impact 3.3-10: SR 791 Redhawk Pkwy 1 Margarita Rd
Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West of 1-15
Impact 3.3-12: SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway
Impact 3.3-13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita
Road
Impact 3.3-14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield
Stage Road
Impact 3.3-15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79
Impact 3.3-16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway
79
Impact 3.3-17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79
1. Findings
I
i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically, as more fully
discussed in the Supplemental EIR, there are a number of planned infrastructure
improvements under way which will be partially funded by the Project applicant through
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), City of Temecula Development Impact Fee
(DIF), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and the Project's
location in an assessment district andlor Community Facilities District. To the extent
that the improvements have not been completed by others, the hospital must complete
those improvements before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as provided for
in the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 SR 79/1-15 Southbound Ramps City
of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 1 State Route 79 South Interchange"
(Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the
interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to
the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is
secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matchin9 funds and
SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011.
I
Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79/1-15 Northbound Ramps City of
Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 151 State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public
Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange
shall be substantially underway through the desi9n review process prior to the City's
issuance of any encroachment permit for the Project. Note: Funding is secured
I
through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621
funds, and construction is expected in 2011.
I
Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula
CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway", which will
add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be
constructed prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in
Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the
improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other Projects. Note:
Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and
construction is expected to occur in 2008.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 79/ Pechanga Pkwy
City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway - Dual
Right- Turn Lanes", which will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on SR 79 at
Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project. If not completed by others, the
Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the
City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in
the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 /
Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita
Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal
Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed
prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of
the Project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements,
subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This Project will
improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 / Jedediah Smith
Road, SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road
intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the
Project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic
signal at the main Project driveway, prior to Project operation. Note: Funding is secured
through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79
City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway
Improvements - Phase II" - Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed
prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of
the Project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements,
subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This Project
will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is
secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program,
Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and
construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011.
I
I
Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road
to Highway 79. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact
that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional
circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way.
Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional
right-of-way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment.
Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic
impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at
acceptable levels of service, however, the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the
cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the
future.
I
Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway
79. The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any
City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are
feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no
additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the right-of-
way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the
ability to acquire additional right-of-way for additional circulation system improvements.
Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic
impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at
acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the
cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the
future.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency that has adopted, or can and should adopt such
changes. More specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 and Mitigation Measure 3.3-4
require coordination with Caltrans and are found potentially to be infeasible because
ultimately they are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not within the City of Temecula. Although it is expected that these mitigations
measures would be implemented by 2011, the City cannot guarantee that this will
occur.
3. There are no feasible mitigation measures beyond 3.3-3
through 3.3-10 that would reduce the cumulative traffic impacts because no regional
circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built
out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
I
As noted above, there will be significant cumulative impacts. The
Eastern Bypass, which is discussed in detail in the SEIR, is expected to eliminate all
significant project and cumulative impacts detailed below, with the exception of Impact
3.3-1, 3.3-13 and 3.3-14. However, because the timeframe for the construction of the
Eastern Bypass is expected to be 2025, it was not considered in the analysis at this
I
time because completion is expected too far in the future and thus is unduly speculative.
As a result, all of the following impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.3-3: SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps
Under existing conditions, the SR 79/1-15 SB Ramp will operate at LOS C
with a delay of 32.2 seconds per vehicle in the A.M. peak hour, and LOS D with a
delay of 37.5 seconds per vehicle in the P.M. Peak Hour. On Project Opening
Day Without the Project, the LOS level during the A.M. peak hour decreases to D
with a 40.6 second per vehicle delay and increases to E with a 56.9 second per
vehicle delay during the P.M. peak hour. Because the P.M. intersection is
already below D before the addition of the Project, and the increase in delay is
greater than 2 seconds between existing conditions and Opening Day Without
the Project, this impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the
Project. With the addition of the Project and other cumulative projects, the LOS
levels decrease to level F for both the AM. and P.M. peak hour with a 121.9
second per vehicle delay in the AM. and a 224.3 second per vehicle delay in the
P.M.
I
With the implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-3 which will add lanes
to the southbound ramp at the interchange and should be substantially underway
through design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment
permit for the project, the LOS levels for both the AM. and P.M. peak hour will
remain the same, but the delay will be reduced. During the A.M. peak hour
period the delay will be reduced to 84.5 seconds per vehicle delay, and to 160.9
seconds per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak period. Because the ability to
add lanes to the southbound ramp requires coordination with Caltrans, mitigation
measure 3.3-3 is deemed infeasible because the responsibility for the
southbound ramps is that of another agency and not the City of Temecula.
Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is
considered significant and unmitigable.
Impact 3.3-4: SR 79 /1-15 NB Ramps
I
Under existing conditions, the SR 79/1-15 NB Ramp will operate at LOS B
with a delay of 12.0 seconds per vehicle in the AM. peak hour, and LOS C with a
delay of 34.0 seconds per vehicle in the P.M. Peak Hour. At Project Opening
Day Without the Project, the LOS level for the AM. peak hour will remain the
same, but will decrease to LOS E for the P.M. peak hour with a 14.6 second per
vehicle delay in the A.M. peak hour and 63.1 second per vehicle delay in the
P.M. peak hour. Because the P.M. peak hour is already below D before the
addition of the Project, and the increase in delay is greater than 2 seconds, this
impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the project. With the
addition of the Project and cumulative projects, the LOS levels are reduced to
LOS F with an 80.9 seconds per vehicle delay in the AM. Peak hour and LOS F
with 298.2 second delay per vehicle in the P.M. peak hour.
I
With the implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-4, which will add lanes
to the northbound ramp at the interchange and should be substantially underway
through design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment
permit for the project, the LOS levels for the A.M. hour will change to LOS Band
for the P.M. peak hour to LOS E. The delay will also be reduced with the A.M.
peak hour at 19.0 seconds, and the P.M. peak hour at 70.4 seconds. Because
the ability to add lanes to the northbound ramp requires coordination with
Caltrans, mitigation measure 3.3-4 is deemed infeasible because the
responsibility for the northbound ramps is that of another agency and not the City
of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with
certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable.
Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 I La Paz St
I
The Highway 79 and La Paz Street intersection currently operates at LOS
B during the AM. peak period with a 13.3 second per vehicle delay, while during
the P.M. peak period it operates at LOS C with a 27.4 second per vehicle delay.
At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level for the AM. peak hour
remains the same with the delay increasing to 16.3 seconds per vehicle. During
the P.M. peak hour the LOS level decreases to level E with a 58.5 second per
vehicle delay. With the addition of the project and cumulative projects in the
area, the LOS levels decrease to F during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour
period with a 163.6 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. peak hour and a 318.5
second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour. Thus, both the AM. and P.M.
peak hour impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 will add a fourth through lane in each direction
on Highway 79 through La Paz Street. This addition of a fourth lane should be
constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in
Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed by other project applicants prior
to this time, the responsibility to finish construction will be the responsibility of
Universal Health Services to complete, subject to potential reimbursement by the
City or other projects. With the addition of this Mitigation Measure the
intersection will operate at LOS D with a 40.7 second per vehicle delay in the
AM. period and remain at LOS F with an 86.9 second per vehicle delay during
the P.M. peak hour. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible
mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-5 that would reduce this significant
cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be
accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary
right of way cannot be obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and
unavoidable even with mitigation.
Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 I Pechanga Pkwy
I
The Highway 79 and Pechanga Parkway intersection currently operates at
LOS C with a 23.3 second per vehicle delay durin9 the AM. peak hour period,
and at LOS E with a 73.9 second per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak hour
I
period. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the A.M. peak hour LOS
level will remain the same with an increase in delay to 26.6 seconds per vehicle.
During the P.M. peak hour the LOS level degrades to level F with a 109.7 second
per vehicle delay. Because the P.M. intersection is already below D before the
addition of the Project, and the increase in delay is greater than 2 seconds. this
impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the Project. With the
addition of the Project and the cumulative projects in the area, the LOS levels
degrade to LOS F during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour period with a 125.0
second per vehicle delay during the AM. and a 517.2 second delay during the
P.M. peak hour period.
The Supplemental EIR proposes Mitigation Measure 3.3-6. which will add
a second eastbound right-turn lane on Highway 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This
second eastbound lane should be constructed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not
completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finish construction will be the
responsibility of Universal Health Services subject to potential reimbursement by
the City or other projects. However, even with the imposition of this mitigation
measure, the cumulatively significant impact will remain significant and
unavoidable as the LOS level will remain at F for the P.M. peak hour with a 365.6
second per vehicle delay. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no
feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-6 that would reduce this
significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can
be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary
right of way cannot be obtained.
I
Impact 3.3-7: SR 791 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones; SR
79 ICountry Glen Way; SR 791 Redhawk Pkwy 1 Margarita Road
The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Jedediah
Smith Road is LOS B during the A.M. peak hour with a 10.5 second per vehicle
delay and LOS B during the P.M. peak hour period with a 15.6 second per
vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels will
remain the same, but the delay will slightly increase to 11.0 seconds per vehicle
during the AM. peak hour and 17.2 seconds per vehicle delay during the P.M.
peak hour. With the addition of the project and cumulative projects, the LOS
level is expected to decrease to LOS C in the AM. peak hour with a 30.7 second
per vehicle delay, and to LOS F in the P.M. peak hour period with a 123.5
second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the Project with the
cumulative projects causes the P.M. peak hour to decrease to F, and because
the delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively
considerable.
I
In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is
discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal
coordination along Highway 79, including the Jedediah Smith Road intersection,
the Highway 79 and Avenida De Missiones intersection, and the Highway 79 and
I
Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road intersection. In addition to the improved
signal coordination, the measure also mandates the construction of lane
geometry improvements and modifications to the existing traffic signal at the
main Project driveway. These modifications should be completed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project,
and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these
modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the Project
applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation
measures, the LOS level during the P.M. peak hour will be LOS E with a 75.3
second per vehicle delay and the impact during the AM. peak hour will be fully
mitigated. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation
measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative
impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due
to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be
obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
Impact 3.3-8: SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones
I
The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Avenida De
Missiones is LOS A during the A.M. peak hour with a 6.4 second per vehicle
delay and LOS A during the P.M. peak hour period with a 7.6 second per vehicle
delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels will remain
the same with the delay increasing slightly to 6.7 in the A.M. peak hour and to 8.7
in the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the Project and cumulative projects,
the LOS level is expected to degrade to LOS B in the A.M. peak hour with a 12.9
second per vehicle delay and LOS F in the P.M. peak hour period with a 95.3
second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the Project with the
cumulative projects causes the P.M. peak hour to degrade to F, and because the
delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively
considerable.
I
In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is
discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal
coordination along Highway 79, including the Avenida De Missiones intersection,
the Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection, and the Highway 79 and
Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road intersection. In addition to the improved
signal coordination, the measure also mandates the construction of lane
geometry improvements and modifications to the existing traffic signal at the
main Project driveway. These modifications should be completed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project,
and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these
modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the Project
applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation
measures, the LOS level during the P.M. peak hour will be reduced to LOS E
I
with a 60.6 second per vehicle and the impact during the A.M. peak hour will be
fully mitigated. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible
mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant
cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be
accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary
right of way cannot be obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and
unavoidable even with mitigation.
Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 / Country Glen Way
The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Country
Glen Road is LOS A during the A.M. peak hour with a 5.0 second per vehicle
delay and LOS B during the P.M. peak hour period with a 10.1 second per
vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels
remain the same, with the delay increasing slightly to 5.2 during the AM. peak
hour and to 11.1 during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the Project and
cumulative projects, the LOS level is expected to decrease to LOS E in the AM.
peak hour with a 77.3 second per vehicle delay and LOS F in the P.M. peak hour
period with a 244.6 second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the
Project with the cumulative projects causes the AM. peak hour to degrade to
level E and the P.M. peak hour to degrade to F, and the delay is greater than 2
seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable.
I
In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is
discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal
coordination along Highway 79, including the Country Glen Way intersection, the
Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection, the Highway 79 and Avenida
De Missiones, and the Highway 79 and Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road
intersection. In addition to the improved signal coordination, the measure also
mandates the construction of lane geometry improvements and modifications to
the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway. These modifications shall
be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building
in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed prior to this time, the
responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal
. Health Services, the project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the
City or other projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and
other related mitigation measures, the LOS level during the AM. peak hour
period will be LOS B with a 15.7 second per vehicle delay, and during the P.M.
peak hour will remain LOS F with a 131.5 second per vehicle delay. As provided
in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond
measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no
regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the
area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. Thus,
this P.M. peak hour impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
I
Impact 3.3-10: SR 79/ Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd
I
The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Redhawk
Parkway and Margarita Road is LOS C during the AM. peak hour with a 28.4
second per vehicle delay and LOS C during the P.M. peak hour period with a
32.1 second per vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the
LOS levels remain at C, but the delay increases to 30.8 during the A.M. peak
hour and to 34.9 during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the project and
cumulative projects, the LOS level is expected to degrade to LOS F in the A.M.
peak hour with a 178.0 second per vehicle delay and LOS F in the P.M. peak
hour period with a 264.0 second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the
Project along with the cumulative projects causes the AM. and P.M. peak hour to
degrade to F, and the delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered
cumulatively considerable.
In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is
discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal
coordination along Highway 79, including the intersection Redhawk
ParkwaylMargarita Road, the Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection,
the Highway 79 and Avenida De Missiones, and the Highway 79 and Country
Glen Way intersection. In addition to the improved signal coordination, the
measure also mandates the construction of lane geometry improvements and
modifications to the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway. These
modifications should be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed
prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the
responsibility of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, subject to
potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation measures, both the A.M.
and P.M. peak hour LOS levels will remain at F with a 142.5 second per vehicle
delay in the AM. peak hour and a 212.5 second per vehicle delay in the P.M.
peak hour. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation
measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative
impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due
to the fact the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be
obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
I
Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West of 1-15
I
The roadway segment of Highway 79 west of Interstate 15 currently
operates at LOS A with a vIe ratio of 0.578. At Project Opening Day Without the
Project, the LOS level decreases to B with the vIe ratio at 0.630. With the
addition of the Project and other cumulative projects in the area, the LOS level
will further degrade to E and the vIe ratio will increase to 0.953. Any increase in
vIe ratio of greater than 2 percent is considered to be significant. Because the
addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the LOS level to
degrade to level E, and the vIe increase is greater than 2 percent, the impact is
considered cumulatively considerable.
I
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 which will
add lanes to both the northbound and southbound ramps of Highway 79 the
traffic flow on this segment of highway will greatly improve. However, because
the ability to add lanes to the southbound and northbound ramps requires
coordination with Caltrans, mitigation measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 are deemed
infeasible because the responsibility for the ramps is that of another agency and
not the City of Temecula. Because the cumulative impact at this roadway
segment cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and
unmitigable.
I
Impact 3.3-12: SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway
The roadway segment of Highway 79 between Interstate 15 and
Pechanga Parkway currently operates at LOS F with a vIe ratio of 1.440. At
Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at F with the vIe ratio
at 1.569. This is considered to be a significant cumulative impact without the
addition of the Project because the roadway segment is below level D prior to the
addition of the Project and the increase in vIe ratio is greater than 2 percent.
With the addition of the Project and the cumulative projects in the area, the
roadway segment will remain at LOS F with a vIe ratio of 2.288.
Mitigation Measures 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 which will add a fourth through lane
in each direction on Highway 79 through La Paz Street, and will add a second
eastbound right-turn lane on Highway 79 at Pechanga Parkway will mitigate this
cumulative impact but not to a level of insignificance. The modifications specified
by these mitigation measures should be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if these
modifications are not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize
these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the
Project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other
projects. Even with implementation of these mitigation measures the roadway
segment will continue to operate at LOS F with a vIe ratio of 1.718 therefore
constituting a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. As provided in the
Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measures
3.3-5 and 3.3-6 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no
regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the
area is built out and the necessary right-of-way cannot be obtained.
Impact 3.3-13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road
I
The roadway segment Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and
Margarita Road currently operates at LOS C with a vlc ratio of 0.724. At Project
Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level remains at C with the vIe ratio
increasing to 0.789. With the addition of the Project and the other cumulative
projects in the area, the roadway segment will operate at LOS F with a vie ratio
of 1.530. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes
I
the LOS level to degrade to level F, and because the increase in vIe ratio is
greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable.
Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other
related miti9ation measures, the LOS level and vIe ratio will remain the same.
Thus, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. As
provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures
beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact
because no re9ional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the
fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be
obtained.
Impact 3.3-14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road
The roadway segment Highway 79 between Margarita Road and
Butterfield Stage Road currently operates at LOS B with a vIe ratio of 0.635. At
Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level remains at B with the vIe
ratio increasing to 0.692. With the addition of the Project and the other
cumulative projects in the area, the roadway segment will operate at LOS F with
a vIe ratio of 1.111. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative
projects causes the LOS level to rise to F, and the increase in vIe ratio is greater
than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable.
I
Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7, the LOS and
vIe ratio will remain the same. Thus, this cumulative impact is considered
significant and unavoidable. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no
feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this
significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can
be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary
right-of-way cannot be obtained.
Impact 3.3-15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79
The roadway segment of Pechanga Parkway, south of Highway 79
currently operates at LOS F with a vlc ratio of 1.258. At Project Opening Day
Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at F with the vIe ratio increasin9 to
1.371. Because the LOS level is already below D before the addition of the
Project, and the increase in vIe ratio between the existing conditions and the
Opening Day Without the Project is greater than 2 percent, this impact is
considered to be a cumulative impact without the project. With the addition of the
project and other cumulative projects in the area, the LOS level will remain at F,
but the vIe ratio will increase to 2.053.
I
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 which will add a third through lane on Pechanga
Parkway in both directions will cause a decrease in vIe ratio, but not to a level of
insignificance. Thus, even with mitigation, the LOS level will remain at F and the
vlc ratio will slightly decrease to 1.299. Therefore, this cumulative impact is
I
considered significant and unavoidable. As provided in the Supplemental EIR,
there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-8 that would
reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation
improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and
that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained.
Impact 3.3-16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79
The roadway segment of Margarita Road from De Portola Road to
Hi9hway 79 currently operates at LOS C with a vlc ratio of 0.730. At Project
Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at C with the vie ratio
increasing to 0.796. With the addition of the Project and other cumulative
projects in the region, the LOS level decreases to F with a vie ratio of 1.050.
Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the LOS
level to degrade to F, and because the increase in vie ratio is greater than 2
percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this cumulative
impact. As discussed in the SEIR, the City examined capacity enhancements,
but determined none were feasible because of the limitations within the existing
right-of-way. As such, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
I
Impact 3.3-17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79
The roadway segment of Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 70
currently operates at LOS C with a vie ratio of 0.702. At Project Opening Day
Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at C with the vIe ratio increasing to
0.765. With the addition of the Project and cumulative projects, the LOS level
deteriorates to F with a vie ratio of 1.074. Because the addition of the Project
with the cumulative projects causes the LOS level drops to F, and because the
increase in vie ratio is greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered
cumulatively considerable.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this significant
cumulative impact other than the requirement that the Project applicant pay the
City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula
encroachment permit. As discussed in the SEIR, the City examined capacity
enhancements, but determined none were feasible because of the limitations
within the existing right-of-way. As such, this impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
I
V. Project Alternatives.
The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as discussed in the Final
EIR and Supplemental EIR. Because the prior legal challenges did not contest the
validity of the Final EIR alternative analysis, and because a previously unavailable
alternate site became available during the pendancy of the legal challenges, the
I
Supplemental EIR examines only a new Alternative Seven, which consists of an
alternative site alternative at the Former Temecula Education Center. For the reasons
provided below, this alternative has been considered and rejected.
Section 1. ALTERNATIVE SEVEN: ALTERNATIVE SITE ALTERNATIVE -
FORMER TEMECULA EDUCATION CENTER ALTERNATIVE
A Summary of Alternative
I
The Alternative Site Alternative, Former Temecula Education Center
Alternative considers an alternative location for the proposed Project. The former
Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and
Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek, is approximately 40 acres in
size, and is located within the City, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the
northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously the subject of
applications proposing use of the site as an education complex, including an education
center, a research and development/conference center, a day care facility, retail
facilities, apartment units and associated parkin9. The Temecula Education Center
project has been withdrawn frorn further consideration by the City and thus the site is
potentially available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the
proposed Project. Access to the Temecula Education Center site is via Diaz Road, via
either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include
open space to the north, Murrieta Creek and open space to the east, business park
Iwarehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa
Plateau to the west. This site is currently owned by the City of Temecula and all
properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the Project to proceed. A
Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit would be required.
I
B. Reasons for ReiectinQ Alternative
This alternative site, similar to the proposed Project site, would not have a
significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services,
recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar
Project, and all other provisions of the proposed Project would be implemented.
Alternative Seven has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use
compatibility impacts due to the less intense development in the vicinity of the alternate
site, whereas the proposed Project does not. Noise impacts associated with this
alternative could be less than the proposed Project due to slightly shorter helicopter
trips and the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which
would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource
impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Traffic impacts would be slightly
worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the Project.
Further, this alternative would attain each of the Project objectives set forth by the City
of Temecula and the Project applicant, as provided in the Supplemental EIR, outside of
using the actual site as currently proposed.
I
Although Alternative Seven would meet each of the objectives set out by
the City of Temecula and the Project applicant, it has the potential to result in adverse
aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, and increased traffic impacts.
The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above
constitutes an independent ground for rejecting Alternative Seven as infeasible and by
itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative Seven as
infeasible.
Section 2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Even with the addition of Alternative Seven, the Supplemental EIR
identifies, and the City Council concurs that Alternative Six, Construction of Hospital
Only, discussed more fully in the Final EIR, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
However, because that Alternative would not meet the applicant's objective to provide a
regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care,
rehabilitation, and medical offices because of the fact that it would result only in
construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or
any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant's objectives, it is rejected.
Section 3. THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED
I
A
Summary of Project
The Project is described in detail in both the EIR and the Supplemental
EIR.
B. Reasons for SelectinQ Proiect as Proposed
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental
impacts of Alternative Seven described in the Supplemental EIR and has compared it
with those of the proposed Project. The City Council also relies on the prior accuracy of
the alternative analysis which was not legally challenged and remains valid. This
analysis of Alternative Seven together with the previous alternative analysis in the Final
EIR is adequate for CEQA purposes, and the City Council finds that Alternative Seven
is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons.
The City Council further finds, for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or
other reasons set forth in Exhibit B that the Project as proposed is the best combination
of features to serve the interests of the public.
I
I
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with
the proposed approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project (the "Project").
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal,
social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental
risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable.
CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons
for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such
reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the
administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse
environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
I
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project
outweigh the significant and unavoidable short-term, long-term and cumulative air
quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of
emergency helicopter flights identified in the Final EIR, siren noise, construction noise,
and direct traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts identified in the SEIR and in the
record. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project
against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those
adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the
Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project
notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project.
A The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been
imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent
feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while
they generally have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the
benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully
described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification
of Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to biomedical,
research, and office facilities.
I
C. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide superior, easily
accessible necessary medical services to the local community, including but not limited
to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation
services. Southwest Riverside County in general, and the City of Temecula specifically,
is in need of new and expanded hospital facilities to enhance the ability to provide
medical services to the area which continues to experience substantial population
growth and related increased demand for medical services.
I
D. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with
new employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers.
E. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access
from a major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and
the region.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated.
The City Council further finds that each of the individual Temecula Regional Hospital
benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR and SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is
sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental
impacts.
I
I
I
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograrn
Final Supplemental EIR - SCH # 2005031017
Prepared for:
City ofT emecula
January 2008
I
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplernental EIR - SCH # 2005031017
Prepared for:
City ofT emecula
January 2008
I
9191 T<MnEl Centre Dive
SUI. 340
Sal Diego, CA 92122
858.63&0900
WWW.es3SSoc.com
Los Angeles
OaI<lend
-
PoI1land
rESA
~
Sacrnmento
San Frandsco
Seattl.
I
Tampa
W09dIald His
. 207434
I
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
I
Pursuanllo Section 21081.6 ofthe Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15097, a public agency is required to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for
. assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed
development. As stated in the Public Resources Code:
'.. .the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions
which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid
significant environmentat affacts. .
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for inplementing mitigation monitoring programs
and indicates that specific reporting andlor monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project
implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of the EIR. The public agency may
delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or a private entity,
which accept delegations. The lead agency, however, remains responsible for ensuring that
implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the program.
The mmgation monitoring table below lists mitigation measures required of the project in order to
reduce the significant effects of the project. These measures may also be included as conditions of
approval for the project. These measures correspond to those discussed in Sections 3.1 through
3.3 of the Draft EIR; and reflect any revisions in this document. To ensure that the mitigation
measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the
timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The applicant will have the responsibility for
implementing the measures, and the various City ofTemecula departments will have the primary
responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.
This Mitigation Monlloring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is set up as a compliance report, with
space forconfioning the correct mitigation measures have been implemented for the Temecula
Regional Hospital project. In order to sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation
measures, the matrix below has been prepared with the foliowing components:
. Mitigation measure
. Monitoring phase
. Enforcement agency
. Monib:Jring agency
. Action Indicating Compliance
. Verification of Compliance (for use during the reporting/monitoring)
. Infoonation pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary modifications
and refinements wili be documented In the verification of compliance portion of the matrix. The
mitigation matrix foliows this section.
I
T emecula Re90naI HospiIaI
MitilJatlon Monitoring and Reporting ~am
1
ESA/0207434
January 2008
I .II i I
I I
" ~ l----------J------------------.. n
u ;;, ~~
Ii lil..
'& . H
~ ' , !
~ I
(J i
"0 c !
c
0
! 1
@ :i
~ .,
.5 1
.. I
e I~~ _e
-3
lie 01> I
~8. llE",
'i.l! Icl!!~ e-li E
c... ~ ...."
c:E "go.
0.0 lIc
j:? =0
u wo. w -i
Z <C :=;
0
~ "
J u .. .. I
Ii liZ-cE ~~'E:t:
:t CD_Q)QJ ~51~ I
-CI .. ~ 5 K~
Wo c t~.E II t-E.2.,
010: "C 00.~21 _E~o.
~:'; .g I~(J 2l ';8 .'j
c _ "
ii:Z 0. ,CJ 0
OI~ :E I
I 00
:e... .. ..
~ll! 1! l"liz-EE hi"ll
"i;' "'E ~ ~
00 ic E"o. E3a.E
Ci~ e" I~~h ~Eot: N
0." 'O~l~
::!" _<c
e /&013" ~OIJQ
:S~ w _ Cl
I.>
=>0
Ufio
w-
:eZ ; :- -
wO Ie c
1.2 a o.e
...:;; -" .- D-
o. In_ . nil
z .. '.5 tl '2
0 c ...5 1;;2
~ ;: ~~ a~
.g ~8
CI c
;: 0.
:Ii o. o.
i !
1- ~ t: ca " U)"t:J ~ ~
l: D Ql ~ 'l5" I 00
10"';(0 0 . ~~=~~ S~~C gc ~~&
I~H;; .E-g~~
II) n'I 0)- Ql .9! (lJ cE o12i~t~i~~~>m 3~~
,iW &81 E'B '5 S'g ~~El~I~5E~~!=~~~~
iiI~! ~~H~!lQi ~! ~ ,.8 ~~-5 ~ ~~ ~~ ~i()~
~ 1:0 U)((Jf!:sl1l'3 .-"C Q.~'ia i~ c:s "'0 at ~c.U)~
- ... In:5....'E;.9 IV ~IOQ.~~IO~gi~wulOe~1J
Q ~ ~~i~g.J ~ Gi~ tf~!~,Q c='O otO~= 8:n:~
e --.. "ill !.. o c.. -o'_O~ I-en'lm j
.. ffilgm~is~I:=;...t~l~
Q 1~~jj~1U :ii{~ ll)~
c "t::Q,OIl~-OO Q)_
i: I~'" e Q.~.5'E- g l:j ~Q)~~~~~~~;2~E8~~o
8. "'~EE:;'E@~ !! NSI~IUc._~=_a~cc ~~ !!'
. l~ ~ 8 :g e S ~~ 0; fii .~IUll)~w~~m~~ -mi~m Ii
'" '"" c.. ~ .c u ~2>~~SS~~ ~Ei~>W0
~ .....c-g::!8.<; ~-= eg~KO~~~E~e~~E[~~
c e
. e:~ CLlIU. m o~ to
" =ae4f~;f~i'EO')E ~ w O&~8B_~Si8~~~
c ill 1!~~~e~~~~B~~=~gij
:e CU-1j. .... co II)
.. . 1:.c.!!!cu~~CLl~ii~ Ic~....CLl~U~i!~CU~a~.~ if
I il :Ii E 1:2'ioo';;13 s.cj:a ~b.eti~5~ ='.E1ii..5CU::::~
" c " !c&.w"O_~o 'O...~ C -~~ .il~.!!'s2'lll!"-
0. ii: 0') <<:1- ~ -
c o :Jm.c-1Ji:-e- B5! Oi~D~CLlcm__o~~
1ii ;:I = <tI cum m
<I W & ~j ~ e ~ 8 4; 8. ~ a a:I I 5lB....aoccJ!.,,(;' Ii
... ~ ID ~ g c.g W =a = a. E E ~ ~ a.~ c "":
m J= tJa.a.c.._ va. = :Jcmcc~~tO_O E:JmN
" !i .. _~.-o If)<IlC'ClU) W Ii t: e. 8~ ell' 8 Q. ,~.O~ 0 0 llOJc:l
" :IE :E... -gG; g..:s:c~'6~:C Q) ~ . _ ..c;;:;. co ..,. 00, (.) ~ .... ~,... {!."
I
I
I
I
i7
z
o
~
,J
-Cl
Wo
Ulcx:
~:;
...~
Ul~
00
:z:...
;;!W
zcx:
00
C;~
WCl
CX:z
:502
ag
Wz
~o
l!!~
z
o
~
Cl
i=
i
E
!
~
..
'"
E
"
o
~
.,!!
..-
ti
'"
.~
I!
c
.~
,!i
i
:i
~
.!I
Ci.
e
o
U
"0
c
o
'"
II
"
"i::
::
'"
e
-3
lie
=6..!!
.50..
68
iiU
'"
E
Ell'
..e
e"
<!~
e
w
!
i
I
I
i
L
I
I
I
!
Q
.
..
II
.E
Il;i~
li;€
.e""
~g>>>
,,--
C;!!.l!
,il.
il'
e
&
'"
'"
C
"i::
S
C
o
:;;
~!
~"c
"'..
"E
t! li~
~ ",g.
QC"
>.:gc
""=
'O~
Ij2>5C
i" C E ~
tJ::S a..e
...-E.9ca
_EGJo.
oOi)tJ
~ooo
o
..
"
..
.e
..
'"
e
1:
,g
C
o
:;;
,
i_
la c
,i3.Q
1st!
,..s
I~~
r-
, 0
I. ~
!!'E
1i1 0
i;~
'" '"
!~1
1"i'O
'.2"
i-r.
'02 i
I~I~
loPS [
"c.s
..-c
!"M !l
"..=
li~~
,:Ii 8:
I~JJ;
,,/"!l1U
oS at;::, OJ
o 1~~E
Z 12 ~ E
e
"
..
::
:;;
c
o
'"
..
~
j
--J---
I
I
,
I
i
-g "On;
:! ~~ ~ ~l; 0
'a~ 8 = as 0:2 :: 6
a'013Bo ii :8!! ~J
-::E!!'a~ c~ =2' 08
.g~8..c:O .e",!! Ec
"C E:"g '" GJ lU.!!! vi
Ii) moo "'5 .9- CIlI ~ It) g.l!!
.=-;;c=~>- ;::I "'Eo O~::I
6- 01'>.0 g. l:.c8=
~.g~1j?' c~~iJ CO GJ
1:~.g ~E ~'S.c:,,~ ! E E
c s:: - ~'E5
=a;':<,gc~~EEE "'8~..-
"'S 8."8,,".!!-0 ~
61Q=.6f1l0"C~ 5-01:: e-g~
l;::I c J: f! ~!."2 toO QJ S ~ '" E
~coi 8'0 co~13.g 0$-0
:g CoO E 'tJ "2:Y c ! 11 CJ 8'&"
~E.8 ii::Hes~ aH
B;i,gck 2o.Cllc."iEC
]i.&..:!!HH hh'~ ~
-nb-OtJCDO >.....8.c.a.~
ai=u5.E=EO];.!!!J!j?Il9lo
~.e!g~.s~~e=~rJQ.F~.g
.
.
.
.
n
o.
_ 0
m~
!
!"i
Ii
c
o
Z
..
'-~2>5ic
'CE 0)
" g.E
t!E.Q1ij
'05!i
~occ
I"
!
Ii ~cc
m:t::-lUcu
IHit
,oo! "
I~"oo
I"
i ---I
l-~-
'0 ..
u~
s!!
~8.
80
I
!
! lD
!dl" 01-'"
l~lb~>-Eg ~'O
!O ~ IU ~ ~ 0 G) ~ 8.
~e~~.~~~~~
t- Q,! C:"E..&::!E"
"Ii:5~hde.:S
~ts g>e a>;.€-;; 5
~.s"CQ.C-fll.8
2w~S5:fli:2~
,'" a C)z.'O.!l:3:J l'O
iil!~'1l i5.HI' ~c.
I~ 0 C'E g c4.,) n
..ea~c:~~~i
IN;;'I= G) On-... E
,~,gl,)!ti=~'we
'....S..22"'83
e,C cn_1i)-c C a=f'
~-:~-gc:a(;'.!!!!'
=2' ClJ8 ti:JC:
,~'" 1;.'=. E i e>~,g
':&.e c: I'll 0-0 CJl fll ~
1c:::-:8'1:1~cEE~
.!!1l"~"cil"PE
l-c,~(lJC; Ec
';.~~(I)~ ~b:i g:i
:= 'E- 0 -g m is Ro e .0
12 0 C co. ... .c (lJ C ~ C
'"
E
1
:
l!.
I~
x~
If
.."
.. <
Ii
~~
I
I
I
~
~
.0.
a
o
"
o
~
.
'"
."
Ii
a
.e
II
8
"
o
o
=
.
8
.:;s
;::
z
o
!:!.
!
e;"
Wo
01 Ill:
~~
-z
...-
OIl;:
00
%...
~::!
00
(;~
::!"
j~
~g
Wz
==0
l!!==
z
~
"
i=
ii!
3
"
.!I
..
E
o
"
'0
"
o
B
~
~
'"
"
-3
j"
...s
.5'ii
"E
00
tl"
<
E
....
Ill!
e"
o~
"l!
w
~
j
I
l
~
i
~
l~
'"
'm-
'-"~
ISa.
f.i
I~
'..
'~,1;'iE
~l:;E~
4l E 8-1::
t EJ~
OOIllGJ
~ooc
fO
H
-!
~~
I
I..
1"il..E E
~H~
1-~.2C11
Ie 0 ~ Ii
I~c) a 0
lu
r::-----
'c
1.2
'0
~
c
o
o
i>
a.
...
ra .J::.!2
~ Iii ~ ~ ~b
tJ)-S: ~ .0 m....
"-5VJ . as J2Eal
~.t'Eo~i$~CIlI).c...co8'
ri-t= ?;>COGJI-ij2
€ J:a.g ~~ c: ~~'O k=~
~~ g.Q.gto.~~ ~~~ rJ l)
U)'O Q.J ;-~.E 5ii1.o0~~>-
~OF~""oa1i"EO~
I u.,g~~_.E:S ~=
a::: c.'o-'!!o 0 t6E~ =~..E
Vlo'O ~CQ)OO i::~_
iJ ~.!! g 0>1; -- 8 :e ~ c:
iE.a::: ~ i,g~ ~m c"2~ ~
:g ~ ~ E r- 3 i CD ~ ~ 8..!! ~
4losQJ'S-(,)=w~~5e
ll.OOH- tl....tC1 aol;;;...~Q.
O'jij:g'O_&uo~i: f:2..;.5
.!!l &>~ ,1;' ..~ 11 U il"ll ~ 1!
a~~~li55f6E~~~
~i:m~'6G)i.E~S:~I5
f-ea~l!:6_[JJi5~"'ii '+;I I
~ol-::gcJ2-ocEE~~~ '
'CI Q)... tU::J -- 4) 0 Co I
~~g ~~i! ~~D.~.8 at E
OD::CI) a..!!CI):;:::u~~ tOSS 8 . I
I
-I
!I
-11
~.
"t~
"'~
r
J
>-'"
I
Q
.!l
..
'"
:li
il'
"
..
:
'"
"
"C
S
;;
o
:Ii
.
=
~
a.
..
.E
S
;;
o
:l!
e
"
"
..
..
"
"
o
1ii
~
i
i
IL
""
Ih
g..
,0::0
I"~
.~f"
Ill)
10
Il!ico
I-a.
'::co
l~ l?
':l~
e ..
"a.
~"
81
" I" '"
c ....."
1; 1.9'a::co
i,; t=w 0
.... j:E.cr:
,
..(.' .. . .. ... n. ....__...._.__.....__.~._. ...._._.~___,......__....~. __..._ _ ,,"' . ...____....___..._.__....._...._._.._.....__mm._._...._.
I
.I
~
E
rJ.
;~
_f
t\~
..
u
c
.!!
g !
o 0
't;
c
o
~ 01
i =
> .5
go
;;
';;
"'=
of
!l~
c
- ..
..: ~
m
Z .!!
0
e.
.J ..
!i~ic
-Cl Lo.~
Wo c (!!. e ot::
"'..: "i: '6al~
~~ s
C ~ooa
-z 0 0
"-- ::E
"'~
I 00
x"- ..
~1l1 ~z.cE
ll)- CLlll)
00 EsEe
Cl~ c ~ CLt::
I- .2cu ..,
wCl 'Oog!i} ----l
O:z ~o~c
::Sa: 0
::10 ~---_.
Uk:
Wz c
:!io "
l!:!2 13
z 2
0 -E 1! I
~ "
S "I
Cl c ~
;:: 0 ..
~ :;
----~
u C) - '0 - QI >.
5. Ql -~ OJ m"C II; C 4) i'c=
m>' €S ~~ ~ ~~ 0 o~= _~~ll) ,
a;~ ~ ~ ~"CE~ ~ ll) ~~o ~"C0~ !
....c ~~~fr !~I~ ffif!l ft~i~ ;~!! I
..:..
me;
a~ ~ :e cc.- co. Cii "'ou C1'10 --
~CI'ISs m~~~ oc9~ ~~E~c ~~>.~ I
~ _ c ~~~ ~ EC~~ ~5~w ~~~~~ ~~~m 1
..~
f~ =-= CLIO co_ 0 II; _m>- 'amID .-0 I
.. m~E~Ql ~ 20 >-o~m m-~ ~ ~mm~
e a. e::"C :i:[35:a ~~c .o~.;~ .o:5e:n
n. ~!@ZI~fi~I~. ~~~IJ:~~~! i~~~ E
.. ~ I
C 15'" ~6moa.~~E~"C ~5~~~~Bu~~ S~~U I
."
.. ..m __ - ~"C 0 \DC >m 0-_=
0. ~ "" c09~mo5~wc ~~i"~oe~~o ~8~CLI ~
u ~aima&~~m5 ~0~~~~a.C-~ ~ ll)m
'" ....5
." .. 0::_ ~Bi~~&~~~~ ~$~~~&j~t~ ,,~Nft. if
C l! l! mo
.
'.. " ~ g~ SEa.i~U ~.5 cQl~o~C"~Gn ~~im~
C co : a~~~a*i~~CI'I O!c.oo8-~~~m~iS~
'C .. lt~ %2'
I ~ .. 'fl~cl!~~~=~ !;;'l~:~~~i~~i~[ II
::E .. :;
0 c c c U Gl:.!1D --Cl) c: ; "s::fo "'i'DD.E ~G1
" 0 jti~=~~~~~~~G~21~1I)6~~ ~!s~e~
c 0 U 0
,~ '.ii u iii .6Cl) ~~.2c{o'_.!!ii~.5!~ o.2:Cl.:Eg-~~CDC.~Q.g it
E '" "i:~ eru~ ~ "'10- .a""210l0-C t=Q.CD.8't."1
~ E ~ E o-l! ~2~Cl)~~OO Q..Q~ruEC ~~'t."IO ru~ ru h
E
:; :l! ::E . ~.sl'\JfDC) . . .
I .ll
~ ;1
~ ~
~ ~ -~
.. B --_._---------------~-------~--~----_._-~ m~
~
c ~
"
! E S
~ 0 8
0
~ "6 ~-----
c "
;g 0
" ~
0 ..
" !E "iii
c E
0 ~
= .5
..
~
'"
"
-"
0"
~h
..0..
~gQ.
~ .!!!c
..: "'
z
0 --_.------
~
:E ..
o:~ i~~E
cE~
_CI ,,"a.
WO .5 ..... E.2 Ul
0>0: S 15 EcP 0.
;a! II. z.8~i'l
t:CI '" ._ C
1I.~ 0 u
0> Ii: :!
I 00
xII. 0
~l:! B.z:.i=c
G)_CIllO)
00 E 5 [E
Ci~ ~Eot::= CD
wCI '0 g~ g.
O:z ~oQ)c
._ c
:Sa: u
::)0 ---~ ----------
ot:
Wz "
20 0
j!!:E ,1l
z ,~
0
~ 0
CI ~
;:: 0.
:i! --------
Ii! " (0 c:: tti 5~
D.c en c,g ~ (l--
- .e-
10 -OlD '0 (l)~ -tIS Cb .... Q)~
'" '-~.e-::5 IJ.. C .Q ,g.5P '0 CD II n:l:O
[.8 H~{~ :EfV...._ ~~~E.Qj1&40
'.c ::l.g::: 00 .s c'ScPou. 5
';; ~~~~~~~l~i~a~il~
f~ ~'!'!.!!""f
E:E"O.!Q) .j!! "'- [~~~ ~ 5 >-~ ",,"
I~ ;-~-gEa. u..Ej.e '~i.ao Cb Qccn
"ll;:-=8~ -n15' ~ s iPU()~fiiCllC:
o~cP~~os'O~:5~~ClI~c8
~"~,,~ fiE~~~g!~~~~aisB~ E
~-fjD I
I~ ~co-=t) ~e.!!'2-g5~i"":~lDc~.5~:S
U'fij~~ :5 CD l: m Ul~g>'2o ;;;:lS:~,- (l).Qi'E
.~l:iiN'''' G 0
~ ~~~~i~~~~j2~~:i5 Ii
.. 5.-:S~ &5$ :if
.. e !k~u)~~ ~,!!2<'l Q.C ~-gg" _
$ 0"''' n;~~O.5~;iP~8~i~~~ Ii
" .!!&jd~'O'
I i '''B8 i3~.!l<i..li jligE!l E ~
I a~N- 8 -~
~ " ~*~~~ ~(()-g Q) S CD~.5 ;: ir:-j UB ~ 8
'-flit'G::E5i2'GJS- c:~ !! ti
C 0 " ~~~6~ ~Eni~&~~ew~
.!! .. 0 l-~clQ= .
1i .. jiw ~oc:~ c~~EE~mw GJme U
IE ~~ '5 (lJ ~ a..;; tl .. am~m~e G)uo~~~fi_
~~~E~t 41. CI .....Q. f)G)O= 0)0 ~
- ~ =.. O;N~8~~~6~~~~~ci~
i ::ill: o ~o Co z~o~ m~~u~~~m~? ~ ...:1
I
I
I
~
,.:
z
o
E.
~!
-Cl
Wo
....:
<i!A.
t:Cl
A.z
..1=
0":
:1;0
~~
00
i5~
WCl
":z
:Sa:
:>0
U""
W-
::;;Z
wo
....::;;
Z
o
~
Cl
E
::;;
e
e
F
"-
If
"
o
~
.
'"
"2
.
'"
j
c
o
:>
c
o
~
.
~
:>
J!
:;
E
~
_ ___n I
i
I
----------1
I
,
i
,
I
I
i
,
I
~.
~~
lil<-
c.
:< ~
13~
~ ~
"0
c
c
'"
8 J!
~ f
I
r
,
~-
IH"
,e: <<s E
li' __
i~~iE
I~~~i
1'0 a ~ ~
1>.01)0
113 0
,
Ih]ji(
I~ 5 [€ i
~~~m ,
~E~~ I
I~." ___n______u_~
tR I
IU !
!E I
'15 I
~ t
I~ I
I
o w c: ~ O~ ,
I GJ.l:: C/) C.g - __'" I
~ ~ ~:m ~. m~ -~ m~ ~m~ J
!s 'f':"~O-:::~ U-e -'2-5 ~Ol -CQ)Ctll::o:;. I
!~ Q)C;O~ ~~.~ ~-C 02Eb~~~~~~ ,
'I€ 3~~~~ ~~i!~~~i~jie~l~j I
I~::;;;c, j g; 1J ~ t ~ ~ g. B ~ fa. f5 ~ 2J:a 0 B f 5 ~ II
.. C_~~I) ~~~l)e~fiQ)~!c>,~ a~B
z~~En ~GJ~p~~ o~numDC0
"D"'- 81: ~ ti U - Gi .$ li CD t5 G) ~ ii lIS c:
~~j! O~&~; =~m~~5mfi~8
,~ ~~ti~ ~E~~52~m~~e~~~!0l I
:a:: Cl m - - ::1m III '0 'U (;:;::> '0 . ~ Co c: u 1: 5.6 I
'I~ .~c~,,~~~~. P~-C:C:~~Cl__~~~'_C:~
.. ~. ~ :-_ co lJ .c .... c: m IlJ Q. 0)'0...... 0..1...... a .- (I) DJ'E
II c.E &ii j~:8~l!!a~.2~j:a_s:6"ii~ !
'I"e" l1.~ld:ii~ a-g.6t'i~!a=~~afg~1O~~2 I
~~~ro ~~w~~a=~~~_a=~u~io
11::s OO,",:~_ ~j?8!!o'-~~~&!8co8.'t:J9'E I
1= .!!!{/)o,&o ..!!]! ii5.8 -2:5=~gE!l~"E
G u~N=8 mw~m~ i~~~~ ::s
"0 i:Ec " . " c .s. .. - c B .-" ~ :E ~ ~" ;Ii u tl I
c I ~~:i~~ "Ol3 --o-ge~o'ii1D=::!(;)
~ '1-_~DlOE. ~~E~~'. ~~1j~~:~1~~~~j~~~ I,
~ ~ ~s::s~~u .. _CO~~~O~~uO~CO-fi-
I! - ~ m 3 E ~~ ~ If - go <<I ~ Q. ~ ~ 2 ~ u g ~ - ~ I
to- l:E~ 00< eo Ci z.!~~ 8 ~~.5 ~.!!.:; a.-~E si...._ .!
~
!
If
If
H
~
u
c
.!!
'"
c
5~
-u
"Dc
C..
";;=
00..
'f!E
<ill
Iii
<(
"
1:
11
C
o
:E
-
c.
~
.
eu
Oc
_D
U
...
"
.
.l!
0..
C
1:
l!
c
o
:E
f
"
.
.
"
:E
c
o
1i
"
i
I I 1
i1 1
E .. I Q~
! i
!l' 1---- ~ ~
- ~
0- S ------- -~--~~--I c .
D /B-'l
.5 !
i -----j- I
:. E ! i
~ 0
. () Q ----1
c 1;
. D
. .
'" 0
~ H ,
0 .!l + ~
" !E "
5 '"
~ i: :E
,f
" !
.,c!'O ~ 1.:!'Ol;' I
O"e IOU
!liill. ~()o.
~~!l "'E !l
- .;30 1~4)O i
,.: I.!lO ---~
z i
0
!:!. I
.J " .. I
hie a~5lc
..- " OCEG) ,
-Cl E 5 o.~ E ~ o.~ I
wo c {!!.Eo "Eo
"'a: ii ..... El[ II-Ef'
.J'" 004)Cll '00 i ,
~.~ .. ~oc" I~OCC ,
c 10 I
0 0
...- " I i
I "'Ii: !
00 i..
"'... .. i
.Jill l~ee a~ee
~o !
'l! l:~V 15 [~ i
~:i .. cu:;:lo.E I
~ f-Eo1:: t-E,gCllJ <0
_ ECii [ _Eg!a.
l:!0 OO>G,I ODeplD ,
:s~ l!c: ~o~c ~oao i
c 0 JO ------------~
::10 Ufo( 1
01: ie ,
Wz ,
:Eo 0 . i
" 0 1.2 I
l!!:E " 1j I~
.c i
z .. .E I
0 .. 2 I~
!;1 -E 0 ;
0 0 I~ I
Cl .. ~
c I
F= 0 ll.
:E :E
! .c 0 f;'>.s ! "C
!I1 I- s ID >>S e
00:::_ IV~ C... c :5.g~5>_.Q~5 ..
~(/) 5 '-"i G.I.e 0 Bio:.sC~E"" .;
C:'i:;,e j E [;' tl 0> UJ CI) 5~.!! ~ ~ "C
.0 o.~ GJ "C2 r- -oe
Ih ~>'i:i Q.e Ii iii li~ 0: (J).~6O::Sc.o[ -e c~
H "!lo.~n en ,... U) 0. g a. 'a "u.
~ ~1G...~i-~u~* "0 - s~~-o~ E~=~ ,,-
"0 0 53.m-B:iio'- aie "N
.a! " "..
" g?o..:C. OGJo';a. ,c O:EE2ic:S-o~ -",
t: C:5- lLe ,.2 !!'en
-' ~ tt1-5 8-:t: 41 0 D.ti) -" l"u _ ..... oQ.!&)
" - j~~~_tii~L9a " - .
0> ~~m.8~~I~~iJ .ce ,0 .c e'" E
r- ~~ If' ..c: t:l) 80 Q) a,rJ tS ... ..~8 F
0: . ti.5- 50'eE" ls [~ a ,2)'c CD cp2'EE:-~O ~ ",N
en ~~.~~~ li8 lD~~ ee 20...
I:: ia:"C~-o..8 .g~ :5 i3..J2
.. Eo.!!lft)8~=UCl)O :5a.. .. +,Cii5Cii1'iID=8.,U t
~ c- Q) "' GS$ 'iu.~ ~ ~:::Io.clE:52aJ<i! -ou.j;
,.; t,llO'S,CDCU_i'Q ~ ~::<o ,.; CbO:9 en ..... ....._ ~:E :J II
a......:::Ifg_O CD :>N tl...10>8o~a\l)- g~"C :=~
e e -ID2 O<("E~!E: I-e e 6I!l~~~~~i~
'" '" ~~~~~ii~tl...~ rn!~ '" ::1l~ ~i
" l! l!j J! '2nJa\l)=~o. !f
.. .!?....g ~co8O"~~2:fIJ.sc D.5.!!
I ~ ~~~.5~if~J~Q) ~.s 0
iii 1! iii -co :Ii 0. ~o.~" ll........~ ..5c5 !~
C C 'T_.c_ ~.scE: "Ca_ lC .. DIlS Q) Q) C'
0 ~~CU~ID.E_ iZ~ c"" ~~Cll~~.5:5:5:ge 1!.21j
0 0 0 :!II" ~1ii
'" ~ '" ._"0 a};.m . aB:J .r ;t \I) ..... ca:g .!! g'l:fB"S:::I ":%5 H
" " 'Qc-c....o.se.... ~ $~l .....
If ""5 "C,/l~ e I:ll'ti 0'5 co 111 0':2 Q) 1oo.D.D .st~
'" &~,C>>~~ .g~.iU .,. - ll. )!;o'-.c 0 1:" e
iiE .~~~ ,-.. - CDj....._ :J15'l: 'a; 0"0
l- I"':- .Q 0 Q.<<I.... l2D. 00.. cuO.o Q.<<I... Zo.o
I ~ i
i
I g~
! ~
H
t -------.---.- -----~
~
.!! w
E f I
0
" Q
~ --------
0
~ I
0
ft .!l I
I
" ~ I
" I
~ = i
I
I~~ J
I 0 il'
1'0 e c::
~h
~e il
~ ,;~o
Z
0
~
~~ li~~il I
i
-CI Q) ::J Co E
Wo ~ ~Eo't: I
U)~ '" - El ti
....... S 00 ..
;!:CI " ~ucc
-Z 0 10 I
:l;~ ~
I 00 ,
,
:1:... '~ !
~W tjbc!:
z~ Q).- Q) IJ
00 EsSe i
-z Cl: ~ 0.1::
CI< I- g(l;l Ol
WCI 'Oo~g- ----J
"'z 1",0 c!l 0
:5ii! 10
::>0 i . ------
0.... ,
W- , i
:sZ i~
wO 0 I
....::!E ;j ,
Z E !
0 ~
~ ~ c
" 0
S 0
CI " ~
j: 0 0.
:5 :; .
I-
I'" ~ il' ,.; "'o:~ .. (I) 1iO"C... . -g
,0::: c :E t:~.... 1:; c" "
lEa ~1; ill ...-; ~ 0 ~ o ~o.. - S g ~cc!~.g~ 'OmGJ '0
N-g~Q) t:,c "lI;l E o::J en Q. _..c: fU
ae-1l.ilo:!iBP' lo'lg..c e......-..c-
!~~n co >~cu ~m ... ""_ 2-
G " e Cl: 0 'O...:~.... ca-:
~LLEo'cQ.!E ~ oll:j!2 E a c ~~"":;7ilIl~C_..3li!u"'~~
I.J:CCI) :;:: 'Oep ..
Im::J 0 ~~8'O.:!::E' :0'5 ~11Jri~ ~ .; ~ a. 0 co 1Il-S~~~ ~ ~.E.!!.s
-00:
l-go as ::J lD.stS88~o 'E O::::=CQ. 0; .. ts.S~~:6a.i~ (a 13~~E~ ~t5
E i"-E ot-.Q 8 t)= to -5 g ;;;'J-=s E ~ ~ "'~~c> ~.l!! il'-Il .
e "'" ~ (l)3!:;:;:; O'1!-~b U~f'n~~ ~. L<. ~1! g!-8' 'Q:; dl,a .E"C Q) IJ
!I ~... e> (J)OIG~"'IflOt)_ c. I- - Cn - cD ~C:;ij"C-6
~O:a1 ,... Ii 0.1:8(1).0 ]~lliiu" 1i5 ~rlK~~ol~s~. ~! ~-
0: ....,,, gjc\,81?5c~.! ,,'" E
~~~l!~i -'" ",g .e ell E": ~-'6'~S'~ g ~ ::J-g-8i I
D O:iIf- ". .g IllI <<I::;:::; ~o....... l"!! ~'" ~~~;I~laE~~=~B~~~,
e
" "c! "Ol'lIo-oQ.:::lE:E Cl:I- 10 Cl:I Cl "," e~
0 'G.lea::o:s~ '-0 .s~~~:5~ Cig. ,sJ2 ~~-~ o--~- ~~~Q -I
"0 .~=~~o8i~~n~~a. E8~ 0
It "'-0. S E Cl) 8 "0 ~~ .."" c
a: .Hf &iglli!!:5g~ ~a:: 0 Ql:'l.!!! :11y eJ!! '0 ::5 ~:r: e li ~ 1: g a c.g 1'0 E !.g II
." ":il 0(1).- 1.1 G.I t$ ~i i~!~~3~~~~illi~~~
ij ! I~~~ n..0 ='J:: .'s.BE Q.lDl:3.!!5i ge_
O-:!2=a.I!!~ G)
D ~ cu - lb 0 ~e .s=~.eJ: g>a. ~~ 0:~~~>8~ Eo~E o~
-e . .::,,41 ala~G)'S:6'C F ~<D-g ~6 "'S -"~ ~~~&(/J _:52e'e3cG.lC;:8,s ~i
,l! ~ .:g0: l(i)l)~f!oa.~il .~ e 5'Oig9~:8Q)E"tBE
I " ~:aCO~u ;0 ",-"
e :; .. :;c- , u1503i~~.e~ u::llllO::.c- 1: .Eli O:o01jii .~il'- ,s ~o --g
~ ~ ~ c~11? ~~"1!"S:!l~il'e ~'U;gsi! :!~ (lJii~ CO) B c;: &.9 -Ol:.a-&C)co ti
0 h
~ 0 u .9:_D:: I- o_.c llleiii o.s~1:01tJ f 1'~~~~sl~II~e-~II~
ii u 10"," o!;;t;.s~tfi8.~ Cia) > ~- n ~ ~s Ii
IE ,21"'" >; rn,....<(... () Q) -Q) ;J; " .:l e ~ ~ I! i a.,s !E
m - I! liffi~ C'll,gl-aJEo.:.~iV I=lli;;;:;:~H~~ !!~ ~Cl:I :5~ Q,)OCl:l (1).- C
" !i ~o .g..eo~ '0 Ji!8 ~~~S:5~:5a~~' ~g!.E~
" I- 00::00 0. U._ a.. r--_ Q.C'll."O ...!Ii
I
I
I
~
~
..
..
c
"
8-
..
0:
~
c
..
8
c
:!!
E !
80
1;
"
o
"
II ..
IE ~
~ .E
-
..:
z
o
!2.
.J
-CI
Wo
"''''
~...
..CI
-z
...-
"'~
00
"'...
~w
z'"
OC
(;~
WCI
"'z
:5ii:
aJ:!
w-
:!z
wO
..:!
z
Q
!(
CI
i=
:il
i
j
!
-~---------- ...
i
I
I
I
i
"0 is'
1;.."
1'11;[
""" ~
~r<:s
,;~O
..
B~'Ec
G1.- CD CD
E"EE
lD~Q.e
I-~~cu
10'0 ~ a.
1;,-0" 2:
10 0
I~ "I:
I I"f~~
~ E~~
~Eo
_Ei3~
--------------~~
I 1.2
I 13
, 2
i en
"
o
~
..
"
"I:
S
C
o
'"
"
";;;
o
'i!
o
:l!
J
..
I:
o
=
2! ~
~ :2
:I ..
.. a
:2 ~ 0
15 8 ~
I Q ~.
i ~ 6
~
"3
e
..
.D
U
I:
..
'"
.. '"
~ M
.. ..
.c 13
l [
"0 .s
." ~rl
.. .12..
... "ll ~
::L iii~
il 'i~
~ ~.'!l
CD =~
.CI CD:;:::
~ E"E
~ "0
CQ go!!!
- ....
~ >O~_
o rE~
e~ E
ll'.,,:l;
Ula.,j::(O)
I:
..
.. -
~ .~
.8 'OJ;
cuc>>CIJ .
QJ.... 0 t?
" ..~13
tIS'-CltCQ
.i::;r:=a.
1l.cJ!!.s
4.~ii).....
c:z::e2
.ii-'C'
!a'ES
i~fj~
..J!!m!11l
e-i"O~Cl.
...."~E
fII.. CIJ .-
lOB"ll .,.
,c2a:c:=
. 9"AJ 0 11\
XC::"':;::;~
~ i~ ii
e.s:"EE
~... fi CD 0
llJl::EF="i
+
I
I~
(J)
f
..
..
l~
j~
~
"i
..
..;
!1
~
i!
'"
"
.20>
Ita"
l,g'gJ
io
= 'O~al4J lU
v C1)u-Cii 5
:3d1B~-!O E
~.c.D",eE'" n
c;a.:lii1:~o..88 ~
",I.c,,"_ I:
t!.sCl)(,):5"iiiClS ~
8i:8~0-iii1; "
"'E"loSI:l'l ~
e~"l'l"l'll: ~
~2~fii:3=~ ~
>-a.O:JJ:, c..", -
_ E.... =4.~.!!.E l!!
l'l - Ol._ I: "",,,
Ill) >'0' rn- lD ii c;:
~ !:tz~~~s~ i
.e~~~:5!~5a8. .
!!'''~':5.a=a.~ou
Om 0>,0 a;J-
lQ~ -:::i1t'~ tslit
il"i1o~u"-:ii"~
~tioa2.'!l Fh
CI)~-~iit~eli<~
....' o......c: E a._o
1;~il~~8~1liR6
~i,rElSo,,~1!~
U4)"80[:5011.0
"
ego
o"".c u~
..-,r 51:
5i g-"':'~'!!j"
--~ 0
€.Hi=.ii..
;;)lLO ell co-'='
e _" 8'~u
:6~oCll~.!!
"E0;;.1i-~
5~o..H
~i5~ E'iii Co'>
HdU
,,;;'!: il;',;! i:
u!:~~'E~
*.g l2t'5,Cll8
li~~:;: 2"
0') 1#:6"C1 o:i .
~ i?"\l lii~ a;l;
Bfi~-g~.s~
~~i~8~a
.. ....__,.,'__._. ..n...~",__.__..._..,._._.__..____,
;J!
i';W
H
o
~
i
~
,f
H
li
j:>
I ~
.. u
!
~ ~
8 '-.'-~~~---"---"-------_.'------------------'---'---------.--- --_.-.---~-~--_._--_.__._--------,---- _!
c , ii1~
.!l
E ~
0
<.> c ,
"l; , -------
c r-~----.-.----.------------- --------.
0
il J!
i "
it!
> .,
, --.---
Ii
.. _c:
c
iii om
"0 ," 8~'"
-u '" t:" E.
1i!a I~ "'g"
-- il ..
c-
~ 0"- "'ill
,.: :tiE
z :i.8
0 I --
e. Ihn
,J "
i~c:c
-Cl cE~
Wo c CP~g.
"'ll: I- E-'lO
"C I;H! i'08~~
<ill. 2
....Cl C ~ 00
-z 0 10 U
Il.j: ::E I I
"'0:: I
I 00
:J:1l. '" "
~~ '<i~ci Bbcc
C m'E ~ m- CD CD
00 E"o. 5 aE
i5~ 0 ~Eo<<l 1-~.9i
E ~
::!Cl "il' - EJ 0. 'Oo~g- ~
0008
l!c ~oo ~ooc
j~ 02"
c <.> <.>
::>0 w
u.... I - - - -----
-Wz I
::Eo ! la c
0
l!!:i! .c in ~
z .. '"
0 '" ~ ,.
~ c c
"C ~ 0
2 <.>
Cl C ~
E 0 .. ..
::E
::E I .. .
i
i~ C ~E_'U.!S!o ;; u. c 1:J.E~E '"
~'l;J"g '5~ ~ ~_ ~.s " 0 ~"O& C.i:>=lD 'i)
0 :9,!.!! .!!!=..!!!ti~-gii ~
-;;~~ 8"~o Q)CO~CDd) rn l~
I~ a1~B~ IOCI)~ ~Ql 5jD ,., CI) :::J moO ~ I'll - _ ~-
mE~~J;(Q w,:lG~o .s:
J!adi S5~e;eiltl.s ~ ....CD1:J-tiCD.U~ J'J:.DC=..
,"" m",_ c ~~ E 8 "w~" e'" !;;jj;;;a !liiiSi"'J!!
I" :a <<I2:'O..!! .!.g. 0 t~ <'Iliij'S Q)c:::::.gE~ :58
I~ 1ijc....c-e '=0 CP 11 "'
E e_.2~ lV~ !-E a.S;S'3 CD .. !-=.2~~~~~"5 ~ ~1i-
t 0"
~ ~ " 0 ii!''llll .. '0 E "'~"5l ~ E !t ~.... :II 0 !'D ED :0 0 E ~ co "' CIO .B
~ enC _::J.c__ttlltl ~a :Ie .sE~"CJTi:::J"O-~Oi
co 0- (IS _ I'll . ....1::(3 ~ .c (3'0 O-ltIafg"co Ut)a:l ~.2
"- eo (I:;::I~'8'O.,cc.2;-'Q) 41.22 ~ ~5' "II'Il"O ....c-~.,l1lm E
.~ .. E.!! 0 iii-g,g ~.." ~ ,;; l5 E g~"~h!l 16EcI 1
::i c ~i2 E - n 'is "0 'G:i &;.f;:;::I ciEO'lo>.E '-(110
" o;~ ~ 8i ~:K"2 ~~! r:! 5"i! iO -5~ o~:g :22p!E"8.~!l
0 =' -'0 Q.c 0 _
"- ~ ~.. lte~g~8'O.s.S'i2 !i~ g
." H w 5 ~ o-c: '- E
"' ~8.. 0 -;n I/).....tl='n:g (18 ,.,0 :;::Ioc:ltIO 1: ....e~.!:::J il
~ s::: c:; >>:5}1lI i:9 !~" eg. ~.8'iiil:h~.gQ. _E.!l
.. l! l!~ . ~:J~.8 >.~ ~ 2':: g-~o ~ ~ e - ~ >. .0:: 41l; '- i3 c:;
.. " ~i: g~~B~~'5ii<<lu~s~ . ~ iiicaE !EilB~~~~~?U.d lt~
c I ,!is .. "5ia8.
~ ii!nz"ou~It)~1i'O!l!g~l!! .. if
I 1! ..'" -"c --oll'ls _0 2~ g"
c :E 5 ::E1il "OJ! c-"E c ~C.!!ttl.c:J :E.... B:9 ~ :gJ!~iEI~e~-"'.8~E
~ c co 1il E~~E"c~j""'''~''~ ~I .. ~,,"--" 6 -118
c 0 .. Oll: o,1!g ~;a .~J!:S E~ :ao '5 o~g~ ~".nh!l ~2
,g iii 0 iii.!!l z _~mo..S:::Q)It)n;s:::ca0;:: o.~ "' Z =' ~s:::ClE"'tsQ)~41:i . <
cps~2:a-2~e~~~I=~c "",
. ~ .!!'~ "'-- ",0-0 ..Sl\1o..,<<s.l='cnla e !2!:::J! II
,,"8 ll) CI... :::J ClJ Q) en 5
.. - o!}=a.">"Co..iI) ~ ~ -: -]; '0 ~ :;::; o..~ Q) 8"J. !:a; a. 41 It) C ~
" i "'0 h t="c
'" .... 2.. z"OE.s"ii-811.s6i3l1Jtllco1DJ! .e" z"OE.s~~tUlt)a1.s.E'158B ...l!
I
I
I
'E
f
l!'
"-
~
i
'"
11
"
:!!
c
o
"
g
'll
B
:!
. ~
.
o
c
.!
e .
o ,.
" c
-
o
c
o
..
3 Jl
!E E
~ .5
;::
z
o
~
J
-Cl
Wo
"''''
........
;5Cl
-z
...",
"'",
00
:1:...
~w
z'"
0"
-z
Cl<(
ll!Cl
:'i~
::>0
01:
Wz
:00
w:;;
....z
o
~
Cl
E
:;
I
I
I
----I
I
___-1
I
I I
I,:, I
IlH I
~"o
.;~o
" :
JUI I
_ e ~ '" '1
;8o~
o i
i
I
~~]jCI I,
.ce~
e~o.
{!2 E D I
_ E~ ~
OOOJID
~uoo
<J ,
r-----1
!il' ,
'~ !
g i
9 1
~ :
0. I
!
CII_ 0 ,
oS 0 (lJ '1
_CP.l:c
o "C ,;::.--
il'~c:;~ I
i 0 fD:s! I
~ g. ~::~
- 8:9 CP >.
I~ o:s~.i !,
~ g.o:s ... :
'Iii 6.~52
05.~"'~ i
t::i~~.~ I
::1) g E a I
olD.:l.~g 'I
l! 1~~1l'6 I
~ i i ~H ,
I .J :E~:e~~ I
c t: C t):3 co lS .
~ B oE'oc("S; 1.
ii u i!Z~-;-s:11)
i; gEa.rd3rd II
E l! ~ Q.e 8..c: fA.r::
:E I- .:i!._.:o...!!D.. I
~
"
!
u
II
C
"C
.e
c
o
:;
'"
~
C
"C
.e
c
o
:;;
J
~
"
-i
II'"
~~
if
1~
P
.i
..."