HomeMy WebLinkAbout08_033 PC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 08-33
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING
THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE FLETCHER JONES
MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA PROJECT,
ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE FLETCHER
JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA PROJECT
LOCATED ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF YNEZ
ROAD AND WAVERLY LANE WITHIN THE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN .
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission hereby
finds and determines that:
A. Garth Blumenthal, representing Jones/Blumenthal Temecula, LLC, filed
Planning Application No. PA07-0335, Development Plan, which application is hereby
incorporated by reference. The Project applicant proposes to develop atwo-story dealership
showroom building, auto service facility, car wash facility, private street, and associated
parking and landscaping on the 13.97 acre project site. Proposed Project development would
total approximately 80,000 square feet of building space to house the dealership including car
maintenance, repair services, and a car wash.
B. 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.
C. The City proceeded with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR")
for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163 because
the project site falls within the Harveston Specific Plan which was the subject of a separate
EIR (SCH# 1999041033) and only minor additions would be necessary to make this previously
certified EIR adequately apply with regard to the Mercedes-Benz Project.
D. In addition, a Supplemental EIR is in compliance with CEQA for the Fletcher
Jones Mercedes-Benz Project because the conditions as described in Public Resources Code
21166 and in CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 exist because the development of a
Mercedes-Benz dealership on the Project site constitutes new information of substantial
importance that was not known at the time of the previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and
the development of the Mercedes-Benz Project causes one or more potentially significant
effects not previously addressed in the Specific Plan EIR.
E. The previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR involved extensive environmental
review on a variety of environmental topics for both the current project site as well as the
surrounding area covered by the Harveston Specific Plan. As such, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the prior Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference to
the extent any mitigation measures articulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program are applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project site. In addition, the mitigation
measures in this Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be
adopted as conditions of approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project to the extent
they are applicable to the project site. However, no mitigation measures regarding afair-share
contribution to regional traffic improvements systems shall be applicable to the Mercedes-
Benz Project as this fair-share contribution has been satisfied by the original developer
applicant. Additionally, any mitigation measures regarding specific infrastructure
improvements identified in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been
satisfied and are therefore not applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project. The Harveston
Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available for public
review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.
F. In addition to the prior Harveston Specific Plan EIR, the project site and the
surrounding Harveston Specific Plan Area is the subject of a development agreement entered
into between the City of Temecula, and Lennar Homes, Inc. and Winchester Hills, LLC
(collectively "owner") in 2001. This prior development agreement provides certain vested
rights to the owners. The subject site is part of the Harveston Specific Plan that is addressed
in the development agreement and all action taken by the City with regard to the Mercedes-
Benz project site, including CEQA environmental review and required mitigation, is in full
compliance with all legal rights articulated in the development agreement.
G. On January 15, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report ("Draft SEIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons
that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants.
The NOP requested comments from the public and the comment period was extended through
February 18, 2008.
H. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, and from the Native American Heritage Commission. These comment letters assisted
the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR.
I. On January 29, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9, the City
sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope
of the Draft SEIR.
J. On February 21, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
NOP was re-circulated due to an increase in the anticipated building area from 65,000 square
feet to approximately 80,000 square feet.
K. On May 19, 2008 an additional community meeting was held to solicit further
public input and comment on the proposed Project.
L. On May 26, 2008 the State Office of Planning and Research approved a 30 day
public review period for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project of Temecula SEIR (SCH#
2008011052) 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 of the Public Resources Code.
M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft SEIR dated May 26, 2008, the City
initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office
of Planning and Research on May 26, 2008.
N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR 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 SEIR
at the City's library and made copies available for review at City offices.
O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft SEIR, the
City received two (2) written comment letters from the Native American Heritage Commission
and the California Department of Fish and Game, both 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).
P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guideline
15088, the City provided its responses to all public agency comments 10 days prior to any
certification of the SEIR.
O. 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:
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,
2. 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,
3. 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.
R. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires 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.
S. 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, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
T. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but that
can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation are described in Exhibit A,
Section IV, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
U. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as significant and unavoidable
despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section V,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
V. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section VI, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
W. 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, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. 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.
X. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered and
has exercised its independent judgment on the proposed final EIR and all of the information
and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during
meetings and hearings and finds that the final EIR is adequate and was prepared in full
compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City
have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional
environmental review of the SEIR under CEQA requiring 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. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, hereby
certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and all changes to the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as described in the Errata which is part of the Final SEIR ,
adopts findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference;
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of
Project approval, and incorporates by reference the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (SCH# 1999041033), and imposes all mitigation
measures therein that are applicable to the project site as conditions of Project approval. City
staff shall implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C and those
applicable to the Project site from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the
Harveston Specific Plan EIR.
Section 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 9th day of July 2008.
~ - ~-~'
~~ John Telesio, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
~^~:
_ ~ .
,_ ~ ~"" '~
;, y. a.
STr1TE'OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08-34 was duly and regularly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 9th day of July 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Introduction.
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.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.'
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed
Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project and related actions (the "Project"), as
more fully described in the Supplemental 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.
II. Project Objectives.
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. Implement the commercial element of Harveston Specific Plan with a use that
will provide desired services to City residents and enhance the Specific Plan Area and be
compatible with the nearby residential area.
B. Provide employment opportunities that support local businesses and the strong
residential property values that the City of Temecula enjoys.
~ Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091.
C. Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic
development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the
community.
D. Promote high-end economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy
economy, provide revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance
and improvements, and preserve the unique character of Temecula.
Applicant Objectives:
E. To better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City.
F. To expand the Mercedes-Benz market share in Riverside County and the
Temecula area.
G. To construct ahigh-end facility of high architectural quality, complimentary to
the Temecula image.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitination in the
Supplemental EIR.
The Supplemental EIR found that the proposed Project would have a less than
significant impact without the imposition of mitigation for the following environmental topics. A
less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of these
environmental topics based on the more expansive discussion in the Supplemental EIR.
A. Aesthetics
The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a state scenic highway.
3. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The Project would not result in any cumulative aesthetic impacts.
B. Air Quality
1. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2007
Air Quality Management Plan.
2. During Project operation, the Project would not violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
3. Localized carbon monoxide hot-spots would not result due to increases
in localized traffic volumes.
The Project would not create objectionable odors.
5. The Project would not conflict with implementation of the state goals for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and would not have a negative effect on Global Climate
Change.
C. Noise
1. Traffic associated with operation of the Project would not result in a
significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways used to access the
dealership.
2. The Project in connection with other development Projects in the region
will not increase cumulative operational noise impacts to a level of significance.
D. Biological Resources
1. Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on any listed, candidate or special-status plant species.
2. Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on a listed, candidate, orspecial-status ground dwelling wildlife species
including the Stephens' kangaroo rat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, burrowing owl, and coast
patch-nosed snake.
3. Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and would not
interfere with any established wildlife corridors or nursery sites.
4. Implementation of the proposed Project would not have substantial
effects on any sensitive natural communities or on any federally protected wetlands.
5. The proposed Project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant
biological resources impact.
E. Traffic and Circulation
The proposed Project would not result in inadequate vehicular and
emergency access.
Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant With Mitigation
The Supplemental EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant
environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, global warming, noise, biological
resources, and traffic. With the exception of the specific impacts to the significant and
unavoidable noise direct and cumulative impacts, the cumulative air quality impact, and the
direct and cumulative traffic impacts, measures were identified that would mitigate all of these
impacts to a less than significant level.
The Planning Commission finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project
identified in the Final EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level,
with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section V below. The Planning
Commission adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the
Final EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project.
A. Aesthetics
Light and Glare Impacts
The Supplemental EIR examines the potential light and glare impacts that could be
caused by the Project's nighttime operational lighting and the adverse effects such lighting can
have on the surrounding Harveston residential community. The Project would include
nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting.
(a) Findings
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, astep-down lighting process, compliance with
Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, and other measures as articulated in the following
mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant light and glare impact.
Measure 3.1-3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall
contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and
external shielding.
Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be
parallel with the finished grade of the Project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree
angle.
Measure 3.1-3c: The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into
the Project to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director. The step-down lighting shall occur
each evening at the following intervals: 7:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m.
Measure 3.1-3d: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems
and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night
light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting
control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of
the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off-site
architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars.
Measure 3.1-3f: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and
photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design
features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the
surrounding area.
Measure 3.1-3g: The city shall complete apost-installation inspection to
ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that dealership lighting is not creating
excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public's attention or creating any roadway
safety hazard) and that illuminations lighting sources are properly shielded.
Measure 3.1-3h: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount
Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low
pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and
outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Development of the Project would increase light and glare around the
Project site. This light can have adverse affects on nighttime views and the surrounding
communities in proximity of the site if not addressed properly. In order to address this light and
glare impact, the Project proposes to incorporate various mitigation measures, including a
"step-down" lighting regimen that would progressively dim lighting to minimize obtrusive light
visible by residents of the surrounding community. The stepdown lighting would occur each
evening at the following intervals: 7:30 pm, and 10:30 pm. From 10:30 pm to sunrise the
Project site would be lit with only security lights. As shown in the images contained in the
Aesthetics Section of the Supplemental EIR, incorporating astep-down lighting regimen would
reduce new sources of light on the adjacent residences located within the Harveston
Community.
In addition to the step-down lighting system, the Project would comply
with the Riverside County Light Pollution Ordinance, No. 655, the Mount Palomar Lighting
Ordinance. The Project site is located within close proximity to the Palomar Observatory, and
the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. As such, in conformance with
Ordinance No. 655, all artificial outdoor light fixtures shall be installed in conformance with the
provisions of the ordinance which sets forth specific requirements for lamp source and
shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting for on-premises advertising
displays, shall be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent
properties. This ordinance requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto
adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky in order to ensure visibility from
Mount Palomar Observatory.
Finally, various other mitigation measures which articulate accepted
standards by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) a collection of
engineers, architects, scientists and other professionals who aim to disseminate information
for the improvement of the lighted environment will further reduce any potential light and glare
impacts. Thus, with inclusion of the above articulated mitigation measures, any potential light
and glare impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
B. Air Quality
Construction Emissions
The Supplemental EIR discusses the potential for construction-related
emissions to cause adverse effects on air quality. Project construction activities would include
site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities
such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut-and-fill
operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding
improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities.
(a) Findings
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. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, any potential
construction-related air quality impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control
program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403.
Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall
be responsible for compliance with the following:
A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain
equipment engines in proper tune.
B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation:
1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the
surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the
crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind.
2. Spread soil binders: and
3. Implement street sweeping as necessary.
C. During construction:
1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where
vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving
the site;
2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is
completed for the day;
3. Use low sulfur fuel (.05 percent by weight) for construction
equipment.
D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts.
Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall
be responsible for compliance with the following.
A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize
daily emissions.
B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands
which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more
consecutive days).
D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible
on construction sites.
E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at
construction sites
F. Wash off trucks leaving site.
G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances
and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum
freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck
bed sides.
H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil
erosion from storm water especially on super pads.
I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of
sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials.
J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these
roads, consistent with City standards.
K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or
gasoline power generators.
Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall
be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of
the paving.
Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall
be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission
control equipment to substantially reduce emissions.
Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall
be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic
congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification
by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate:
A. Provision of rideshare incentives
B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel.
C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes.
E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary.
Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations, applicant
and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following:
A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel
periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 am and 4:00 - 6:00 pm);
B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity;
and
C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The emissions generated from these construction activities include: (1)
Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from "fugitive' sources (i.e., emissions released
through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; (2) Combustion
emissions of criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, PM10, and
PM2.5) primarily from operation of heavy off-road construction equipment (primarily diesel-
operated), portable auxiliary equipment, and construction worker automobile trips (primarily
gasoline-operated); and (3) Evaporative emissions (ROG) from asphalt paving and
architectural coatings.
Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day,
depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the
absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as
a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary
and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by
construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the
atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. H
is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAOMD Rule 403 for
fugitive dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying
water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil
binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a
wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before
vehicles exit the proposed Project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2a, the Project will comply with Rule 403.
NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were
estimated for aworst-case day based on default maximum crew, truck trip, and equipment. As
analyzed in the Supplemental EIR, none of the construction emissions would be greater than
the significance criteria with compliance with Rule 403 as required of the Project by Mitigation
Measures 3.2-2a.
Finally, as more fully discussed in the Supplemental EIR, Localized
Significant Threshold Monitoring (LST) was not performed for this Project due to the small
amounts of NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 that the construction of the proposed Project would
produce. In sum, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed above, the
Project's construction-related air quality impact will be less than significant.
C. Noise
Operational Noise
Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the Temecula Municipal Code. However, with the
incorporation of mitigation measures, any potential impact will be less than significant.
(a) Findings
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. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, any
potential operational noise impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Measure 3.4-2a: The City shall ensure that there will be a designated
employee from the City Planning Department to coordinate any noise complaints and enforce
the City's noise standards. Actions shall be taken to reduce noise levels from project activities
that are over 65 dBA and result in noise complaints.
Measure 3.4-2b: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system
throughout the proposed project to minimize loudspeaker paging noise.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Heating Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment
The Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment system
for maintaining comfortable temperatures within the proposed buildings would consist of
packaged rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise
levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units
during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the
edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors (about 590 feet), would be about 40 dBA.
This would be a less than significant impact.
Service Center Internal Equipment Noise
Power tools, electric machinery, and air compressors would be used
within the service center premises for the repair of motor vehicles. The service center would
operate only during the daytime hours. Potentially significant noise sources associated with
auto service operations include air impact wrenches, fire breakers, and air supply
compressors, the noise levels of these sources at sensitive receptor locations are stated
below.
Impact Wrench Noise Levels
A potentially significant noise source at the proposed auto maintenance
facility would be the operation of air impact wrenches during fire changes. These wrenches
typically produce a maximum noise level of about 88 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. Impact
wrenches are used twice for each wheel removal/replacement operation with an average
duration of use of 10 - 15 seconds per wheel. The nearest proposed residential property line
to the service center is located at a distance of approximately 1,030 feet to the east. At this
distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 48 dBA
without mitigation. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center,
proposed dropped ceilings and parking lot area in between the service station and the
residences which would reduce these noise levels further. This maximum noise level would
not exceed the City's daytime maximum noise level standards and would be less than
significant.
Tire Breaker Noise Levels
Tire breakers are also a potentially significant noise source due to the
rapid release of air pressure through a number of small holes adjacent to the fire sidewall.
Noise produced by this type of pneumatic fire breaker reaches a brief maximum level of about
105 dBA at 10 feet. Other types of fire breakers, where the rapid air release has been
eliminated and replaced with an air/hydraulic control system, produce noise levels of
approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. For aworst-case estimate of tire-breaker noise
generation, it is assumed that the louder type of fire breaker could be used at the proposed
facility. Tire breakers are used twice for each fire removal/replacement operation. The average
duration of use is approximately 20 seconds per wheel.
The nearest proposed residential property line to the service center is
located at a distance of approximately 1,030 feet to the east. At this distance, impact wrench
maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 65 dBA without mitigation. Also,
shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center, proposed dropped ceilings
and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences causing attenuation of
at least 10 dBA reducing the predicted level to approximately 55 dBA without mitigation. This
maximum noise level would not exceed the City's daytime maximum noise level standards and
would be less than significant.
Air Compressor Noise Levels
The noise produced by air supply compressors varies considerably with
compressor size, type, and operating conditions. At similar fire maintenance facilities,
reference noise levels were measured at 60 dBA at 50 feet for steady-state compressor
operation. The compressors typically cycle on and off intermittently during the work day to
meet air supply demands. At the nearest proposed residential property line, located
approximately 1,030 feet to the east, the worst-case noise level associated with compressor
usage would be 34 dBA Leq without mitigation. Also, shielding will be provided by the
enclosure of the service center, proposed dropped ceilings and parking lot area in between the
service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. This
maximum noise level would not exceed the City's daytime maximum noise level standards and
would be less than significant.
Car Wash
The drying system is the loudest part of a car wash; depending on the
system used, a car wash blower could create noise levels of approximately 67 dBA at 50 feet
from the exit. At the nearest proposed residential property line, located approximately 1,030
feet to the east, the noise level could potentially be 41 dBA during car drying. To further
dampen the noise the exit will face the customer lobby building, thus attenuating the noise
levels more. This noise level would not exceed the City's daytime noise level standards and
would be less than significant.
Paging System
Some car dealerships use a loudspeaker paging system that includes
outside speakers. Loudspeakers vary in the amount of noise they produce, but at a maximum
volume a loudspeaker located 590 feet from residences could produce noise levels of
approximately 77 dBA. The applicant is proposing a silent paging system that will mitigate any
typical paging system noise associated with automobile dealerships operations.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a and 3.4-2b will ensure a
less than significant operational noise impact from the Project.
D. Biological Resources
Effect on any listed, candidate or special status bird species.
As discussed more fully in the Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project could
have a potentially significant effect on a listed, candidate, or special status bird species.
However, with the incorporation of mitigation articulated below outlining the process for apre-
construction survey and tree removal, this impact would be less than significant.
(a) Findings
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. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3, this impact would
be less than significant.
Measure 3.5-3: The applicant shall have a qualified biologist, approved
by the City, conduct apre-construction survey for nesting/roosting special-status birds and
other nesting birds on or adjacent to the Project site within two weeks prior to construction.
The biologist shall report his or her findings to the City, and the biologist, applicant and, if
required, the City shall work collaboratively to ensure that the no direct impacts to any nesting
birds located within 100 feet of the limits of construction occur, by establishing the construction
right of way and removal of plant material outside of the typical breeding season of birds
(February 1 through August 31). If construction and vegetation removal is proposed for the
bird nesting period February 1 through August 31, then active nest sites located during the
pre-construction surveys shall be avoided pursuant to the directions of the biologist, and a
non-disturbance buffer zone established dependent on the species. Nest sites shall be
avoided with non-disturbance buffer zones approved by the biologist until the adults and young
are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist.
Avoiding destruction of an active nest and establishing anon-disturbance buffer zone around
any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site would reduce this potentially significant
impact to a less than significant level. Should the nesting of any migratory bird occur on or
adjacent to the Project site during grading or construction activities, a City qualified biological
monitor shall halt all construction activities and notify the City and corresponding resource
agency.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The federal migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits killing, possessing, or
trading of migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of the Interior, including take of bird nests and eggs. All birds and birds of prey specifically are
protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3503.5,
which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order
Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of
any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant
thereto." Project impacts to these species would not be considered significant unless they are
known or have a high potential to nest in the Project area or to rely on the Project site for
primary foraging activities during the breeding season.
Though there are no trees or suitable habitat present within the
proposed Project site, there are several ornamental trees adjacent to the western border of the
site at the bottom of the slope, adjacent to I-15. Although it is unlikely, due to the level of traffic
and noise near the trees, construction activities could cause disturbance to birds
nesting/foraging adjacent to the Project site. No nests were observed during the January site
visit. However, the site visit was conducted outside of the breeding season, and therefore
results are not conclusive. The project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on bird species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Impacts
to nesting birds are potentially significant, but can be prevented via pre-construction surveys
and associated avoidance measures, as described in Mitigation Measure 3.5-3.
2. Conflict with Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Long-Term
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat HCP and City of Temecula Municipal Code.
As discussed in the Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project has the potential
to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Long-Term Stephens' Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) HCP and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. For the reasons discussed in the
Supplemental EIR, this impact is less than significant with mitigation.
(a) Findings
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. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the
potential impact will be less than significant.
Measure 3.5-6: The applicant shall pay the $500 per acre SKR
mitigation fee set out by Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed Project site does not lie in designated critical habitat for
any special-status species. However, the Project site does lie within the areas covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP and the SKR HCP, although it is exempt from the MSHCP.
These plans promote the conservation and recovery of biological resources in Western
Riverside County and provide coverage for FESA and CESA incidental take for listed species.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is broken into area plans, and cell groups. The Project
site falls within the Southwest Area Plan and portions of the site fall within criteria cell 6407
and 6525. Both Criteria Cells were established to contribute to the assembly of Proposed
Constrained Linkage 15 which follows Warm Springs Creek. Conservation for these cells
focuses on Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat along Warm Springs Creek and the
adjacent grassland habitat. Chapter 15.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes
mitigation fees for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems within Temecula City limits
in accordance with the MSHCP. As previously stated, the applicant is not required to comply
with the provisions of the MSHCP as a development agreement was obtained for the Project in
2001, prior to the adoption of the MSHCP in 2004. Government Code section 65864 states
that only those policies, rules, and regulations which were existing at the time of approval for a
developmental project, must be followed by the applicant. The Project site would not affect
Warm Springs Creek and does not support Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub or grassland
habitat. The project site consists of compacted bare land that has a limited ability to support
wildlife species. Due to the presence of only ruderal non-native grassland habitats on the
project site and the absence of any special-status species or sensitive biological resources the
proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP.
Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code states that all applicants
within the SKR HCP plan area shall conduct a biological survey for the SKR and pay the
required impact and mitigation fee. ESA conducted a habitat assessment for the SKR during
the January 14, 2008 site visit. No SKR signs were observed during the site visit, and no
suitable habitat exists on-site due to the high levels of disturbance and the origin of site soils.
No impacts to the SKR are expected to occur. County Ordinance 663.10 regarding the SKR
HCP states that "impacts to the Stephens' kangaroo rat are not limited to loss or degradation
of actually occupied habitat only." Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to the SKR, including
habitat destruction should be mitigated either byon-site preservation of land, or the payment
of the mitigation fee. Mitigation fees will be used to finance the implementation of the SKR
HCP conservation measures. Although impacts are not expected to occur, implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would mitigate for any indirect impacts associated with development
inside the SKR HCP fee area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would also ensure
that the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the SKR HCP.
Due to the Zack of suitable native habitat on the project site, and with the
payment of any relevant mitigation fees, the project would not fundamentally conflict with the
provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project also would not
fundamentally conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Edge Effects of the Project Impacting Warm Springs Creek
The proposed Project has the potential to cause impacts to Warm Springs
Creek, which could include the introduction of pollutants and toxics into the Warm Springs
Creek area due to stormwater and other runoff. Increased levels of light and noise could also
impact wildlife species foraging and nesting in the riparian areas surrounding Warm Springs
Creek.
(a) Findings
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. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the
potential impact will be considered less than significant.
Measure 3.5-7: Invasive: The City shall review and approve all
landscape plans to ensure that no invasive species as identified in the MSHCP or by the
California Invasive Plant Inventory shall be used in the proposed project.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is located on a graded, leveled and compacted parcel of
land with little vegetation now present; however it is located approximately 550 feet away from
a MSHCP Conservation Area (Proposed Constrained Linkage 15). This conservation area is
associated with Warm Springs Creek and located adjacent to several developed areas, an
interstate, and an undeveloped parcel.
Project design features would help minimize impacts the Project could
potentially have on natural resources, specifically Warm Springs Creek. Project design
features include: 1) pervious pavement, which would allow percolation or infiltration of
stormwater through the surface into the soil below where the water is naturally filtered and
pollutants are removed, and 2) a temporary desilting/water quality basin, located on the
southwest corner of the property, would be implemented to collect, treat and redirect
surface/storm drainage off the Project site through a temporary storm drain outlet. Treated
stormwater flows from this temporary desilting basin would eventually flow towards Warms
Springs Creek. Invasive species shall not be allowed in the Project landscape plans.
Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.1-3a through 3.1-3h would direct and focus dealership
lighting downward to avoid glare onto adjacent areas and emit low levels of glare into the sky.
With these Project design features and the inclusion of Mitigation Measure 3.5-7, impacts
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
V. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation
In the areas of air quality, noise, and traffic there are instances where environmental
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These areas are discussed
below.
A. Air Quality
Cumulative Impact -Construction Related and Operational
Based on the more expansive discussion in the Supplemental EIR, the Project
region is located in the South Coast Air Quality Management District air basin which is
designated as non-attainment for certain air pollutants under the California Clean Air Act. As
such, a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact will result even with the
implementation of mitigation.
(a) Findings
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. However, even with the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures 32-
2(a) through 3.2-2(g) as addressed in Section IV, B. above, construction-related and
operational related cumulative impacts will remain significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project
have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the above
mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in
support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available
Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth therein.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The previous EIR completed for the Harveston Specific Plan determined
the Harveston Specific Plan incremental contribution to both construction air pollutant
emissions and long-term operational air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively
considerable, in part because the air basin is designated as nonattainment. As part of the
Specific Plan area, both the construction and long-term operational air pollutant emissions of
the project would be cumulatively considerable contributions to the significant cumulative air
quality impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan.
Mitigation measures from the Harveston Specific Plan that apply to this
project have been included in this Project to reduce the impact of construction emissions. The
Project's incremental impact is less than significant, but even with implementation of the
applicable Mitigation Measures 3.2-2(a) - 3.2-2(g) in as addressed in Section IV, B. above, the
cumulative air quality impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan cannot be reduced to a level that
would be less than significant. As such, the cumulative air quality impact of the proposed
Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.
B. Noise
Construction Noise -Direct Impact
The Supplemental EIR examines the potential noise generated by the
construction of the proposed project and has concluded that this impact will likely be a short-
term significant and unavoidable impact even with the incorporation of mitigation.
(a) Findings
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. However, even with the incorporation of the following mitigation
measures, the short-term construction noise impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
Measure 3.4-1 a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of
Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a
mile of any occupied residence during the following hours:
A. 6:30 pm to 6:30 am, Monday through Friday.
B. Before 7:00 am of after 6:30 pm, Saturday.
C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday.
Measure 3.4-1 b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction
equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as
pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quarter (1/4) mile of any
occupied residence from 6:30 pm to 6:30 am unless such equipment is surrounded by a noise
protection earthen berm or solid barrier.
Measure 3.4-1 c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging
shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
Measure 3.4-1 d: The applicant shall ensure that all signs shall be
posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, a contact
number for the job site, and a contact number for the City of Temecula Building and Safety
Department project manager, in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at the exterior of the
residences. In that event the City shall have the right to require limiting the number of noisy
pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible
level.
Impacts associated with short-term construction noise have been reduced to the extent
feasible. However, after implementation of the above mitigation measures, the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in
support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available
Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth therein.
(b) 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 uses 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. Pile driving, however, is not
proposed for Project development.
Based on the proposed Project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of
6 dBA will be assumed. Harveston residences are approximately 150 feet from Project
construction. The Supplemental EIR indicates that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, if
attenuated out to 150 feet, these residences would experience noise levels of about 79 dBA
Leq during finishing and excavation, the loudest of construction activities that would occur.
Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over
time due to attenuation of noise by Project structures built in the interim.
Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than
existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. These construction noise levels,
especially if they were to occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be
potentially significant. The City of Temecula noise ordinance states that no person shall
conduct construction activity when the site is within one-quarter mile from an occupied
residence between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am Monday through Friday, and shall only
conduct construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no
construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays.
Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise
is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to
be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed
daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Although
the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant, construction
sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels at
nearby residents. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the complaint system
would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-
term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project.
2. Cumulative Construction Noise
As discussed in the Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project will create a
significant and unavoidable project specific construction noise impact. This construction noise
impact coupled with the potential construction noise from the 30 other developments projects
currently in the planning process located in the vicinity of the Project, has the potential to
cause a significant cumulative impact which will remain significant and unavoidable after all
feasible mitigation.
(a) Findings
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. However, even with the incorporation of the construction noise
mitigation measures as identified in Section V, B. above, the construction noise from the
proposed Project coupled with the construction noise from the 30 other development projects
in the vicinity will create a significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact.
The cumulative impact associated with construction noise has been reduced to the extent
feasible. However, after implementation of mitigation as discussed in Section V, B. above, the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in
support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available
Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth therein.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project would result in intermittent and temporary noise above
existing ambient noise levels due to construction activities. With implementation of mitigation
measures, the Project's noise impact would result in a short term significant and unavoidable
impact. While there is the potential for the proposed Project to contribute to construction noise
levels generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Supplemental EIR, the
actual schedule and timing of construction activities is uncertain. The proposed Project would
coordinate with the appropriate departments of the neighboring jurisdictions to avoid conflicts
with other projects to the extent possible, and the Project's contribution to cumulative
construction noise impacts, as mitigated, would be considered significant and unavoidable.
C. Traffic and Circulation
Direct Impacts
As discussed more fully in the Supplemental EIR and the accompanying traffic
study, the proposed Project would have a direct impact on the Margarita Road/Winchester
Road intersection during the P.M. peak hour, which would continue to operate at an
unacceptable level of service (LOS) with the introduction of the Project which would increase
the traffic delay at this intersection by two seconds or more. This impact is significant and
unavoidable.
(a) Findings
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. However, even with the incorporation of the following mitigation
measures, the impact to the Margarita Road/Winchester Road will remain significant and
unavoidable.
Measure 3.6-1: The applicant shall implement the following
improvements at the Margarita Road/Winchester Road intersection:
• Conversion of the westbound through-right turn lane on Winchester
Road to a dedicated westbound through lane, and the re-striping of a
dedicated westbound right-turn lane would reduce vehicle delay at this
location.
Impacts associated with the direct project impact to the Margarita Road/Winchester Road
intersection have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the
above mitigation measure, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in
support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available
Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth therein.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
In the Project Completion Year condition, five of the six intersections
studied would operate at an acceptable LOS. The intersection that would not operate at an
acceptable LOS is the Margarita Road/Winchester Road intersection, which already operates
at an unacceptable LOS in its existing condition.
Since the Project would increase the delay by more than two seconds at
the Margarita Road/Winchester Road intersection that already operates at an unacceptable
LOS, the Project applicant would be required mitigate the additional impact. The
improvements recommended in Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, above represent the only physically
feasible mitigation for this intersection, and would not result in an acceptable LOS during the
peak PM hour. Additional improvements are not feasible at this intersection and project
impacts are significant and unavoidable.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would result in cumulative traffic impacts during the
cumulative condition by increasing the delay by two seconds or more at each of the following
intersections: (1) 1-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Road (LOS F during the PM peak hours); (2)
Ynez Road/Winchester Road (LOS F during the PM peak hour); and (3) Margarita
Road/Winchester Road (LOS F during PM peak hours). No mitigation is feasible at these
three intersections, other than that already articulated for the project specific direct impact at
the Margarita Road/Vllinchester Road intersection. Thus, the impact at all three intersections
is considered significant and unavoidable.
(a) Findings
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, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 incorporated into the Project to
lessen the project specific direct significant impact at the Margarita Road/Winchester Road
intersection is also applicable for this cumulative impact. However, no other feasible mitigation
measures are available for the three intersections. The roadway improvements that are not
feasible are as follows:
• I-15 northbound ramps/Winchester Road. Geometric improvements
such as, additional eastbound and westbound through lanes (four
through lanes in each direction), are not feasible due to right-of-way
constraints.
• Ynez Road/Winchester Road. Geometric improvements such as, a
westbound through lane and dedicated westbound right-turn lane, dual
southbound right-turn lanes and an additional southbound through lane,
and an eastbound free-right-turn lane, are not feasible due to right-of-
way constraints.
• Margarita Road/VVinchester Road. The applicant shall complete the
following improvements: Conversion of the westbound through-right turn
lane on Winchester Road to a dedicated westbound through lane, and
the re-striping of a dedicated westbound right-turn lane would reduce
vehicle delay at this location. However, these improvements would not
result in an acceptable LOS (LOS D) during the p.m. peak hour. This
improvement would build-out the intersection to its ultimate
configuration. Additional geometric improvements such as, additional
eastbound and westbound through lanes (four through lanes in each
direction), and a northbound free-right turn lane, are not feasible due to
right-of-way constraints.
Cumulative impacts associated with the three intersections have been reduced to the extent
feasible. However, because no mitigation is feasible, the impact at the three intersections will
remain significant and unavoidable.
The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in
support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available
Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth therein.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
In the Cumulative condition, only three of the six intersections would
operate at an acceptable LOS. The three that would not are: (1) I-15 NB rampsNVinchester
Road (LOS F during PM peak hours); (2) Ynez RoadNVinchester Road (LOS F during the PM
peak hour); and (3) Margarita Road/Winchester Road (LOS F during PM peak hours). The
Project would increase the delay by two seconds at each of the abovementioned intersections.
Because no feasible mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to alleviate these three
cumulative traffic impacts due to roadway right of way constraints, the impact to these three
intersections is considered significant and unavoidable.
VI. Proiect Alternatives.
A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the EIR
The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as discussed below and in the
Supplemental EIR. In determining what alternatives to analyze, the City considered, but
rejected one other alternative, the alternative site alternative. An alternative site alternative
was considered in the Temecula Auto Mall, but was not available for acquisition by the
applicant, and for this reason, was not carried forward into the alternatives analysis.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected as infeasible. The EIR however did undertake an
analysis of six other potential project alternatives. These six alternatives were also rejected for
the various reasons stated below.
B. Alternatives Considered in the EIR
Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, construction of dealership facilities identified
under the proposed Project would not be implemented. The designated service commercial lot
would remain undeveloped and unused. As previously stated, because there are multiple
variations as to how the Project site could be developed under the current plans for the site,
Alternatives 3 through 6 illustrate the type of development that could occur on the Project site
if the Project were not approved.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
In comparison to the proposed Project, implementation of the No Project
Alternative would eliminate all the adverse environmental impacts associated with the
proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would allow for existing conditions to persist.
However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, and would
maintain current conditions, as no development would take place on the vacant lot. Fulfillment
of the Harveston Community Plan Service Commercial designation would not occur in this
area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible.
2. Alternative 2 -Reduced Project Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative a reduced Mercedes-Benz dealership of approximately
40,000 sf would be constructed, as opposed to approximately 80,000 sf under the proposed
Project. Under Alternative 2, building development would occur on the northwest corner of the
site adjacent to the I-15 freeway, identical to the development under the proposed Project.
Under the reduced project, approximately 50 percent of the site would be developed on with
dealership building(s) and associated facilities. The remaining undeveloped space would
remain vacant.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
This alternative would have overall reduced impacts in comparison to the
proposed Project, including a reduction in aesthetic impacts, air quality impacts, global
warming impacts, reduced construction and operational noise impacts, biological resources
impacts, and overall reduced traffic impacts. However, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all
of the applicant's objectives set forth, and would not adequately serve its expected customer
base. Alternative 2 would also provide fewer employment opportunities (a City objective). For
these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible.
3. Alternative 3 -Alternative Development as Retail Use on the Project Site
(a) Summary of Alternative
The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the
Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is
specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing
uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date
Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. As such,
potentially allowed commercial uses on the proposed site could include home improvement
stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and grocery stores. Additional potential uses
under the Service Commercial zoning could include restaurants and offices. Thus, under
Alternative 3, a retail use equivalent to 283,000 sf (0.5 FAR -allowed under the Service
Commercial designation) would be constructed on the Project site.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The retail use equivalent under Alternative 3 would likely have increased noise,
global warming/climate change and air quality, and traffic-related impacts, but have similar
impacts related to aesthetics and biological resources, when compared to the Project.
Alternative 3 would meet the City's objectives of implementing the Harveston Specific Plan
and providing employment opportunities, however, it would not meet the applicant's objectives
to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City, and would not meet the
applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in Riverside County and the Temecula
area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible.
4. Alternative 4 -Reduced Retail Use Development on the Project Site
(a) Summary of Alternative
The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the
Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is
specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing
uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date
Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. As such,
potentially allowed commercial uses on the proposed site could include home improvement
stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and grocery stores. Additional potential uses
under the Service Commercial zoning could include restaurants and offices. Thus, under
Alternative 4, a retail use (commercial/restaurant/office) equivalent to 170,000 sf (0.3 FAR),
equally apportioned, could reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
Project were not approved.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Under Alternative 4, a development of this usage and size would likely have
increased traffic, global warming/climate change, noise, and air quality impacts, but have
similar impacts related to aesthetics and biological resources, when compared to the Project.
Development under Alternative 4 would not reduce any of the impacts associated with the
Project. Alternative 4 would meet the City's objectives of implementing the Harveston Specific
Plan and providing employment opportunities, however, it would not meet the applicant's
objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City, and would
not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in Riverside County and
the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as
infeasible. '
5. Alternative 5 -Alternative Development as Office Use on the Project Site
(a) Summary of Alternative
The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the
Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is
specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses and is also zoned to potentially
accommodate the development of offices. Development under the Alternative 5 scenario
would include office building(s) totaling approximately 283,000 sf (0.5 FAR) on the Project site.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Development under Alternative 5 would likely result in similar aesthetic and
biological resources impacts compared to the proposed Project. It is likely that traffic impacts
under Alternative 5 would increase, and thus, noise, global warming/climate change and air
quality impacts would increase. Development under Alternative 5 would not reduce any of the
impacts associated with the Project. Alternative 5 would meet the City's objectives of
implementing the Harveston Specific Plan and providing employment opportunities, however,
it would not meet the applicant's objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz
customer base in the City, and would not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes'
market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning
Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible.
6. Alternative 6 -Reduced Office Use Development on the Project
(a) Summary of Alternative
The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the
Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is
specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses and is also zoned to potentially
accommodate the development of offices. Development under the Alternative 6 scenario
would include office building(s) totaling approximately 170,000 sf (0.3 FAR) on the Project site.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Development under Alternative 6 would likely result in reduced air quality and
noise impacts compared to the proposed Project. It is likely that traffic impacts under
Alternative 6 would increase. The level of impacts associated with the other areas analyzed
would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Although development under Alternative 6
would reduce some of the impacts associated with the Project and meet the City's objectives
of implementing the Harveston Specific Plan and providing employment opportunities, it would
not meet the applicant's objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base
in the City, and would not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in
Riverside County and the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission
rejects this alternative as infeasible.
C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Of the alternatives evaluated above, the No Project Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative with respect to reducing impacts created by the proposed
project. The CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally
superior alternative if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
Of the five remaining project alternatives, Alternative 2, the Reduced Project
Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 would not fully
achieve all of the Project objectives, and is therefore rejected.
D. The Project As Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The Project is described in detail in the SEIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed the attributes and
environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the EIR and has compared them with
the proposed Project. The Planning Commission finds that each of the alternatives is
infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth
above. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project as proposed is the best
combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals.
More specifically, the proposed Project will implement the commercial element
of the Harveston Specific Plan by providing ahigh-end Mercedes-Benz facility of high
architectural quality that will be aesthetically pleasing and energy efficient with LEED
certification. The proposed Project would also provide employment opportunities in the City of
Temecula and enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic
development objectives with protection of the environment. Finally, the proposed Project will
promote high-end economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide
revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission selects the Project as proposed.
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the
proposed approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula 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.
The Planning Commission finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable construction noise direct and cumulative
impact, the cumulative air quality impact, and the direct and cumulative traffic impacts. In
making this finding, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against
its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts.
The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 they generally have similar
or greater impacts, or 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 development of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership
would provide the residents of Temecula and the surrounding area an additional source of new
temporary employment opportunities in the construction trades and short-term/permanent
employment opportunities in high-end retail and service jobs which would in turn stimulate the
local economy.
C. The proposed Project would generate additional sales tax revenues and would
promote general economic welfare within the City.
D. The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz dealership would enhance the quality of life
of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the
environment and the health and safety of the community.
E. The proposed Project would implement the commercial element of the
Harveston Specific Plan with a use that will provide desired services to the residents of
Temecula and enhance the Specific Plan area and would be compatible with the surrounding
Harveston residential community.
The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval
of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project outweigh the identified significant
adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the
individual Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project benefits discussed above
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Planning Commission further finds that
each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Planning
Commission to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the 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:
°...tire public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions
which it has required in the project and fhe measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid
sign cant environmental effects."
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs
and indicates that specific reporting and/or 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 mitigation monitoring table below lists mtigation measures required.of the project in order to
reduce the significant effects of the project. These measures will also be included as conditions of
approval for the project. These measures correspond to those discussed in Sections 3.1 through
3.6 of the Draft Supplemental 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 of Temecula departments will
have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation
measures.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is set up as a compliance report, with
space for confirming the correct mitigation measures have been implemented for the Fletcher Jones
Mercedes-Benz of Temecula project. In order to sufficiently track and document the status of
mitigation measures, the matrix below has been prepared with the following components:
• Mitigation measure ,
• Monitoring phase
• Enforcement agency
• Monitoring agency
• Action Indicating Compliance
• Verification of Compliance (for use during the reporting/monitoring)
Information pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary modifications
and rafinements will be documented in the verification of compliance portion of the matrix. The
mitigation matrix follows this section.
The City proceeded with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Fletcher
Jones Mercedes-Benz Project pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163 because the project site falls
within the Harveston Specific Plan which was the subject of a separate EIR (SCH# 1999041033)
raaale<.Ia,es Mercetlaa-Bete MTemaCUla ~ 1 ES4l D20T161
M0lgglip,111onllatlry bM ReparltR7 Pmpnan ,
,halo 2008
Mitigatbn Monitorirq Program Compliance Report
and only minor additions would lie necessary to make this previously certified EIR adequately
apply with regard to the Mercedes-Benz Project.
In addition, a Supplemental EIR is in compliance with CEQA for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-
Benz Project because the conditions as described in Public Resouroes Cotle 21166 and in CEQA
Guidelines 15162 and 15163 exist because the development of a Mercedes-Benz dealership on
the Project site constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known at the
time of the previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and the development of the Mercedes-Benz
Project causes one or more potentially significant effects not previously addressed in the Specific
Plan EIR.
The previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR invdlved extensive environmental review on a variety
of environmental topics for both the current project site as well as the surrounding area covered
by the Harveston Specific Plan. As such, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
prior Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference to the extent any mitigation measures
articulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progrem are applicable to the Mercedes-
Benz Project site. In addition, the mitigation measures in this Specific Plan EIR Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program will be adopted as conditions of approval of the Fletcher
Jones Mercedes-Benz Project to the extent they are applicable to the project site. However, no
mitigation measures regarding afair-share contribution to regional traffic improvements systems
shall be applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project as this fair-share contribution has been satisfied
by the original developer applicant. Additionally, any mitigation measures regarding specific
infrastructure improvements identified in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan
have been satisfied and are therefore not applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project The
Harveston Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available for
public review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.
FlettllBr,grp9 Mveedp.g¢r¢dTemacula 2 E5A/pp778'I
Ml~atlcn MONloriry entl RepoNrg Pm¢ain - Jere 2WB'
`m
m ~
n
0
U $
4 O
C
O
C
.~ w
~ a
c
ew m
c e c
w
O
~ u n
R c p
m ~
acT
~$mcm
mOQ
R' ~
c
E ~i
~ mW
wQ
W
m
L m
~~
$a
C
O
a
a
i
I
---~
1
I
i
I
i
I _b"
~ ,w
~y n
~ ~
E
~aw
~ 4
c i
~m~w
w'v ~> enF
wo ~ i
~?~'>~
m @ ~ c
m U
j ~~`o m
°m-c 'w mc
Iv ES~ o'~
Fm~ ~
w
`o~
y. m
O ~
f
i
~ c
o .
m-
~
~2
a y N
c c
oV
U
" m
~ g ~
~
$' e
:me
o~ c
,~
_'S
v -.mc ~Q~' ms
w
~ .c w
~
w~
, w
~ ~
~ c
m
m~ W
$Yew
~~ d
$am
d
$£~c
C N ~
'.
?y
a °c ~?
S
m~ N
~m~a
L U~ n
.£~t crnE 'p
w T
n w y
`,~~t ^p..
~ -
~& ~o`i ~m~°~ yT
~1f
?LC(n f/~b ~~
w coal °
`~w
a~'
'' ~ ~ -
q.
~
p
m~ C w t m O O w 0
$
~ m C o~ ~G w0 'm m N ~ zm 3 C m U
C ~~ m
°
°
w
s E~ ~ c~ b
m
c ms ~ 8 ~19 ro~ ~~ ~;~ p ~ ~
cc
~
a~
p
w L b
c
w 0 i~
c
y~ ~ 09
q~ gQ W 1
N (0 f0 Ol
-
b~~ y®
'°
c p
e
~
$'m_
T
~
am
g
r~~
c~mSc
cEo 3
g
tom
8m
o
m
!! _ i" .
U
G
,~w
.
ym
nc10 arc
n+~w a~mmE
$- ° n
g~E~c
53w~ v
f°-° $$Wao '~L~q
..w
~~.
$ n
~
°n n
w n
~ amn
4 L`
o
~
F Hm~ ~SU m
n
,
' FAQ ~~o ma
~ m;
c~c .mc m'~@ma
~wc3 ,~ c?~o u%~
-n vw~~c,°c ~'o cm ::E ~Eo m.~~~mt
N1 ~ y L l N C
O nl q C ~O' ~& N .~` TY ~- ~ bj E ~ m F 0 `m ~ O .m..
~ b
~~mw m
Lb
+ ;Q'Z] WN ~~C~ W~ L° mw-•~~' ~9 j§O Q
~ ~&LC9
c ~
m w m $m=m ycm
m$ ~wwwe ~Yic •°-c
gO1m a~ f~a`.m ~o°°`$~= fO1~Oimm 4
~o
'
°rv~ S
°'
1 f~
'
_
_ g
l
y O .='
~~o=
~~
m ~ ~
~~
s
~s
a
n
m
5
v
0
E
s
v
m
5
rc
W
a
y
O
°~
2
x
s
~ r
E
m
5
~..
s
~.
w
K
N
m
F
g
~S
pg
~ yy g~S
6 Z
S
~ai 5~
i~ ~~
C
m
c
C
O
v
K
a
z
O
a
K
O
Z
Q
2
K
O
O
f
Z
O
f
Q
(7
H
K
W
M
U
W
W
H
LL
Q
N
Z
W
m
W
1!1
C
W
W
Z
O
W '
U
W
LL
a
w
u m
m ~
a
U ~
O p
9c
~I
v
w
c
rn$
~gc
c«m
~n
~co
~U
m ~
a
7n s` ~'
c o c
~~6
C
c
m
`oQ
C
W
e
~~
oa
g
N ~ ? ~
uNu~~
nw ~+~a
E cn~_
knot E~ ~i
~ a ~ u 3
m`aow=d
c Z
S.mscm~
~-~L;;C ~
m q.tl_aO~ I
w
Z` ra c E
EOL~`m0
~~o~
m
Eama~~~ ~
oOg.. ~.V ~
~ ~.L`¢c~
.tg~ M ct 10 ~.~v
~~D~®$ a!
iy~s E -` m ~ I
a ~m•~a~E
F f~~'Ow m_v QI
a
s
s
a
0
n
m
~'
E
a
C
w
5
a
m
fi
.2
g
5~5
3
.z
8
8
5
Gg
0
m
.9
K
W
9
f
m
~~
Za
m
c
e
0
r°.
O
K
a
t~
z
a
w
O
z
a
z
•Y
F
2
z
0
a
t_
f
R'
QW
J
7
w
f
LL
m
W
D
W
C
W
Z
O
W
F
J
LL
~ ~
W ~
3
E
v 8
'~ o
c
a°
m m
> a
c
c c c
o a
a
G c o
-v
O
a~
cmg`~
m
~g¢
a
d
$~
m
ca
W
c
8~
cy
f
E
C
a°
a
f
i
I
~_ _. - ~
( 1
i
!
~i ~
I
o
c _ ~
~
c i
$ ~
I I
m
a f
o I
v
- i
i i
i
i
~
i
v
a _
~-
~
o ..
m
mm ~ W
ac c ?? ~ m
m i
'cm'm ` c3 ",
~~'> ~ y
m `o mQp~°1 ~o~°.ti''-°n
~~ o
`a o'a m
~~m ~ 2
m a
c~~r ~oaL" I ~32
w
1' i
w°
n ~ m
c ~i ~ ~ q
ha m
a'f~' o.
c
~~c
m
°
N
S i
a ~o
N ~
~
•° w
~Q y
y
.Oy
m c c~ti
o
m
s
°
.
. 0$ ~d ~o e
. o g
n c
o
~_
a
O1
a m
to m m
9
c E m
' ° m$
~ioN m 2
~' y~ m
r o t
a`ts ° N
'
a` ~i -m 5?
-O
m
~a ~L°~o~
.
c
'
N a
V ca
Em
LE m rUUm ~
~~
~~~ p
t
{c{pp3
~O~ L
~_
WE
OC mt
OLO OU
O)C 30
~ C
> N~CpC CI
Ej
N N
O
NymE itYi
'W..:
N'O'N mmN
N
a.Q am m3 °3$ ~° ~2 m U
~.a m°a N.. iS o.
c ai o'm'$5E
~ c
pmt y.q a $ao mn Fs'c ~nwm
m N
mv
' ~ N
amic°m
°
.
m
.~$r namm ~u°i
m acimw °'~ m
5~ m.,
m
~~0 mmgc°
~~ I ~o
pi ar ca~i ani
6
I
O
I
~>+
o m.^J
E ~~ ~a
c~~ L4 Lm
m ~ m
gc_a3 m~
^~ TSc O:~D
N
iFmc m°m O
c
au$ •~~ mfg ,~c ~m
O
e
O
t O'~`Om O~a.cc
Ct•-OI
O"~ocffi° 'v
CE 0
~ mm
f~~~ Ha~ m'O ~d } C
d WG~
m ~ W~ e'~
~ a
S w 6 R
w i CC H.y
_~ ~
X38 d ad ci d ui u: ~3maE .~~'SaEim !F~'.~y~a' d i
s
a`
S
8
a
.~
E
~°
E
s
W
m
a
y
'~
y~
5
LL
41
z~
~~
R
N
W
4
S~
E~
~~
I
c
0
a
c~
z
rc
a
W
C
O
Z
Q
T..
F
2
O
Z
0
Q
_f
W
N
W
W
F '
LL
0
Z
W
m
W
D
W
K
W
W
Z
Q
7
W
H
J
LL
A
E
v S
o s
0
c c e
o E3~
a~U
m ~
a c ~,
o c
a 0
R~
g\C0
L
C Q
W
ei
c m
,Y
'et
aw
g
O
m
a
a
E
f
I
- _
i
e
U
p
C
o ~
1
O
C
oG
v ~
o
5
c
U
' ~
v
~
N
C
O E
C p
M
E ~ ~ Q m
-
W
2 E ~
o d C
$ N C
~~ O
~
~
5
v
c
~
~ E
m N
m
m o
~ c '% $>.. c~ ~ m
w N
O.
C O
~ U
~ ~O"a 0~
O G.~ O~
~ ~ ~
O
«O.
O 2 ~ i 'C W O
O ~O « m
C 2 O
m 9
~~ Cl~`
--" 0
N LO L C^
S Ul ~
~ .Q c
N
C
E
°
MIO«
~M
OA pvMM
1~
b
c
~c
~
mro
~~c
~>::
8m m
m
o
'-m co
~ ,,-°'_~c+
' o'i.•
~ 'S
~ o$E a•`'n
~ ~ct5
a c-a
oL
d ~'. .E~
a
Ua~ yc
gm °~
>c I
~ rv ~'
ya$ m
yb'
m n
KE. t
7~
CI
tJ
~
ui
j
~ a 3 .
Q
a0 . ,
~U
i -
-
a
5 ~~
~ S
m
8
j-- ---I
i
~-- ~ ~'
i r a o
o € W ~ m ~
I v
$
~8am°U
~ ~ o
I ~Sc~7c I
7.% i ~
! _ w
's ~ c ° ` ~ 9
a
~ s
o m
V m
m~ h
f
U
I
p
' N
G ~. I ii
m
«
'~
(J ~ V
F
i
~_ S
I ~
c
c
O ~
~ ~
~
2 ~
I
q
a
i ~~ ~ s
0
i
a w
v a
'b',c a ~.
I ~.ooo m~n3~~ w
A «~ V p~ q T
c qq1!
~ L y W ~~ N N
~
a
~$.r..' LL a a. @o°~ nab
~
E
l y
't^ c r
n n~ a
d d~
$
Z C m
W 0
~
O L N O
m em
~ L
Q N
RR
t m
~
U
rr.a CO b
a='3 ~ ~ ~ O
~ OjpWO~c Vll
v
'
m H{
E
' .
~
~.mv~m E w
~ I
a
y
~ a
wcaN~~ m
f g
5~.
j FmO ~a ~ c
F=
m H ~
~ mmpE~m c
(
E
~ 6 0
~ p
OY Km
T
~
a O
Ni
~ ~ E
~°
i `~ d c
~ n E a `o ~ mi
d
ce ~ S
t
0'~ U 6 m T ~' m'i O tp e1 N sl ~ 2
f.
~U ca m m ~ o m~~~ro o{ F ~
M ~ .
I z., G
¢s
d
7
aC
C
.o..
of
K
0
C
a
z
a
0
Z
Q
Z
a
0
f
Z
O
0
a
F
W
N
5
W
W
F
LL
~.
Z
W
O
U
C
W .
~.
W
O
C
W
2
W
J
LL
E @
6 R
E
U •$
~ ~
0
$
m
~ a
C
m~
;WW
Asa
a `cY
mm
'`m z ~'
n~
~~
-~ u
>? g
~a
W
~~
ca
g
f
c
.CO
W
0I
g
~. _. I
_ ~.~....
T
I
I
1 ..._._
~ ~ m
Ioa~
tom
I m ®~
# ~ m O
U
lL m ~`
I
m`o ~
m
U E rn
~ m
0
8
~
W
i
o~
~ E"
OF -_i!
E
I
I °
m
a
m g~ mm ~ m
m~'m
c
m n 'y9 cC
~`m Z`ac i m a m°cm w
.
~
~ ~m
m
~W
` ~c
~m
m~« ~
m
c
$'
$$~t
~ ~$
$m~~i
a ~~
~m
as ~
Cm .
m
m
ry
r-%
~
my
I v
i
m'm'
~ 6
O
N
'" m~ C
g
'
>EN-
c"~L'~mmm~mi
m W
c
g mac acid .
E~
o
€
m~ .
mm'oam~`amEmf
S
~
~o °'mqm
~'
'3" y.
my
LL~
at ya.c Emo
.c
m
m°I
ccEmc c
.
m
~UN~m t
i
mQ'o
d cn
Bm cTi
y~m
BS'~Ti~X2YEm~
' 't''E.mcH ~£c
m n m ai
m t am a c m c
o m c a a€ 1
m$ a.$ ma 9 m ~' o. 2` E$ m m
U~ m ~ Z c a «~ 'w
m° °'u
~ ~W5' Y.
mNmroEEl ~io ne uid
$ a5$
C ~} C~ o m
'~} ~ cO M~~m ~~~I m
m
~ 0«A dm
' ~d~
m
~ MOB
X20 ho,~a~m `o ~c ~i
~g'~ya
tm
~
g trig ~~E
o
Ew~5
3 ei"o
~~y
m~
„
i
i u_
IS ~
m -
a
~$~
gm~°oF~~«cam gg
fa.°. °e4C
EaE
O
ml
R'
O~
of
m
0
m
0
m
E
E
S
E
g
w
a
rn
s
6
s
s
a
8 ~
C
w
1~
p~
q8
C
LLL
!'
iii
i~
QyN_
W
s
b °~
~~g
E6 $
6
F
m
m
C
O
QQm
K
Q
a
2
(-
LL'
a
K
2
K
O
h
2
f
Z
0
a
c~
~.
W
N
3
W
s
N
W
m
W
D
W
W.
W
~..
0
C'
W
2
F
w
LL
a
E
0
U $
o
e
a°
R
C
m y..
i o
U I
N T m r
o
~
~
° a m
a,}ua
yt g
i.nm m
n
~ncm
~ o m
'
~~m
n
i$ U 4 F
I K~ m° _~
N amcV I °m'VO
m ~
air
~ m
~~c .m
m_
c
~o
m
~m
~~
C °
U ~
U ~ '
m
o'n
UE•
c
~~ FUm
I I
Om c
m
i ~ W ~
~ ' ~
ma
zpm j m
O°
' „ j
OO i
00
I
U ~
I V N i U f
F.
I F ~ m
m i
~m °
st I~~ ~~ ~ ~~~
ga !a'`o ac ~a~
O U I U
$~ ~Bi T Eo`oc ~o` I .~ o a
`o m gi .9 !E c cm c w.~ m m p5~m .o c 9pp
4ca om E~pcps$o`e°~ ~$.~ °c~E~ m S
2`G'~~$~vmeo m"@EU ~oa, I m>~'--`mn I c~c
ma mrnm v^~Q3mmwg« pia ;~mo I m .~.m m
c~o`m ~oommmo ~.crn°~ mi ~.c..$t ( v rna~
c ~ $
G.0 ~ 0 m m C C m IOTI n O M m C 16w m N m 0 8 ° j C C C
y OIOp-
$~~ m m~ m r~ m E C y m m i m O 0 .~` N °. ? U C O
OtO ~NC 'OO L_ C"'.~ LaU U mU m L .$~44OQ
~a.`me2 ~amo$E~m~-.~~w{ cz•S ~w~w i c ~Qmm
p~~~t~ma 2.e~m$rC7~w ~E~ uim®m X0(8 n°O_v;$
~~p :4 na YS~~w`$am,~EmO-~~m°°~f I:2 ne t`..~a n" maven
7 o~em~p mp'9 mmt ca Tio~m `-° w$a c°;~Im~ 3 m
m~m~m`o mac ~:-y ~~S'm!€~~ _Bmm$ a tE «~~14m
f ~$o cf§~omoo>°m~~ ~cm rcmt.al L° ::~ o~o~
C 0qY~~:~~inQ c°-m Hmoo m'o ai~F nmommiD ~e n o~~pp ~°.yye
N C ~.:1 'O ~ M C N N C$~ C TJ ~ O m~ L e1 m m 0 U f ~ «i E ' U 0 0
Q p~ _ m G m II ' O)
a Y Z O at O L ~~ ~?~ O~~ yC myC O L O N> y y~ O ~ C C~ ~1 O
O .4 m Z O C O y ~U p Ol ~ O L O I 0 N ry ~ 6 m j 0 I ~p ~~ U m W d
.f mma p. 3'n o'n mmEmmommlgvl ad 'r m6°mS aif-i~w .
~~
~ ~~
a ~.
m
s
m
$ 1
5 I
E
c
a
m
2
w
m
a
y
~.
x
a
a
s
8
m
y
m
Y
f
O
m
a
~ ~
~ ~~
L~ ~~
F
O8~ z~