HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-110 CC Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 08-110
' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SANTA
MARGARITA ANNEXATION AREA, 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 SANTA
MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION PROJECT,
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES,
LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE
EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST
OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-
0225 AND PA07-0226)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does
hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council directed staff to
initiate a feasibility study of an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Expansion of
approximately 4600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita
River and northerly of the San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Annexation Area").
B. On March 6, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council adopted Resolution
No. 07-23 to initiate proceedings for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation.
C. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No.
PA07-0225 (a General Plan Amendment, Zone Text Amendment and Pre-Zoning) and
Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation)
in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code
which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of
approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula
boundary, west of Interstate 1-15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside
County boundary (collectively, the "Project').
D. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act.
1
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-110 1
E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
' the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the authority and
principal responsibility for approving the Project and making application to the Riverside
County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO").
F. On April 13, 2007, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) 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, and the comment period was extended
through May 18, 2007. On May 10, 2007, in accordance with CEQA Section
15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping meeting
to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR.
G. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating
the analysis in a Draft EIR.
H. Upon Completion of the Draft EIR dated February 15, 2008, the City
initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office
of Planning and Research. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft
EIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City.
' I. The Draft EIR, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code Sec. 21000 et. seq., and the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et sq. (collectively referred to as
"CEQA"), and circulated for public review from February 22, 2008 through April 7, 2008.
Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations and individuals. In
addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City's library and made copies
available for review at the City offices and the City's website.
J. Based on various comments submitted regarding the Draft EIR, the City
decided to revise certain aspects of the Draft EIR and provide an additional opportunity
for the public and responsible agencies to comment on the environmental
documentation for the Project.
K. On July 28, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Revised Notice of Preparation (the "RNOP") of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons
that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners and
tenants. The RNOP requested comments, and the comment period was extended
through August 26, 2008.
L. In response to the RNOP, written comments were received from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating
' the analysis in the Draft EIR.
R:/Resos 200a/Resos 08-110 2
M. Upon Completion of a revised Draft EIR (the "Recirculated DEIR" or
' "RDEIR") dated September 22, 2008, the City initiated a public comment period by filing
a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. The City also
published a Notice of Availability for the RDEIR in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City.
N. The RDEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for
public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public
review period. Copies of the RDEIR were sent to public agencies, organizations and
individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the revised Draft EIR at the City's
library and made copies available for review at the City offices.
0. In response to the RDEIR, written comments were received from various
individuals and organizations. The City responded to all written comments, including
comments submitted on the initial DEIR. Those comments and the responses are
included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments
document (Final EIR). The Final EIR consists of the RDEIR, Comments and
Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Errata listing changes made to the RDEIR in response to comments.
P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all comments on or before November 26, 2008. Written responses to
public agency comments were provided on or before November 26, 2008.
' Q. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project
and environmental review on November 19, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested
persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter.
R. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR
prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopt Findings pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning
Commission also adopted Resolution No. 08-53, thereby recommending that the City
Council take various actions related to the approval of the Project.
S. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project for which an environmental impact report is required, make one or
more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR
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,
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-110 3
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.
T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a 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.
U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A of
this resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit
' A of this resolution.
W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition
of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A, of this
resolution.
X. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this resolution.
Y. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution,
which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
Z. 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. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as
Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
AA. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
' reviewed and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well
as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No
comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-110 4
substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of
' the EIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified,
and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
BB. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is custodian
of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City
Clerk, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, California 92590.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California, exercising its
independent judgment after considering the administrative record, hereby certifies the Final
Environmental Impact Report, adopts the 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 as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. Further, the City Council
hereby imposes each mitigation measure as a condition on the Santa Margarita Area
Annexation Project, and directs City staff shall implement and monitor the mitigation measures
as described in Exhibit C.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 9th day of December, 2008.
Michael . ag r, Mayor
ATTEST: J
Susan W J nes, MMC
City Cler
[SEAL]
1
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-110 5
' STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 08-110 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the gth day of December, 2008, by the
following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts,
Washington, Naggar
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
GL~
' Susan . Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-110 6
' EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
1. 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 City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed
Santa Margarita Area Annexation Project (the "Project"), as more fully described in the
Final EIR. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these
proceedings, both written and oral, the Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") and all of its
contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the EIR, and staff and
consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
It. Project Objectives.
As set forth in the RDEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seek to achieve
with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows:
A. To integrate the Santa Margarita Area Annexation ("SMAA") into the
City's General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the
general framework for ultimate development within the study area.
' Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091.
A-1
' B. To preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural open space; while
retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands.
C. To protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve
by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial
StudylNotice of Preparation
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation in
April of 2007 to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this
evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of
a Project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics
producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be
significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the
EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Agriculture Resources; (C) Biological Resources with the
exception of those areas studied in the February 15, 2008 EIR; (D) Cultural Resources
with the exception of those areas studied in the February 15, 2008 EIR; (E) Geology
and Soils; (F) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H)
Noise; (1) Population and Housing; (J) Public Services; (K) Recreation; and (L) Utilities
and Service Systems.
' However, on July 28, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082,
the City published a revised Notice of Preparation and initial study ("RNOP"). Impacts
related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant in the
RNOP: (A) Air Quality; (B) Biological Resources; (C) Cultural Resources; (D) Land Use
and Planning; (E) Mineral Resources; (F) Noise; (G) Public Services; (H) Recreation;
and (1) Transportation and Planning. Thus, any impacts in the following issue areas
were determined to be less than significant based on the RNOP: (A) Aesthetics; (B)
Agricultural Resources; (C) Geology and Soils; (D) Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
(E) Hydrology and Water Quality; (F) Population and Housing; (G) Utilities and Service
Systems.
During the processing of the Project, comments were made regarding alleged
job loses should the Project go forward, which could be construed as related to
population and housing. The basis for the comments was a proposal made to the
County of Riverside for a mining operation within the Project Area. Because the
annexation would maintain the existing condition, which does not presently have an
existing or entitled mining operation, the City Council finds that the annexation would
not have an impact on the number of existing jobs within the annexation area, and
thus would not have impacts related to population or housing.
A-2
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the
EIR
The September 22, 2008 RDEIR found that the proposed Project would have a
less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of
environmental topic areas listed below. The less than significant environmental impact
determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on
the more expansive discussions contained in the EIR.
A. Air Quality
1. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
2007 Air Quality Management Plan.
2. With regard to long-term operational emissions, the Project will
not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
3. The Project will not exceed the localized significant threshold
(LST) for long-term operation emissions.
4. Localized carbon monoxide hot-spots would not result due to
increases in localized traffic volumes.
' 5. The proposed Project will not result in a significant impact with
regard to Greenhouse Gas Emissions either in the short-term construction phase or
during the long-term operational phase of the Project, in part due to the limited amount
of development that is contemplated and in part due to the energy efficiency criteria
and other control measures incorporated into the Project.
6. Regional air quality emissions resulting from the construction of
the proposed Project and the construction of other related cumulative projects would
not significantly impact existing regional air quality levels on a cumulative basis.
7. Regional air quality emissions resulting from the operation of the
proposed Project and the operation of other related cumulative projects would not
significantly impact existing regional air quality levels on a cumulative basis, except a
mitigation measure is provided below to ensure a less than significant impact with
regard to CARB recommended siting guidelines.
8. The Project, which would generally allow only rural residential and
open space land uses, will not create objectionable odors.
B. Cultural Resources
A-3
' 1. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of
Regulations, Section 15064.5.
C. Land Use and Planning
1. The Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of the County of Riverside or the City of Temecula (including the
general plan and zoning policies and regulations) adopted for the purposes of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect. During the processing of the Project, certain
commenters assert that the Project would result in a significant land use and planning
impact. First, the baseline is the existing condition in the Project Area, and this project
will not change the existing land use in the area, but would only change the governing
entity and the rules that would apply to any future development. Second, the land use
designations proposed by the Project are generally consistent with the Riverside
County General Plan land use designations. Although commenters suggest that the
proposed City zoning regulations are inconsistent with County rules, the proposed
zones are consistent with the County General Plan designations, and the City finds
that the limitation on mining contemplated by the City's proposed zoning does not rise
to the level of a significant land use and planning impact, particularly because there
are no land use entitlements for any such use in the Project area. Finally, the
contemplated change with respect to mining has been fully disclosed.
' D. Mineral Resources
1. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan, because neither the City or County general plans, or other
applicable plans, delineate the resources in the area as locally important.
E. Public Services and Utilities
1. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with school facilities.
2. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with park services.
3. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with library facilities.
4. The Project will not require or result in the construction of new
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
would cause significant environmental effects.
' 5. The Project will not have significant effect with regard to water
supply.
A-4
6. The Project will not require or result in the construction of new
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and will have not
impact to available wastewater treatment facilities.
7. No impacts are anticipated that would affect the wastewater
treatment provider's current capacity or existing service commitments.
8. Construction of the Project will not cause solid waste to exceed
the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the Project site.
9. Operation of the Project will not cause solid waste to exceed the
permitted capacity of the landfill serving the Project site.
10. No impact will result from the Project to federal, state or local
statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
11. The Project will not cause an adverse impact by requiring or
resulting in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities.
12. The Project will not impact electrical, gas, and communications
facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
F. Transportation and Traffic
1. The Project, along with the existing traffic conditions plus ambient
growth, will not cause a significant impact with regard to the deterioration in level of
service (LOS) levels below the applicable threshold for the intersections as identified in
Tables 3.7-13 and 3.7-14 of the RDEIR, with the exception of the 1-15 Southbound
Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd intersection identified in Section VI below.
2. The Project, along with the existing traffic conditions plus ambient
growth, will not cause a significant impact with regard to an increase in volume to
capacity (v/c) ratio above the applicable threshold for all project studied roadway
segments as identified in Table 3.7-15 of the RDEIR.
3. The cumulative traffic conditions (the Project plus related
cumulative projects, plus existing traffic conditions along with ambient growth) will not
result in a significant impact with regard to the deterioration in LOS levels below the
applicable threshold for the intersections identified in Table 3.7-16 of the RDEIR with
the exception of the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection as
detailed in Section VI below.
4. The cumulative traffic conditions (the Project plus related
' cumulative projects, plus existing traffic conditions along with ambient growth) will not
result in a significant impact with regard to an increase in v/c ratio above the applicable
threshold for project studied roadway segments as identified in 3.7-17 of the RDEIR,
A-5
' with the exception of the 1-15 Roadway Segments and the Rainbow Canyon Road
roadway segment as detailed in Section VI below.
G. Noise
1. Traffic associated with operation of the Project would not result in
a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways
2. Increases in traffic from Project in combination with other
development would not result in a cumulatively considerable noise increase.
H. Recreation
1. The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
2. The proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated
to a Less Than Significant Level
' The RDEIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant
environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, public services and
utilities, recreation, and transportation and traffic. With the exception of specific impact
to air quality, mineral resources, transportation and traffic, and noise, discussed in
Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts
in this section to a less than significant level.
The City Council 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 VI below.
The City Council 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. Air Quality
1. Short -Term Construction Emissions
Short-term emissions consist of fugitive dust and other particulate matter,
as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction-related vehicles. Short-term
impacts will also include emissions generated during construction as a result of
operation of personal vehicles by construction workers, asphalt degassing, and
architectural coating (painting) operations during construction. As described below,
A-6
' these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Rock blasting and air
quality impacts thereof are discussed separately in Section VI below.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant
environmental effects during the short-term construction period. Specifically, the
following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's short-term
construction emissions impact remains less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: General contractors shall implement
a fugitive dust control program pursuant to the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b: All construction equipment shall be
properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2c: General contractors shall maintain
and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During
construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their
engines off when not in use.to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction emissions
should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during
' second-stage smog alerts.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather
than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent
feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2e: All construction vehicles shall be
prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on and off-site.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings
and solvents that are consistent with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD
rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. Compliance with this rule is achieved
through application of standard best management practices in construction and
operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed
soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph,
sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction
activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground
cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or
' move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust
Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of
A-7
' this project (approximately 718 acres of developable land), a Fugitive Dust Control
Plan or Large Operation Notification might be required, depending upon the size of the
individual development proposals.
Further, SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural
coatings and limits the volatile organic content (VOC) in paints and paint solvents. This
rule dictates the VOC content of paints available for use during building construction,
thereby reducing impacts.
Short-term emissions were evaluated using the URBEMIS 2007
for Windows Version 9.2.4. The URBEMIS model however, does not calculate
emissions from rock blasting. Blasting emissions were calculated separately and
combined with the URBEMIS calculations. The air quality impacts of blasting could
violate air quality standards, thus impacts from blasting could be significant and that
issue is discussed in Section VI below. In order to prepare a worst-case analysis of
potential air quality impacts for the proposed Project, the total construction of the
development allowed by the proposed Project was assumed to occur concurrently,
and is expected to require approximately 1 year, from February 2009 to April 2010.
Development-specific information regarding the precise location and size of individual
dwelling units has not been determined because to do so would require a high degree
of speculation. In addition, several assumptions relevant to model input for short-term
construction emission estimates are as follows:
' • The project site is currently mostly vacant (with the exception of
a handful of existing residences that will be incorporated into the Project); therefore,
demolition emissions were not analyzed.
• The grading will occur concurrently in 2009. Building
construction will begin one month after grading begins.
• Construction will take 14 months. Painting and asphalt can occur
during the same time as construction, and the resulting emissions added to the
construction emissions.
Table 3.1-4 in the EIR indicates that daily worst-case emissions
from construction of 81 dwelling units would result in exceedances of the SCAQMD
regional air quality emissions threshold for NOx, due to concurrent blasting and other
site preparation activities. Site preparation activities would not result in exceedance of
standards, however, inclusion of blasting would cause an exceedance of NOx (See
Section VI below for a discussion of the significant and unavoidable impact caused by
blasting emissions). It should also be noted that construction would likely be less
intense (be spread out over a longer period of years) than predicted for this analysis,
which would result in lower daily emissions and disclosed in the RDEIR. However,
SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded in the short-term; therefore, the impact from
' emissions produced during project construction will be significant and mitigation is
required. The inclusion of Mitigation Measures 3.1-2a through 3.1-2f will ensure a less
than significant impact for activities other than blasting.
A-8
' 2. Short-Term Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)
In addition to the analysis of air quality impacts under the
assumption that all 81 units would be constructed simultaneously as a means to
disclose a worst case and most impacfful scenario, the RDEIR also analyzed the
potential impacts through the LST method established by SCAQMD. LSTs represent
the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to the most
stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard to be exceeded, and
are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each Source
Reception Area (SRA). The Project is located within SCQAMD SRAs 25 and 26. The
emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NO2, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Because the LST analysis focuses on smaller scale projects, the assumptions for this
analysis differ from the worst case scenario assumptions described above.
Specifically, the assumptions for the LST analysis include that development of the
residential structures would occur over time rather than as a single project of 81 units.
Therefore, smaller areas of disturbance are assumed for the LST analysis.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant short-term
LST emissions of the Project. Specifically, the following measures have been included
' to ensure that the short-term LST emissions of the Project remain at a level that is less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather
than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent
feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2e: All construction vehicles shall be
prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on and off-site.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings
and solvents that are consistent with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
For short-term construction emissions, it is estimated that the
maximum daily area to be disturbed would be 2.5 acres a day. Under the LST analysis
methodology, only the on-site emissions need to be considered. SCAQMD has
developed a series of worksheets for use by projects in order to determine the
pollutant emissions for LST analysis purposes. SCAQMD has provided LST lookup
tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed
' construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality
impacts for projects 5 acres or smaller. As mentioned above, it was assumed that the
maximum daily area to be disturbed would be 2.5 acres a day. The closest sensitive
A-9
receptors (i.e. residences) are located approximately 100 meters (328 feet) away from
potential development area. In order to perform a localized analysis, an LST was
assumed using a 2-acre site and a 100 meter receptor distance in SRA No. 25.
As shown in Table 3.1-7 of the EIR, PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and CO
localized construction emissions would not exceed California Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Therefore, short-term construction emissions of non-attainment pollutants
and precursors generated by project construction are below SCAQMD thresholds and
impacts would be less than significant.
Potential localized impacts from construction emissions are less
than SCAQMD significance thresholds, and will remain less than significant with the
incorporation of the above mitigation measures.
3. Operational Cumulative Impacts
Although operational impacts of the proposed Project in
conjunction with the operation of other projects in the region will cause a less than
significant impact, in order for the Project to comply with CARB siting guidelines, the
mitigation measure set forth below is proposed.
(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 EIR. Specifically the following mitigation measure has been
imposed to ensure the Project is in conformance with CARB siting guidelines, and to
ensure the less than significant operational cumulative impact remains less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Residential uses shall be located at
least 500 feet from the edge of the 1-15 freeway, consistent with CARB siting
recommendations.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective (March 2005) provides important air quality information about
certain types of facilities (e.g., freeways, refineries, rail yards, ports, etc.) that should
be considered when siting sensitive land uses (e.g., residences). A key air pollutant
common to these sources is particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB identifies
diesel particulate matter (DPM) as both a carcinogen and long-term chronic TAC.
Gasoline exhaust also results in additional TAC emissions (e.g., 1,3 butadiene,
' benzene, formaldehyde, etc). Because living near sources of air toxics may increase
both cancer and non-cancer health risks, CARB recommends that proximity be
considered in the siting of new sensitive land uses. CARB's recommendations are
A-10
based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposure can be reduced as
much as 80 percent with recommended separation. The CARB recommends that site-
specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and
should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. The recommendations
are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined "buffer zones." In addition, the
CARB recognizes that site-specific analysis is preferred over use of the recommended
site distances, which is similar to a screening level approach.
Where possible, CARB recommends a minimum separation
between new sensitive land uses and existing sources. However, this is not always
possible, particularly where there is an elevated health risk over large geographical
areas (e.g. urbanized areas of southern California). The CARB recommends avoiding
new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000
vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The basis for the
recommended distance is a southern California study that showed measured
concentrations of vehicle-related pollutants drop dramatically within approximately 300
feet of the Interstate 710 (1-710) and Interstate 405 (1-405) freeways. Another study
looked at the validity of using distance from a roadway as a measure of exposure to
traffic related air pollution. This study showed that concentrations of traffic related
pollutants declined by 70 percent at a distance of 500 feet.
CARB concluded that these findings were also consistent with air
quality modeling and risk analyses done by CARB staff. According to a visual site
survey and search on the SCAQMD Facility Information (FIND) database, no permitted
TAC sources are located within the advisory recommendations promulgated by the
CARB. However, the actual project boundary is located within 500 feet of the 1-15
freeway. Since residential uses may potentially be located within 500 feet of the
freeway, a mitigation measure will be added to ensure the project is consistent with
CARB siting guidelines.
As such, carcinogenic risk to on-site sensitive populations would
be less than significant with mitigation. The Project may introduce residential uses
near the 1-15 freeway and expose residences to TACs from the freeway. Thus, a
mitigation measure has been included to ensure the project is consistent with CARB
recommended siting guidelines, and to ensure the operational cumulative impact
remains less than significant.
B. Biological Resources
1. Impact on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on
candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Future development within the
annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species
' found within the area. Potential impacts to these species would include an incremental
loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat). Individuals
A-11
' present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could
potentially be killed or displaced by construction activities.
(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 EIR. Specifically the following mitigation measures have
been imposed upon the Project, to mitigate any potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Future projects in the annexation
area shall pay a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to
support the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other requirements of
the MSHCP including any Additional Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas
outside the MSHCP Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian,
Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, which covers additional
survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface
Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the fee and compliance
with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and
NEPA, Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species
' Act (CESA).
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b: In order to avoid violation of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) and California Fish and Game Code, site-
preparation activities (removal of trees and vegetation) shall be avoided, to the
greatest extent possible, during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August
31) of potentially occurring native and migratory bird species. If site-preparation
activities are proposed during the nesting/breeding season (February 1 to August 31),
a pre-activity field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine
whether active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and
Game Code are present in the construction zone. If active nests are not located within
the project area and appropriate buffer, construction may be conducted during the
nesting/breeding season. However, if active nests are located during the pre-activity
field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500
feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected
(under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird nests (non-listed), or within 100
feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until the nest is no longer active.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project site lies within the MSHCP. The approval of
' the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the CDFG
allows signatories of the IA to issue "Take" authorizations for the 146 species covered
by the MSHCP (termed "covered species"), including state and federally listed species
A-12
as well as other identified sensitive species. The "take" authorization includes impacts
to the habitats of the covered species. A project that complies with the MSHCP meets
federal and state endangered species requirements and meets CEQA criteria for less
than significant impacts to the covered species and their habitats, per the MSHCP
EIR. Because the sensitive plant and animal species located in the annexation area
are MSHCP Covered Species the USFWS has determined that these species are
adequately conserved through implementation of the MSHCP. (Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit No. TE088609-0 dated June 22, 2004.) Therefore, implementation. of
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
Some of the bird species that have been documented on site are
protected under the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that prohibits
take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs (in particular raptor
.species). If it is found that any of these species has subsequently established an
active nest on the project site and that the nest would be lost as a result of site-
preparation, it may be in conflict with these regulations. In order to avoid violation of
the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, general guidelines suggest that
project related disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated
during the nesting cycle (generally February 1 to August 31). Should eggs or fledglings
be discovered on site, the nest cannot be disturbed (pursuant to CDFG guidelines)
until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the
' nest on their own). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b will reduce these
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The majority of the project area proposed for annexation will be
designated "Open Space" and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on
the remaining 718 acres which will be designated "Hillside Residential" is limited to 1
DU/10 AC which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. As this
development occurs, the loss of the portions of the project site as habitat will be an
adverse, but not substantial impact on region-wide populations of these species. The
proposed project's potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species will be reduced to below
the level of significance through compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP and the.
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b.
2. Impact on Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural
Communities
The vast majority of the riparian habitat within the annexation area
occurs on the SMER, and is therefore conserved. Therefore the project will not result
in a substantial adverse impact to riparian habitats. Other natural communities present
within the project area include chaparral, Costal Sage Scrub (CSS), and oak
woodland. The majority of the area of these communities within the project area is
' conserved on the SMER. Impacts to the remaining areas of these communities could
occur as part of the development of the 718-acre developable portion of the project
area.
A-13
' (a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental
effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically the mitigation measure requiring
compliance with the MSHCP will ensure a less than significant impact
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Future projects in the annexation area
shall pay a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to support
the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other requirements of the
MSHCP including any Additional Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas
outside the MSHCP Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian,
Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, which covers additional
survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildiands Interface
Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the fee and compliance
with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and
NEPA, Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species
Act (CESA).
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
' Although CSS has no sensitive designation under the federal and
state endangered species acts, it is considered to have a special conservation status
by the CNDDB. This community is also the preferred habitat of the coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila cMifornica californica), which is a federally threatened species
with documented on the SMER and with the potential to occur within other areas of the
project site.
The portion of the Project site that will retain the potential for
approximately 81 dwelling units will be developed in accordance with general plan and
the proposed pre-zoning designations. The proposed General Plan policies and
relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (the HR-SM zone) require any hillside
development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological
corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports
interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area,
particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing
grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas
emissions) include regulations to buffer the SMER from subsequent residential
development, avoid interference with linkages for the species in the area, and
preserve habitat for sensitive species. The city of Temecula General Plan EIR
Mitigation Measures that apply to potential future activities within the project site are
incorporated by reference in Section 3.2-6 of the EIR. Development within the 718-
acre developable portion of the proposed annexation area will add to the overall loss
' of CSS caused by development within western Riverside County, however,
compliance with the MSHCP will mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels.
Therefore, impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
A-14
' identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or by the
USFWS would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
3. Impacts on Wetlands
The five-mile stretch of the Santa Margarita River that flows
through the project site has a diverse array of plant and animal species whose habitats
are contingent on the flow of the river. The Santa Margarita River and its tributaries
have the potential to be Water of the U.S. Infrastructure associated with residential
development has the potential to impact Waters of the U.S. Any future projects that
have the potential to impact the river or its tributaries will need to be evaluated to
determine their jurisdictional status.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effect on wetlands. Specifically, compliance with the following regulatory requirements
articulated in Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 will ensure a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Potential impacts to Waters of the U.S.
and Waters of the State will be reduced to below the level of significance through
' implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in
combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance:
• Prior to any activity in the project area subject to the Corps
jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the Corps that no permit
would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms
and conditions of the Corps permit shall be implemented.
• Prior to any activity in the project area subject to CDFG
jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the CDFG that no agreement
would be required for construction activities. Should an agreement be required, all the
terms and conditions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be
implemented.
• Prior to any activity in the project area subject to San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction, written documentation shall be
obtained from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that no Waste
Discharge Requirement (WDR) or Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit
would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms
and conditions of the WDR permit or Water Quality Certification shall be implemented.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
' Due to the speculative nature of any development within the
annexation area, the extent of impact that may occur to federally protected wetlands
A-15
' cannot be definitively determined. If the Waters of the U.S. are to be filled, prior to
grading, the future residential projects will be required to obtain a Section 404 permit
from the Corps, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the
CDFG. By complying with regulatory requirements, including the implementation of
any compensatory mitigation required by the permitting agencies, the project will have
less than significant impacts to waters under federal and state jurisdiction. Therefore,
potential impacts to waters under federal and state jurisdiction will be less than
significant with the incorporation of the articulated mitigation measure.
4. Impact on Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species,
and Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors
The MSHCP identifies five geographic locations within the city and
surrounding areas that contain potential regional wildlife corridor linkages, including
French Valley, Lower Tucalota Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and
Murrieta Creek. Upon annexation, the Santa Margarita River would then also be a
potential regional wildlife corridor linkage within the city in addition to the previously
identified five potential wildlife corridors.
(a) Findings
' Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Specifically, compliance with the Temecula General Plan
Mitigation Measures, will ensure a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: See Temecula General Plan Mitigation
Measures
General Plan EIR Mitigation. Measure B-1: The City shall require
discretionary development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat
areas, designated critical habitat, and MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages
as defined by the USFWS, the CDFG and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological
assessments to determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate
significant impacts to a level below significance.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-2: The City shall require
the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife
corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, with first
priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-4: The City will evaluate
and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource significance. Such
' acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement or gift;
.dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with
A-16
' other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements;
State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-5: The City shall use
the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations,
associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive
lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-6: The City shall
continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning, watershed
management planning, and water resource management planning efforts.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-6: The City will require
proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to minimize impacts to CSS,
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent
with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site
preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside
MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub
vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-9: The City shall require
proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to avoid adverse impacts to
' Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the
maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation
ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland
creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions
of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining
habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to
achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-10: The City shall
review future discretionary implementing projects with development-associated
impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and
buffer development requirements, and shall require compliance with the following
MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines:
a. Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to
MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures
required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the
MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to
existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of
untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP
conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the
' release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other
elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem
processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished
A-17
using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or
mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure
effective operations of runoff control systems.
b. Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP
conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure)
that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or
water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such
chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area.
Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be
implemented.
c. Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the
MSHCP conservation area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation
area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project
designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do
not increase.
d. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting
the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to
minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant
to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise
' standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation area
should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
e. Invasives: When approving landscape plans for
proposed development adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the City
shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species
defined within the MSHCP for the portions. of development adjacent to the
conservation area.
f. Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP
conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual
project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal
predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers
may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or
other appropriate mechanisms.
g. Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes
associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP
conservation area.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
' The southeast corner of the Project site is located within a
designated "Special Linkage Area."
A-18
' The MSHCP describes the special linkage area as follows:
This Special Linkage Area will contribute to assembly of a portion
of the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage (SAPML) for the benefit of Covered
Species. Tribal coordination regarding American Indian Lands will be necessary in this
area. The SAPML includes locations within and outside the MSHCP Plan Area.
Features of the entire linkage area are described in the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains
Linkage Conservation Design Plan Working Draft (SDSU Field Station Programs and
South Coast Wildlands Project, February 2003). A working draft of the Conservation
Design Plan is attached to Comment Letter X3 in Volume V, of the MSHCP.
The SAPML straddles the San Diego County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program and the MSHCP. The SAPML provides the only remaining
natural habitat connection for the coastal Santa Ana Mountains to inland ranges.
There are eight (8) existing culverts that traverse 1-15 in the
vicinity of the project site and the identified Special Linkage Area, that are large
enough to support large mammal movement between the east and west sides of 1-15.
Large mammal wildlife movement has been documented by camera monitoring
stations installed by the SDSU Field Station Program. Implementation of the proposed
Project could result in increased impacts to wildlife movement. The majority of the
area proposed for annexation is preserved as part of the SMER and designated OS
' and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 718 acres
which will be designated "Hillside Residential" is limited to one dwelling unit per 10
acres which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. Development
within this area has the potential to impact wildlife corridors; The precise location of
grading and dwelling units and driveways is speculative and therefore, the extent of
the impact upon wildlife corridors cannot be determined at this time. However,
compliance with the MSHCP and the conditions of the Temecula General Plan
Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 3.2.6 and relevant provisions of the proposed
HR-SM prezoning, which requires any hillside development plan to be designed to
protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant
communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated
open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open
space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and
standards to reduce green house gas emissions, which will reduce potential impacts to
less than significant levels.
5. Project Consistency with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
The Project is under the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and has the potential to
be inconsistent with the plan unless development is consistent with the MSHCP.
' (a) Findings
A-19
' 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 EIR. Specifically, the Project will be required to comply with
the following mitigation measures to ensure a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a: See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a
Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b: Pursuant Western Riverside County
MSHCP, within 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, future development
projects in the project area shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey
for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and the results of this
presence/absence survey shall be provided in writing to the City of Temecula. If it is
determined that the project site is occupied by the burrowing owl, take of "active" nests
shall be avoided. However, when the Burrowing Owl is present, active relocation
outside of the nesting season (March 1 through August 15) by a qualified biologist
shall be required. The City of Temecula shall be consulted to determine appropriate
translocation sites. Occupation of this species on the project site may result in the
need to revise grading plans so that take of "active" nests is avoided or alternatively, a
grading permit may be issued once the species has been actively relocated.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
' The MSHCP establishes "Criteria Area" boundaries in order to
facilitate the process by which properties are evaluated for inclusion in the MSHCP
Conservation Area. The Criteria Area is an area significantly larger than what may be
needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area, within which property will be
evaluated using MSHCP Conservation Criteria. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool,
which assists in determining which properties to evaluate for acquisition and
conservation under the MSHCP. The Santa Margarita Area Annexation is primarily
located outside of identified criteria areas.
In accordance with the MSHCP, proposed projects outside of the
criteria area are to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP Section 6.1.2
("Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool"
guidelines), the Section 6.1.3 ("Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species"
guidelines), Section 6.1.4 ("Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface")
and the Section 6.3.2 ("Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.").
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of
Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based on their value in the
conservation of MSHCP Covered Species several of which have been found or have
the potential to occur on the project site. The Project site includes the Santa Margarita
River and drainages tributary to the river. Although most of the sensitive
riparian/riverine portion of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER,
' approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA will retain the potential for
development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which will
allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Future development within
A-20
this area has the potential to impact riparian/riverine resources. However, potential
' impacts resulting from any future development of discretionary projects within the
project area can be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with
the MSHCP and the Temecula General Plan EIR conditions listed in Section 3.2.6.
Additionally, through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the
listed mitigation measures, it can be determined that the Project is consistent with
MSHCP Section 6.1.2.
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP focuses on the protection of Narrow
Endemic Plant Species. One narrow endemic plant species, San Miguel savory
(Satureja chandleri) has been reported in the vicinity of the Project site. Although most
of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of
the proposed SMAA project will retain the potential for development in accordance
with general plan and zoning designations, which will allow development of
approximately 81 new dwelling units. Development within this area has the potential to
impact narrow endemic plant species at such time that development occurs. The
precise location and extent of impact cannot be determined at this time. Additionally,
the future location of narrow endemic plants cannot be determined at this time.
Potential impacts resulting from any future development of discretionary projects within
the Project area can be reduced to below the level of significance through
implementation of the listed mitigation measures. Through compliance with the
mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, potential
' impacts are reduced to below the level of significance and the project is consistent
with MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sets forth guidelines which are
intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity
to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where applicable. Section 6.1.4 states that "As the
MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, 'hard-line' boundaries shall be established
and development may occur adjacent to the MSHCP.Conservation Area. Future
development of discretionary projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area
may result in Edge Effects that will adversely affect biological resources within the
MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize such Edge Effects, the following guidelines
shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private
Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The SMAA Project site is primarily located outside of identified
criteria areas. A small portion of the Project site is located within Criteria Cell 7512
along the Project's northern boundary, and the southeast corner of the Project site is
located within a designated "Special Linkage Area." The majority of the Project site is
located outside of designated criteria areas. The Project site is located in proximity to
three subunits: Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) to the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and
' Pechenga Creeks) to the east and Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) also to the north.
Due to the Project site's partial inclusion within an identified criteria cell and a special
A-21
linkage area, future development in the Project area may need to comply with the
policies set forth in Section 6.1.4.
Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the
SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA will retain the potential for
development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which would
allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Development within this
area has the potential to require compliance with the "Guidelines Pertaining to the
Urban/Wildlands Interface" as described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, at such time
that development requiring discretionary approval is proposed. Local policies and
zoning include regulations to buffer the SMER from adverse effects of development,
avoid interference with linkages for the species in the area, and preserve habitat for
the common and sensitive species in the area. Through compliance with the
mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, potential
impacts are reduced to below the level of significance and the Project is consistent
with MSHCP Section 6.1.4.
Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP also requires additional surveys for
certain species if the project is located in criteria areas shown on Figure 3.2-6,
MSHCP - Criteria Area Species Survey Area (MSHCP Figure 6-2), Figure 3.2-7,
Amphibian Species Survey Areas With Critical Area (MHHCP - Figure 6-3), Figure
3.2-8, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas With Criteria Area (MSHCP - Figure 64) and
' Figure 3.2-9, Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area (MSHCP Figure 6-5)
of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey
Area (CASSA) for plants and mammals, although one CASSA plant species, the
threadleaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) has been observed within the project
boundaries. However, the southeast portion of the project site is located within the
area shown on MSHCP Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey).
A portion of the Project area falls within the area for burrowing owl
habitat assessments as required by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The
identification of areas inhabited by burrowing owls is a goal of the Western Riverside
County conservation efforts, as existing information on burrowing owl distribution is
limited. Suitable habitats for the burrowing owl include non-native grassland, shrub
lands and agricultural use areas, which compose much of the project site. Burrowing
owls typically inhabit burrows made by mammals such as ground squirrels or badgers,
and can also be found in openings of man-made structures. Focused burrow surveys
are required if suitable habitat is found on site. Although most of the annexation area is
preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA
project will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and
zoning designations, which would allow development of approximately 81 new
dwelling units. The precise location of development and whether or not a development
site contains occupied burrowing owl habitat cannot be determined at this time.
Additionally, due to the migratory nature of the burrowing owl, there is a possibility that
' although burrowing owls may not be located on a particular property at any point in
time, they could occupy the site prior to actual project construction. Development of
A-22
' future discretionary development proposals within this area may require compliance
with MSHCP Section 6.3.2 through the preparation of burrowing owl habitat
assessments and focused burrowing owl surveys, and compliance with the listed
mitigation measures for projects that occur on the portions of the projects site where
burrowing owl assessments are required. The proposed Project has the potential to
have a significance impact associated with burrowing owl habitat. However with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a and Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b the
Project impacts would be below a level of significance.
Based upon the above analysis of consistency with the MSHCP,
and implementation of the listed mitigation measures, the proposed Project is
consistent with the provisions of the adopted MSHCP. For these reasons the proposed
project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
NCCP, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Impacts to Unknown Cultural Resources
The proposed Project has the potential to impact unknown cultural resources on
the portions of the Annexation area that have not been surveyed for cultural resources.
' (a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effect to unknown cultural resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measures
will ensure that no significant impacts occur to unknown cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 a: All areas not previously assessed for
cultural resources within the 718 acres to be designated as HR-SM must be assessed
by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of Hillside Development Plans, and in
consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. (It is anticipated that the Pechanga
Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to its prior and extensive coordination with the
City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures
and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area). Should any future
change in land use designation occur for areas designated by the current project as
"Conservation" such areas must also be assessed for cultural resources prior to the
approval of development plans and in consultation with local appropriate Native
Tribes.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 b: During ground-disturbing activities,
should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in
the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to
' assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5,
and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. If any find is determined to be
significant, the project proponent and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation
A-23
' with local appropriate Tribes, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate
mitigation. If there is a dispute, the Lead Agency will make the final determination
based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to
archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs,
and practices of the Tribe. All significant cultural materials recovered will be
relinquished the appropriate local Native Tribe for appropriate treatment. All sacred
sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and
preserved as the preferred mitigation.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Fifteen previous cultural resource studies were completed within
the Project area. The majority of the areas to be assigned a "Hillside Residential-Santa
Margarita" zoning designation, as illustrated in Figure 2-8 of the RDEIR document,
have been surveyed for cultural resources. However, some parcels within the planned
"Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita" areas have not previously been surveyed for
cultural resources. Also, only an approximated 18 percent of the total 4,997 acres
within the current project area have been previously evaluated for cultural resources.
Therefore, any future development within the overall project area not previously
assessed for cultural resources could result in the adverse impact to unknown cultural
resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a and 3.3-1b would minimize
this impact to a less than significant level.
' 2. Impacts to Known Cultural Resources
The proposed Project could adversely affect known cultural resources, including
unique archaeological resources and historic resources.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effect to known cultural resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measure will
ensure a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: CA-RIV4264, P33-14892, P33-14893,
P33-14894, the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, and all sites concerning
Pechanga's creation and origin should be avoided and preserved. If avoidance is not
feasible, further investigation of these resources by a qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with the appropriate local Native Tribe, will be required to determine the
significance of these resources that have not been fully evaluated. The qualified
archaeologist shall prepare a report evaluating each known cultural resource, noting
the significance determination of the resource. The report will make recommendations
for treatment of each resource. A Cultural Resource Treatment Plan should be
' developed for identified significant cultural resources, particularly the Murrieta Creek
Archaeological Area/District and sites concerning Pechanga's creation and origin, in
consultation with the appropriate local Native American Tribes and a qualified
A-24
archaeologist, prior to the commencement of any future development within the
current project area.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
A cultural resources records search and subsequent document
review indicated that four previously recorded cultural resources are within portions of
the Project area to be assigned a "Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita" zoning
designation (CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, and P33-14894). The re-zoning of
the Project area could result in a significant adverse impact to known cultural
resources. Likewise, the archival record search, Native American consultation, and
document review determined that the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, a
listed resource on both the California Registry and the National Registry is within a
portion of the current Project area. The portion of the Project area that includes part of
the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District will be classified as "Conservation"
land use and therefore, potential impact to this resource by the current Project is
minimal in light of the limitations on land uses within that zone. In addition, the purpose
and intent of the development standards under the proposed HR-SM zone is to protect
the value of the community and the subject property of ridgelines, prominent
Iandforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife
communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities, and other
natural, biological, and scenic resources. In addition, it is the intent of development
' and design under the proposed HR-SM zone to preserve and enhance the visual and
aesthetic quality of hillsides from the surrounding community as well as promote and
encourage a variety of high quality, alternative architectural and energy efficient
development designs and concepts appropriate for hillside areas by utilizing the
highest quality of prescribed standards. Lastly, the proposed HR-SM zone is intended
to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare and specifically protect the public
and property from hazards such as seismic, geologic, and fire. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would minimize this impact to a less than significant level.
3. Impacts to Areas of Traditional Cultural Significance to Local
Native American Individuals and Groups - SB 18
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on areas that have
cultural significance to local Native American tribes.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effect on areas of land with cultural significance to Native American tribes.
Specifically, mitigation measure 3.3-3 will ensure a less than significant impact.
' Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Consultation will occur with the local
appropriate Native American Tribe regarding any future development to occur within
the project area. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by
A-25
a qualified archaeologist on behalf of the project proponent and in consultation with the
appropriate local Native American Tribe. This agreement will address and detail the
treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources,
and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors
will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. If agreement
with the Tribes cannot be reached, the Lead Agency will determine the required
treatment.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Both the Pechanga Band and the Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians recognize the Project area as having cultural significance. Pechanga tribal
cultural traditions including oral histories, songs, and creation accounts directly refer to
the project area and its immediate environs. According to SB 18, the Lead Agency is
required to consult with Native American tribes to identify any Native American sacred
places or geographical areas within which sacred places may be located. SB 18
likewise requires the development of appropriate treatment or management plans to
ensure the protection and preservation of such sacred places.
The near proximity of the Project area to a large Native American
village complex'exva Temeeku, which is within the listed Murrieta Creek
Archaeological Area/District, further supports the significance of the current Project
' area. Specific landmarks, places, and destinations of Luiseno ancestors identified by
the Pechanga Tribe as within the Project area could be impacted by future
development of the Project area. However, compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.3-3,
set forth above, will ensure a less than significant impact.
4. Impacts to Unidentified Human Remains
The proposed Project could result in damage to previously unidentified human
remains.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen any potential impact to unidentified
human remains. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.3-4 will ensure a less than
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: If human skeletal remains are
uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and
the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the
procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project
' proponent will contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB
2641) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The most likely descendant
A-26
' shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the
treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code 5097.98.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
There is no indication that any particular site in the Project area
has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. Therefore, it is
unlikely that human remains would be encountered as a result of the proposed Project.
However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently
damaged, which could be a significant impact. However, this impact would be
minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, as set forth above.
5. Paleontological Resources
The proposed Project has the potential to cause a significant impact on
paleontological resources.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
' effect on paleontological resources. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.3-5 will ensure
a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: In the event that paleontological
resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist.
The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential
resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during
construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted
until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology,
1995). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures
that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the
find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on
the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the
project proponent for review and approval prior to implementation.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) for the project, the
project proponent shall retain Tribal monitor(s) from the appropriate local Tribe. The
Tribal monitor(s) shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and
groundbreaking activities, including archaeological testing, and shall also have the
' authority to stoop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project
archaeologist.
A-27
t (b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Riverside County General Plan's, Paleontological Sensitivity
Map (Figure OS-8) defines areas that have undetermined to low potential for finding
paleontological resources. The undetermined to low rating is based upon an inventory
of geologic formations known to potentially contain paleontological resources. Low
potential areas encompass "lands for which previous field surveys and documentation
demonstrates as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological
resources subject to adverse impact."
Previous geological mapping of the proposed annexation area is
located almost entirely upon a surface of Cretaceous granitic rocks, including tonalite
and heterogeneous tonalite. None of these rock units has potential to contain
significant fossil resources, and so these rocks are assigned low paleontological
sensitivity.
Based upon the records search and background research, the
proposed annexation's potential to impact paleontological resources is determined to
be low. It is possible that future development within parcels of the current project area
to be assigned a "Hillside Residential" land use designation could result in the
inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. However, with the implementation
of mitigation measure 3.3-5, any potential impacts to paleontological resources will be
' below the level of significance.
D. Public Services and Utilities
1. Fire Protection Services
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on fire
protection facilities, but not to a level of significance. However, mitigation is provided
for project compliance with the City Development Impact Free (DIF) program for the
payment of fire mitigation fees.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that lessen the already less than significant impact on fire protection
services. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.6-1 is required of the Project to comply
with the City's DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Although the proposed Project's
impacts upon fire services are less than significant, development in the Project area
will be required to comply with City DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees. Fees
collected through the development of single-family detached homes will be utilized to
' upgrade or develop new fire facilities and could total approximately $46,533.69 (81
d.u. @ $574.49 per single-family detached dwelling unit).
A-28
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
With annexation, fire protection services will be the responsibility of the
City and emergency responses will be handled in the same manner as currently
provided throughout the City. Fire protection services are provided under contracts
between Temecula and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. The Project site
will be primarily served by Station 12 (28330 Mercedes, Temecula, 92590). This
station is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the project site. It is staffed with a
minimum of four fire fighters. This station has one engine and one Cal Fire Type 3
engine.
If the Riverside County Fire Department is called to respond to an
emergency within the annexation area, the call is also routed to Cal-Fire, San Diego
Unit; emergency response teams from both Station No. 12 and from Red Mountain
Station, located on Mission Road in North San Diego County will respond. Upon
annexation of the area, emergency responses would be handled in the same manner
under a new contract between the City and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire
Department. The only difference would be payment for services would come from the
City rather than the County. During the processing of the Project, concerns were
raised that the City's costs of service may exceed the new revenue generated from the
annexed property. This issue, however, is economic in nature and does not raise an
environmental issue because adequate services would be provided in any event.
' Pursuant to the City development code, policies and standard conditions
of approval, future development proposals will be assessed for the availability of fire
hydrants, building code compliance for fire-resistant exterior building materials,
development of fire protection zones from high fire areas, all-weather access, street
design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting and other
security features. Additionally, water service in the area, serving residential
development, will require a minimum fire flow. Chapter 15.16 of the Temecula
Municipal Code sets forth the fire-flow requirements for single-family residential
development. All lots of record pulling new permits or future subdivisions within the
annexation area will be required to comply with these requirements. Homes served by
wells will need to put in a tank system that meets the requirements. These measures
will address fire and public safety issues by reducing the potential for fire damage to
properties in the Project area. With the limited potential for additional dwelling units
and compliance with city and state building codes and the city's established
development review, and building permit procedures, the proposed Project will not
require a change in existing fire protection services provided within the Project area.
Therefore, the Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and will not
create the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire
' services. Project impacts upon fire services will be less than significant. However,
A-29
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is required of the Project to comply with the City's DIF for the
payment of fire mitigation fees.
2. Police Facilities
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on police
protection facilities, but not to a level of significance. However, mitigation is provided
for project compliance with the City DIF.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that lessen the already less than significant impact on police protection
services. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.6-2 is required of the Project to comply
with the City's DIF.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Although the proposed project's
impacts upon police services are less than significant; development within the project
area will be required to pay the DIF. Fees collected through the development of single-
family detached homes will be utilized to upgrade or develop new police facilities and
could total approximately $19,593.90 (81 dwelling unit @ $241.90 per single-family
detached dwelling unit).
' (b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Riverside County Sheriff Department currently provides law
enforcement service through a contract with the City and would continue to provide
service to the Project site through an amended contract. The Southwest Station
located at 30755 Auld Road, Murrieta, is the closest primary response facility to the
proposed project, although, there are two storefront offices located in the city at 27540
Ynez Road, Suite J-9 and 28410 Old Town Front Street, Suite 105. The project area is
almost entirely vacant land with the potential to permit approximately 81 single family
dwelling units. Temecula General Plan Policy GM/PFE 3.1 requires that development
does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting police services and to
ensure an adequate response time for emergencies and to strive to provide one full-
time officer per 1,000 residents for police (sheriff) protection services.
If the project built to its maximum capacity the area would result in an
estimated additional 263 persons living within the project area, which equates to the
need for approximately 0.26 of an additional police officer. The Temecula Police
Department employs officers at the rate of approximately 1 Officer per 930 residents.
Additionally, the Temecula General Plan EIR states that the city has 107 sworn
officers. At this ratio the city can absorb the additional population without the need to
add an additional officer. With the limited increase in population growth and the current
' staffing levels, impacts to the police protection services will be less than significant.
Therefore, the Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and will not
A-30
' create the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police
protection services. However, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is required of the Project to
comply with the City's DIF.
During the processing of the Project, concerns were raised that the City's
costs of service may exceed the new revenue generated from the annexed property.
This issue, however, is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue
because adequate services would be provided in any event.
VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation
In the environmental areas of air quality, mineral resources, traffic and
transportation, and noise, there are instances where environmental impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Air Quality
1. Blasting Emissions
' Blasting emissions of the proposed Project are significant and
unavoidable because such activity exceeds the SCAQMD regional air quality threshold
for NO,,.
(a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically,
although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential
significant adverse impacts from blasting emissions, none were identified that could
reduce the impacts to below the level of significance.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Evaluation of the above table indicates that daily worst-case emissions
from construction of 81 dwelling units would result in exceedances of the SCAQMD
regional air quality emissions threshold for NOx, due to concurrent blasting and other
site preparation activities. It is the combination of site preparation activities and
blasting that would cause an exceedance of NO, Blasting emissions are calculated
outside of the URBEMIS 2007 model, but are included in the overall construction
emissions inventory. Therefore, in order to assess the potential impacts resulting from
blasting activities, emission factors from U.S. EPA AP42, Chapter 113 were used to
calculate blasting emissions. Blasting emissions cannot be mitigated, and other
construction techniques would likely be ineffective given the type of soil and rock
A-31
' material present on the site. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation
measures 3.1-2a through 3.1-2f articulated in Section V above, NO,, would continue to
exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds as a result of concurrent blasting
and other site preparation activities.
B. Mineral Resources
1. Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources of Value to the
Region and Residents of the State
The proposed Project will lead to the inability to mine mineral resources
within the annexation area, which means that approval of the Project will result in the
practical loss of availability of known mineral resources within the Project area that
would be of value to the region and residents of the State. No portion of the Project
area, however, is designated as an area of Statewide or Regional Significance by the
State Mining and Geology Board pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code
Section 2790. Further, although mining of the material may not be permitted, the
resource itself would remain in place.
(a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically,
although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential
significant adverse impacts upon mineral resources, none were identified that could
reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. Allowing mining would alleviate
the impact on mineral resources, however, if mining were allowed, other significant
environmental impacts would result.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The County of Riverside currently zones the majority of the project
site as R-R, which allows for mining operations subject to appropriate Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act related permits. The majority of the annexation area (4,284
acres) currently has a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of OS-
CH; while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM, with a 10-acre minimum lot
size. The proposed Project will conserve approximately 4,279 acres, including the
Santa Margarita River and adjacent land that contain sensitive environmental
resources by designating the property OS and through the adoption of OS-C-SM
zoning. The approximately 718 acres of developable land within the project area will
be designated and zoned HR-SM. These proposed zoning classifications do not allow
for mining and quarry operations. Aggregate use in the Temecula and southwestern
Riverside County areas has risen as population and housing has grown. It is estimated
' that Riverside County will have an aggregate demand of 10 to 13 million tons per year.
San Diego County is estimated to have an aggregate demand of 15 to 19 million tons
per year. It is estimated that existing regional aggregate production will be insufficient
A-32
' to meet anticipated aggregate demand in Riverside and San Diego counties. However,
undeveloped aggregate resources exist throughout Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial
counties. Many of these materials are of sufficient quality to be used for Portland
cement concrete materials, and may be located in areas that are not as
environmentally sensitive as the Project site. Nonetheless, the amount of available
aggregate resources is unknown at this time, cannot be accounted for with respect to
this Project, and is beyond the scope of the EIR for the Project. In addition to
development of resources existing in the southern California region, imported
aggregate from Canada and Mexico likely will continue to be supplied to the region at
comparable costs to the current production.
Although currently available supplies may be insufficient to meet
projected demand; factoring in the undeveloped resources that exist in the region,
there is not shortage of aggregate resource even if there is currently less production
than demand. Although most of the annexation area is classed as a MRZ-3 area (a
State Mining and Geology Department classification meaning that available geologic
information indicates that mineral resources are likely to exist, but the significance of
the deposit is undetermined) a portion of the site (Liberty Quarry) has recently been
classified as a MRZ-2a zone (a State Mining and Geology Department classification
meaning that adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are
present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development that could limit
future access to the resource should be controlled). However, no part of the Project
area has been officially designated by the State Mining and Geology. Board as of
statewide or regional significance pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2790.
The proposed Project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations that
do not allow mining operations being placed upon the project site. Prohibition of mining
of the known aggregate resources located within the Project area would result in
regional demand for aggregate resources being met from other sources such as
existing deposits and planned aggregate mine facilities. The inability to mine mineral
resources within the annexation area as a result of the proposed Project would result
in the loss access to known mineral resources within the Project area that would be of
value to the region. Although other sources are available, and although there is
currently no resource production existing or permitted in the Project Area, impacts to
mineral resources are nonetheless considered to be significant.
During the processing of the Project, various commenters
suggested that the RDEIR analyze alternate locations for mining and the potential
impacts of such alternate locations compared to impacts of a quarry in the Project
area. However, the Project under consideration is annexation of the Project. area and
establishing the land use regulations that would be applicable upon annexation. The
Project does not propose a quarry. If the Project was a proposal to develop a quarry,
it might be appropriate to study alternate locations, but that is not the Project under
consideration. As discussed below, and in the RDEIR, a range of alternatives to the
' Project was considered, including two alternatives that would involve the potential for
mining activities. The City Council finds that analysis of the various other locations
that might be available for mining to provide materials similar to those expected to be
A-33
produced from the mining operation currently proposed in the Project Area is 1)
beyond the scope of the analysis for this Project because it would require assessment
of the where in the region similar materials might be present, and 2) would require
undue speculation as to when and where other such mining facilities might be
approved, permitted, and put into operation. Further, commenters suggest that
alternate sites for mining operations could result in traffic or air quality impacts due to
transport operations. Analysis of such impacts also 1) are beyond the scope of this
Project, which is not proposing a quarry and which would not change the fact that
there is no quarry presently permitted or in operations, and 2) would require a high
degree of speculation as to where the sources may be, where the construction site
using the material are located, the economic ramifications of multiple producers in a
market area and other factors. Finally, such comments are premised on the faulty
assumption that mining is already authorized in the Project Area, which is not the
case. While the mining use can be permitted under County land use regulations, a
discretionary approval must first be obtained, for which environmental review must be
completed. That has not occurred.
Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate
the potential significant adverse impacts upon mineral resources. No feasible
measures were identified that could reduce the impacts from loss of mineral resources
to below the level of significance.
' C. Transportation and Traffic
With regard to traffic, there is one intersection where the Project will
cause both a direct significant impact as well as a cumulative significant impact.
1. Direct Impact -1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W.
Boulevard (A.M. Peak Hour: LOS F)
The addition of the Project will cause the intersection of 1715
Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard, which during the AM peak hour will
operate at LOS E under the existing condition and at LOS F during the existing plus
project condition, to worsen to LOS F. Because the Project adds more than 5 vehicles
to the critical movement at this intersection, a direct project impact results.
(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 EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 will be imposed to
alleviate this impact. However, such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility of another public agency (the County of San Diego) and not the agency
making the finding (the City of Temecula). Specifically, although Mitigation Measure
' 3.7-1 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of other
agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such changes or alterations in
the traffic control at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection
A-34
' are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Temecula.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically,
without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation
Measure 3.7-1 is infeasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: This impact can be mitigated by
installing stop signs on all approaches at this intersection. Although this mitigation
measure, is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of
other agencies including California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San
Diego County. Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County
and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City
cannot ensure that the improvements will be made in a timely manner to mitigate the
impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all
reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the
improvements, the Project's cumulative impacts on this intersection are significant and
unavoidable.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
' 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard is located
in San Diego County. This is an unsignalized intersection. Therefore, a significant
impact occurs if the project adds more than 20 peak hour trips on a critical movement
at LOS E or more than 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS F, according to
the San Diego County thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. Tables 3.7-13 and
3.7-14 in the EIR also document the intersection operations of these facilities. As
shown in this table, the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection
operates at LOS E or LOS F. A significant impact occurs at this location since buildout
of the development that could be permitted in the Project Area would add more than 5
vehicles to the critical movement at this location.
Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego
County and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans,
the City cannot ensure that the Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 will mitigate the impact of the
project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable
steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the improvements,
the project's impacts on this intersection is significant and unavoidable.
2. Cumulative Impact -1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W.
Boulevard (A.M. Peak Hour: LOS F)
The Project in conjunction with cumulative projects in the region will
' cause a significant cumulative impact at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley
W. Boulevard intersection.
A-35
' (a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant cumulative
environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 will
be imposed to alleviate this impact.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Specifically, although
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require
approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such
changes or alterations in the traffic control at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow
Valley W. Blvd. intersection are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public
agencies and not the City of Temecula.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically,
without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation
Measure 3.7-2, which is the same mitigation required by measure 3.7-1, is infeasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: See Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.
' (b) Facts in Support of Findings
1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard is located
in San Diego County. This is an unsignalized intersection. A significant impact occurs
if the project adds more than 20 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS E or
more than 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS F, according to San Diego
County thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. As shown in Table 3.7-16 of the
EIR, the intersection of 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd is
projected to operate at LOS F and the project adds more than 5 trips to a critical
movement at this intersection. Therefore, a significant impact at this intersection
occurs under the Cumulative Scenario, which includes the Project and the additional
traffic expected from the list of cumulative projects set forth in Table 3.7-10 of the
RDEIR.
Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego
County and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans,
the City cannot ensure that Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 will mitigate the impact of the
project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable
steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the improvements,
the Project's cumulative impacts on this intersection are significant and unavoidable.
3. Cumulative Impact - Roadway Segments on 1-15
' The Project contributes to traffic on roadway segments of Interstate-15
and is projected to exceed the target LOS.
A-36
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effect on the Rainbow Valley roadway segment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-3
will be imposed to alleviate this impact.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Specifically, although
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require
approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such
changes or alterations in the traffic control at the Interstate-15 roadway segment are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Temecula.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically,
without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation
Measure 3.7-3 is infeasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Based on our review of available documents,
no plans currently exist to widen 1-15, which would be required to improve operations.
' Therefore, it would not be feasible to mitigate the project impacts on the segments of I-
15. Additionally, if there were feasible mitigation measures, they would require the
concurrence of both Caltrans and Riverside County to be implemented. As such, the
City of Temecula would not be able to guarantee the implementation of any mitigation
measures, even if any mitigation measures were feasible.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in Table 3.7-17 of the RDEIR, all of the Riverside
County roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, which exceeds the
target LOS. For the segments of 1-15, it is projected that these segments would
operate substantially above the anticipated capacity with V/C ratios ranging from 1.15
to 1.41. According to available information, 1-15 is not planned to be widened at this
time.
As this roadway segment exceeds the target LOS and no
mitigation is available, a significant impact would occur on the segments of 1-15
located in Riverside County. Even if implementation of mitigation requiring widening or
other capacity enhancements of 1-15 were found feasible, the widening of Interstate 15
would require the concurrence of both Caltrans and Riverside County to be
implemented. Thus, any widening is outside of the City of Temecula's jurisdiction.
Because no feasible mitigation is within the City's jurisdiction to implement, this impact
' remains significant and unavoidable.
A-37
' 4. Cumulative Impact - Riverside County Street Segments -
Rainbow Valley Roadway Segment and 1-15
The Project contributes to traffic to Rainbow Canyon Road and 1-15
traffic levels, which is projected to exceed the target LOS.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effect on the Rainbow Valley roadway segment and 1-15. Specifically, Mitigation
Measures 3.7-3 and 3.7-4 will be imposed to alleviate this impact.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Specifically, although
Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require
approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such
changes or alterations in the traffic control at the Rainbow Valley roadway segment
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Temecula.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
' the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically,
without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation
Measure 3.7-4 is infeasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: The Riverside County General Plan
anticipates that Rainbow Canyon Road would be widened from two to four lanes at
some point in the future with the Build-out of the Riverside County General Plan land
uses. With this widening the roadway would operate at an acceptable LOS. As this
widening is anticipated to occur by the Riverside County General Plan, it can be
considered to be a feasible mitigation measure. There are several barriers to the
timely implementation of this mitigation measure; however. First, this improvement is
not funded by the regional traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear to be
available funding for this improvement based on our review of available documents.
While the Project could make a contribution to the widening of this improvement, there
is no guarantee that the contribution would ensure the timely implementation of the
widening. In addition, this improvement would be partially implemented by Riverside
County instead of entirely by the city of Temecula. As such, the city of Temecula would
not be able to guarantee that this mitigation measure is implemented in a timely
fashion. [Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 is also included in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program as 3.7-5 and 3.7-6, but is not duplicated here.]
(b) . Facts in Support of Findings
' As shown in Table 3.7-17 of the EIR, all of the Riverside County
roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, which exceeds the target LOS.
A-38
' Rainbow Canyon Road is projected to operate at LOS F. According to Riverside
County, a significant impact occurs in the cumulative scenario on a roadway segment
if the following condition is met: when cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS, and
impacts cannot be mitigated through the TUMF network (or other funding mechanism),
project conditions of approval, or other implementation mechanisms.
While the Riverside County General Plan anticipates that this
roadway could be widened to four lanes, it is unknown at this time whether this
roadway widening would be completed in a timely fashion. Additionally, this roadway is
not included in the regional TUMF, which further indicates that this widening is unlikely
to occur within the timeframe of the Cumulative Scenario. Based on these indications,
it can be concluded that there would be significant impacts at these locations. The
necessary mitigation measures are not feasible and are outside the jurisdiction of the
city of Temecula, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
D. Noise
1. Project Construction
Project construction has the potential to expose. persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of the applicable City of Temecula Noise Standards and the
County of San Diego Noise Standards.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction
noise impact. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a through 3.8-1f will be imposed to
alleviate this impact.
No other feasible mitigation measures exist to further reduce this
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in
the San Diego County Code, and the City noise ordinance, that no construction may
occur during the following hours:
A. 6:30 pm - 7:00 am, Monday through Saturday.
B. At any time on Sunday or any legal holiday.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 b: The applicant shall ensure that all
construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all
' construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
A-39
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1d: 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 Building
and Safety Department project manager, in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at
the exterior of the existing residences or at the SMER site. 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.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1e: Implement "quiet" pile-driving technology
(such as pre drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the
total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and
structural requirements and conditions.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1f: A blasting plan for construction must be
prepared and followed that includes the following:
1) The Blasting Plan must meet the approval of the appropriate City
department with jurisdiction over the project and blasting.
2) Primary components of the Blasting Plan shall include:
a) Identification of blast officer;
' b) Scaled drawings of blast locations, and neighboring buildings,
streets, or other locations which could be inhabited;
c) Blasting notification procedures, lead times, and list of those
notified. Public notification to potentially affected vibration receptors describing
the expected extent and duration of the blasting;
d) Description of means for transportation and on-site storage and
security of explosives in accordance with local, state and federal regulations;
e) Minimum acceptable weather conditions for blasting and safety
provisions for potential stray current (if electric detonation);
f) Traffic control standards and traffic safety measures (if
applicable);
g) Require personal protective equipment;
h) Minimum standoff distances and description of blast impact
zones and procedures for clearing and controlling access to blast danger;
i) Procedures for handling, setting, wiring, and firing explosives.
Also procedures for handling misfires per Federal code;
A-40
j) Type and quantity of explosives and description of detonation
device. Sequence and schedule of blasting rounds, including general method of
excavation, lift heights, etc.;
k) Methods of matting or covering of blast area to prevent flyrock
and excessive air blast pressure;
1) Description of blast vibration and air blast monitoring programs;
m) Dust control measures in compliance with applicable air
pollution control regulations (to interface with general construction dust control
plan); n) Emergency Action Plan to provide emergency telephone numbers and
directions to medical facilities. Procedures for action in the event of injury;
o) Material Safety Data Sheets for each explosive or other
hazardous materials to be used;
p) Evidence of licensing, experience, and qualifications of
blasters; and
q) Description of insurance for the blasting work.
' 3) A Blast Survey Workplan shall be prepared by the blaster. The Plan
shall establish vibration limits in order to protect structures from blasting activities and
identify specific monitoring points. At a minimum, a pre-blast survey shall be
conducted of any potentially affected structures and underground utilities within 500
feet of a blast area, as well as the nearest commercial or residential structure, prior to
blasting.
4) The survey shall include visual inspection of the structures,
documentation of structures by means of photographs, video, and a level survey of the
ground floor of structures or the crown of major and critical utility lines, and these shall
be submitted to the City. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual
owners prior to any blasting operations. The City and impacted property owners will be
notified at least 48 hours prior to the visual inspections.
5) Vibration and settlement threshold criteria (for example peak particle
velocity of 0.5 inches per second) shall be submitted by the blaster to the City for
review and approval during the design process. If the settlement or vibration criteria
are exceeded at any time or if damage is observed at any of the structures or utilities,
then blasting shall immediately cease and the City immediately notified. The stability of
segmental retaining walls, existing slopes, creek canals, etc. shall be monitored and
any evidence of instability due to blasting operations shall result in immediate
termination of blasting. The blaster shall modify the blasting procedures or use
' alternative means of excavating in order to reduce the vibrations to below the
threshold values, prevent further settlement, slope instability, and prevent further
damage.
A-41
' 6) Air blast overpressure limits and monitoring shall be conducted at the
property line closest to the blast and at other above ground structures identified in the
Plan for vibration monitoring. Air blast overpressure limits shall be in accordance with
applicable law and shall be established to prevent damage to adjacent properties, new
construction, and to prevent injuries to persons on-site and off-site.
7) Prior to full-scale production blasting, the blaster shall conduct a
series of test blasts at the sites where blasting is to occur. The tests shall start with
reduced charge weights and shall increase incrementally to that of a full-scale
production round. Monitoring shall be conducted as described in the Plan.
8) Post-construction monitoring of structures to identify (and repair if
necessary) all damage, if any, from blasting vibrations. Any damage shall documented
by photograph, video, etc. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual
property owners.
9) Reports of the results of the blast monitoring shall be provided to the
City, the local fire department, and owners of any buried utilities on or adjacent to the
site within 24 hours following blasting. Reports documenting damage, excessive
vibrations, etc. shall be provided to the City and impacted property owners.
(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 could generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving and blasting), which
can be particularly annoying. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at
a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the proposed project site layout
and terrain, an attenuation of 7.5 dBA is assumed.
A total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst
case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained
by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography;
domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary
access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; onsite fire department water
storage requirements (120,000 gallons per dwelling) and emergency access
requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation
requirements. It is considered highly unlikely that any residential parcel could meet
these development requirements on an individual basis.
On-site Residences
' Pre-existing homes on the project site could experience
construction noise approximately as close as 200 feet (worst case) , due to the new
A-42
' hillside residential land use and the required setbacks. Average home separation
would probably be 500 to 1,000 feet apart and would prohibit mass grading and
wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes. Also, a reasonable phasing
assumption would entail development of 5 homes per year, which would require 16
years to construct all 81 single-family dwelling units allowed under the proposed
planning applications. Table 3.8-5 in the EIR states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50
feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of
approximately 74 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of
construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is
a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet,
the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst case
scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to
occur, residences at 200 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 100
dBA. 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. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the
nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. The City
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.
Mitigation measures 3.8-1 a through 3.8-1f would reduce nighttime and daytime
construction noise levels.
Off-Sits Residences
The nearest off-site sensitive receptor is located 240 feet south of
the middle portion of proposed general plan hillside residential area in San Diego
County. Due to required setbacks, construction of the nearest new residence could
occur approximately as close as 440 feet from this off-site receptor (worst case). Table
3.4-6 in the EIR states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to
440 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 64 dBA Leq
during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that
could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event
that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 440 feet, the residence would
experience noise levels of approximately 77 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting
could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, residences at
440 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 91 dBA. 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. In San Diego
A-43
County it is unlawful for construction to take place between the hours of 7:00 pm and
7:00 am on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction is allowed between 7:00 am and
7:00 pm as long as noise levels at the property line of a legal dwelling unit do not
exceed a 75 dBA average. Pile driving would be approximately 77 dBA and blasting
would be approximately 91 dBA, but both would only be intermittent and not occur for
an average of an hour. Therefore construction noise levels at nearby residences in
San Diego County are less than significant.
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Site
The SMER itself is considered a sensitive land use. On a daily
basis, numerous ongoing research projects take place within the SMER area. The
area is used to study southern California ecosystems. The reserve maintains
classrooms and laboratories, and databases which are all considered sensitive
receptors to noise impacts. Sensitive research projects and biological resources on the
SMER site could experience construction noise approximately as close as 200 feet
(worst case), due to the new hillside residential land use and the required setbacks.
Table 3.8-5 in the EIR states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out
to 200 feet, the SMER site would experience noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq
during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that
could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event
that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the sensitive land uses at
' the SMER site would experience noise levels of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst
case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were
to occur, sensitive land uses at the SMER site at 200 feet would experience noise
levels of approximately 100 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by 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. The noise levels from construction would exceed daytime ambient levels
and could interfere with sensitive research projects on the SMER site. Mitigation
measures 3.8-1a through 3.8-1f would reduce nighttime and daytime construction
noise levels.
Although Mitigation measures 3.8-1a through 3.8-1f would reduce
the impacts to less than significant, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy
equipment and blasting that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby
residences and the SMER site. 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.
VII. Project Alternatives
' A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the EIR
A-44
The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as discussed below. In
determining what alternatives to analyze, the City considered, but rejected, one other
potential alternative consisting of an alternative location. An alternative location
alternative was determined not to be feasible because annexation of different property
into the city of Temecula would not achieve any of the Project's objectives. Therefore,
this alternative was rejected as infeasible.
Further, during the public comment period, suggestions were made regarding
other alternatives to be considered, however each of the suggested alternatives were
found to be infeasible and thus were not the subject of further analysis. A suggestion
was made to consider an alternative that would annex lands other than the SMER,
however, this alternative would not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable
impacts because of the limited development potential within the SMER conservation
area. Further, such a project would not meet the project's objective of integrating the
annexation area into the City's general plan, would not preserve public lands in the
area in a natural condition, and would not protect the SMER via controls on
incompatible development. For these reasons, the alternative was rejected.
An alternative consisting of the annexation with a more limited range of
development permitted, or even restriction of the entire annexation area to open space
uses was proposed. Part of the basis provided for this alternative was that it would
"reduce future impacts to mineral resources to less than significant." First, an
' objective of the project is to preserve public lands 'While retaining the existing rural
residential / agricultural character of the privately-owned lands." Establishment of
more strict standards would not meet the objectives of the Project, although more strict
standards might have the effect of reducing the maximum number of residences that
could be constructed in the area. Further, the Project proposes more strict control
than under the County regulations, and in particular with respect to non-residential
uses. The effect of more strict development regulations would have a similar impact
on mineral resources in that development of extraction facilities would not be required.
Finally, establishing the entire area as open space would likely have the effect of
disallowing any further development of any significance, and as such would be the
same a the No Project- No Development alternative analyzed in the RDEIR.
Because the proposed alternative does not meet project objectives and would not
reduce the impact on mineral resources, this alternative is rejected, further analysis is
deemed unnecessary because of the range of reasonable alternatives already studied.
During the processing of the Project, various commenters suggested that the
RDEIR analyze alternate locations for mining and the potential impacts of such
alternate locations compared to impacts of a quarry in the Project area. However, the
Project under consideration is annexation of the Project area and establishing the land
use regulations that would be applicable upon annexation. The Project does not
propose a quarry. If the Project was a proposal to develop a quarry, it might be
appropriate to study alternate locations, but that is not the Project under consideration.
' As discussed below, and in the RDEIR, a range of alternatives to the Project was
considered, including two alternatives that would involve the potential for mining
A45
' activities. The City Council finds that analysis of the various other locations that might
be available for mining to provide materials similar to those expected to be produced
from the mining operation currently proposed in the Project Area is 1) beyond the
scope of the analysis for this Project because it would require assessment of the
where in the region similar materials might be present, and 2) would require undue
speculation as to when and where other such mining facilities might be approved,
permitted, and put into operation. Further, commenters suggest that alternate sites for
mining operations could result in traffic or air quality impacts due to transport
operations. Analysis of such impacts also 1) are beyond the scope of this Project,
which is not proposing a quarry and which would not change the fact that there is no
quarry presently permitted or in operations, and 2) would require a high degree of
speculation as to where the sources may be, where the construction site using the
material are located, the economic ramifications of multiple producers in a market area
and other factors. Finally, such comments are premised on the faulty assumption that
mining is already authorized in the Project Area, which is not the case. While the
mining use can be permitted under County land use regulations, a discretionary
approval must first be obtained, for which environmental review must be completed.
That has not occurred.
The EIR analyzed four other project alternatives. These four alternatives were
considered, but rejected for the various reasons stated below.
B. Alternatives Considered in the EIR
1. Alternative One - No Project - No Development Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
The No Project No Development Alternative would retain the
project site in its current primarily undeveloped state. The 718 acres of privately-
owned land would remain primarily vacant and in its natural state, with the exception of
the four existing single-family residences. Approximately 4,279 acres located within
the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) would continue to be conserved. This
alternative evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from a continuance of the
project site with existing but no new development.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
' The No Project No Development Alternative would result in similar
or less impact than that of the proposed Project with regard to air quality, biological
A-46
' resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, public services and utilities,
and transportation and traffic. This Alternative would result in comparable impacts to
that of the proposed Project with regard to agricultural resources, geology and soils,
land use and planning, mineral resources, and recreation. The significant and
unavoidable mineral resources impact would remain, but the unmitigable air quality
blasting emissions impact, short-term construction noise impact, and transportation
and traffic impact to the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection
will be avoided.
This No Project - No Development Alternative however would not
meet the project objective of integrating the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Area
into the City of Temecula's General Plan. This project objective would involve the City
of Temecula adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general
framework for ultimate development within the study area. Because this alternative
would not involve the annexation of the Project area into the City of Temecula, this
project objective would not be met. For this reason, the City Council rejects this
alternative as infeasible.
2. Alternative Two - Existing County General Plan - Residential
Only Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
' The Existing County General Plan - Residential Only Alternative
would result in development of the project site in accordance with its current Riverside
County general plan designation. Within the project area 4,284 acres have a Riverside
County General Plan Land Use designation of "Open Space-Conservation Habitat"
(OS-CH) while the remaining 713 acres are designated "Rural Mountainous" (RM).
For the purposes of this analysis, the Rural Mountainous-designated property would
be developed with single-family residential development at a density of one dwelling
unit per ten acres. Since each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with
one dwelling unit; when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing
20-acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that
cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 80 new dwelling units may be developed
within that portion of the project area under Alternative two. The "Open Space-
Conservation Habitat" designated property would remain in open space and not be
developed. This alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project, and would
not contemplate any mining activity in the Project area. Further, the Alternative
discloses the level of impact expected if the annexation project did not proceed, and
the mining activities were not proposed or were not approved under County
jurisdiction.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
' Alternative Two, the Existing County General Plan, Residential
Only Alternative will have exactly the same level of impacts as that of the proposed
Project, assuming the implementation of the same mitigation measures as those
A-47
' imposed on the proposed Project. However, alternative two will fail to satisfy one of
the project objectives. More specifically, it would not meet the project objective of
integrating the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Area into the City of Temecula's
General Plan. This project objective would involve the City of Temecula adopting
general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate
development within the study area instead of the leaving the areas under County
control. Because this alternative would not involve the annexation of the Project area
into the City of Temecula, this project objective would not be met. For this reason, the
City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
3. Alternative Three - Existing County General Plan - Residential
Plus Surface Mining Reclamation Plan Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
The Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus Surface
Mining Alternative would result in development of the project site in accordance with its
current Riverside County general plan designation. Within the project area 4,284 acres
have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of "Open Space-
Conservation Habitat" (OS-CH) while the remaining 713 acres are designated "Rural
Mountainous" (RM). For the purposes of this analysis, the 414 acres of the Rural
Mountainous-designated property would be developed with a surface mining operation
' for the extraction of aggregate resources and 299 acres of the Rural Mountainous-
designated property would be developed with 25 single-family dwelling units. Upon
completion of mining excavation activities, a reclamation plan of the site would be
implemented. The reclamation plan could generally consist of the quarry being
developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be
determined.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Alternative Three, the Existing County General Plan, Residential
Plus Surface Mining Alternative will cause greater impacts than that of the proposed
Project for all environmental issues, with the exception of mineral resources and
recreation, which impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project.
Further, alternative three will not meet any of the three project
objectives. Specifically, alternative three will not allow for the integration of the Santa
Margarita Area annexation area into the City of Temecula's General Plan by allowing
the City to adopt general plan and zoning amendments to establish the general
framework for development in the study area. This is so because this alternative will
maintain the annexation area in the County's jurisdiction and subject to the County's
general plan.
' Second, alternative three will not satisfy the projective objective to
preserve public lands within the annexation area in natural open space, while retaining
the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately owned lands. The
A-48
' introduction of surface mining operations would bring a higher level of human activity
into the area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to noise,
blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential
contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect impacts upon
surrounding natural open space areas. Although the significant impact of the Project
on mineral resources would be avoided, the City Council finds that significant
increases in the other impacts render the Project preferable to this Alternative 3 from
an environmental and policy perspective.
Lastly, this alternative would not meet the final project objective of
protecting the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. As
indicated, the mining operations would add more human activity into the area thereby
causing indirect impacts on surrounding natural open space. These indirect impacts
would adversely affect the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita
Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining.
Because the impacts will increase under this alternative and this alternative will fail to
meet any of the project objectives, the City Council rejects this alternative as
infeasible.
4. Alternative 4 -Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence
Alternative
' (a) Summary of Alternative
For purposes of analysis, the Annexation of Existing Sphere of
Influence Alternative would result in the annexation of 554 acres into the city of
Temecula and the balance of the project site remaining in unincorporated Riverside
County. The property annexed into the city of Temecula would consist of
approximately 236 acres of privately-owned property designated Hillside Residential
and developed with 21 single-family dwelling units, and 318 acres designated as Open
Space. Property remaining in unincorporated Riverside County would include
approximately 232 acres developed with 27 new single-family dwelling units, 250
acres developed with a surface mining operation and 3,966 acres of open space. It is
assumed under this alternative that surface mining operations would be similar to that
under the Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative
(Alternative 3) with the same intensity of operation, but that such operations would
occur within a smaller project site. Due to the smaller area available for the excavation
of mineral resources, surface mining operations would exhaust available resources
sooner and therefore would extend over a shorter overall period of time. Similar to
Alternative 3, upon completion of mining excavation activities, a reclamation plan of
the site would be implemented. The reclamation plan could generally consist of the
quarry being developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water
agency to be determined.
' (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
A-49
Alternative 4, the Annexation of Existing Sphere alternative will
' cause greater impacts than that of the proposed Project for all environmental issues.
The environmental area where the impacts of alternative four compared to that of the
proposed Project will be less is mineral resources and recreation.
Further, Alternative 4 will not meet the three project objectives.
Specifically, Alternative 4 will not allow for the integration of the Santa Margarita Area
annexation area into the City of Temecula's General Plan by allowing the City to adopt
general plan and zoning amendments to establish the general framework for
development in the study area. This is so, because this alternative will maintain 232
developed acres, and 3,966 acres of open space of the annexation area in the County
subject to the County's general plan, while the City would only annex that within its
sphere of influence which is 236 acres of privately owned property and 318 acres of
open space.
Second, Alternative 4 will also not satisfy the projective objective
to preserve public lands within the annexation area in natural open space, while
retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately owned lands.
The introduction of surface mining operations would bring a higher level of human
activity into the area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to
noise, blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and
potential contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect
' impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. Although Alternative 4 would
eliminate the Project's unmitigable impact on mineral resources, the City Council finds
that the substantial increases in other environmental impacts associated with
Alternative 4 render the proposed Project preferable to Alternative 4 for environmental
and policy reasons.
Lastly, Alternative 4 would not meet the final project objective of
protecting the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. As
indicated, the mining operations would add more human activity, into the area thereby
causing indirect impacts on surrounding natural open space. These indirect impacts
would adversely affect the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita
Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining.
Because the impacts will increase under Alternative 4 and this alternative will fail to
meet any of the Project objectives, the City Council rejects Alternative 4 as infeasible.
C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Of the alternatives evaluated above, the No Project - No Development
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 three remaining project alternatives, the Existing County General Plan -
Residential Only Alternative (Alternative 2) meets most of the project objectives while
A-50
' being marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project. The Existing
County General Plan - Residential Only Alternative would retain the proposed
Project's allowable land uses of open space and large-lot residential development,
although it would result in one fewer single-family dwelling unit than would the
proposed Project. Implementation of this alternative would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but would keep the entire project site within unincorporated
Riverside County, rather than annex it into the city of Temecula. Project-related
impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project, with marginally reduced air
quality impacts and PM Peak Hour traffic impacts. However, this Alternative would still
have significant unavoidable impacts to mineral resources and transportation and
traffic. Most of the project objectives would be met under this alternative, with the
exception of the integration of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area into the City's
General Plan.
Of the four alternatives, the Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus
Surface Mining Alternative and the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence
Alternative are the only alternatives that completely avoid or substantially reduce the
proposed project's significant unavoidable adverse impact upon mineral resources by
including surface mining operations. However, due to the adverse impacts related to
surface mining operations, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 and 4 are not
environmentally superior to the proposed project.
' D. The Project As Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The Project is described in detail in the EIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental
impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR and has compared them with
those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is
infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set
forth above. The City Council 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 Project as proposed would integrate the Santa
Margarita Annexation area into the City of Temecula's General Plan by adopting
general plan and zoning amendments that will establish a general framework for
ultimate development within the study area. Further, the Project as proposed will
' preserve public lands within the annexation area in natural open space, and will also
retain the existing rural/agricultural character of the privately owned lands. Finally, the
Project will ensure that the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve
A-51
is preserved by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. For all
of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed.
A-52
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection
with the proposed approval of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area 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 City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, mineral resources
impacts and transportation and traffic impacts. In making this finding, the City Council
' has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has
indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that
each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits,
would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental
impacts of the Project.
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been
imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent
feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they
generally have similar or greater impacts, and do not provide the benefits of the
Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the
Statement of Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation area Project will provide the
City of Temecula with control over the possible uses at the Project site and will ensure
that the land is used according to City of Temecula General Plan designations and
zoning requirements thereby ensuring the type of ultimate development.
C. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation area Project will provide the
City of Temecula with 4,278 acres designated as "Open Space - Conservation Habitat"
for the enjoyment of the City's residents.
' . D. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation area Project will protect and
maintain the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve benefiting the
City and the State by ensuring the research potential in the Reserve.
B-1
' The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of
the Santa Margarita Annexation Area Project outweigh the identified significant
adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the
individual Santa Margarita Annexation Area Project benefits discussed above
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR
and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that
each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City
Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
1
B-2
' EXHIBIT C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1
C-1
m N
a!9
o?
z v m
om 8
c~
N o
K 1
Q
C
C _ m m
Y c ° u `o ~
ca vE ~jE
~ fQ ~ r
~ m
'a d `m
y T a a
0 C o °
O m m d
o. a
m o 0
K
g ncc °cm1~ °crn
K 3'~a mrn9~ `m rn?€
O a c w v m' a J C M M3 m
0z _0 _ma
a0
F W C N c N O~ ty5
m
O z E N 0 =2 a m 01'.55
O.Q CL aN maJc
wa G?
,Q 0 ° @~o gazamm
a o
O a
'
c7U
2Q
Q Q m ~
C7H V r m m c m
H K m m ° u `m 5 v m a m 0 m9 N m e
Z Q c m r- J 50 m a o
0 a._ c0 O> n N._
02 E r
~ -m m y ~m mm tum m rnm mN
rL Q 0 m 6 c c Uh o 0 m J y C m
zZ EO mm mwcmam Na mm o~1 m ~Q
o n
m co Qy N.`. _E N~O:E nN ~ta ym 0y
0
L9 ° 3 w L J> m> N 5 S O c C 0 0 C
F ° C m C O 0 C U a V d N 7 N 10 2 Tam.
O O m ' m J C L
N
'E of wmmamn Ec oo N0 ~N
c> tSL cma @a m 20 c~ mo
3 0 2 0O-H!5 o N c m to Lo u d
mm c$ mE_- l0 na um c~ nvV! cm
cL' 05 cE- 'cm u $ Q m am
m E - a 00,-- a J m o J 02
N@
¢ c L
~m Q o Omr c9c W ¢E H K~
J C
N N m N ON > LN O N O N y N0-
Om C! ¢ M .Q N C a "M no M 5 vi,
J! E 0 0 m 4-.2 a N O
m an d 0 'l5-Y 0 5 m m m0 m N m a m m 0 a0 ° 3aB
2 "0
'G .O~c o~ oc oc oEm C
?c Sac a'G
m ma mm A220 20 ma.. my mm mgE
a W N Olm O] C C C N H O) ¢ m c OI E Ol .
m O)
c - o
z fa fay. gc~«U°v f mm fw
N
' m a c`o O1 me m
'60 a E
C"E
0a
m 0 ¢>01 7.. Lim mS~0 ca m~co Dm
E m m 0 o c ¢ m W Im o° c c m A` N~ N 0 u w
5 y Pf m O y r- J_` y 17 a N .Z ~ 0 ~ C O'U
Qq mo92,amc~a- mo@m9~mt..a, N a°a,°c2
E O a o o m c a c n e E c m m 0n i m E
W E ¢ Enu 'c10 m"m°c EQ-0 °u~u3@mma'v c.ro N$n
m N
aR
E
0-
m
' `o
o ~
cw
0
- u `o o `o
Q Um Um o V aEi
~ r r r
z
F m
a m d o.
3 C g o 0
~ 0m >
w m o 0 0
f
a
0 m o` `o
LU 15
Om- c O~ c rn?~ crn9t
O ° 6 m e m c'3m 10 c'9m
RW'Q aC0 ma ymd 0 Mmd
Fr U m' C7 O
LL
S m c c rn
OZ ~m o:ou m °'u
'im
m c m m
LLQ em
MN 0JL (fC9L 0.5
La CL OImC OIm ~C °ImC
IWY Sa m E mm sam
~Q f° mo. o a a
om
Q
04
_ N E c a a m L C bi L^ o y o m n N E c °v
z
ZK wo ~Nyc m m m~==o_m COO o> >-n mN' c E N 0-
~Q m4m mZ'mm w Qmv'o¢am2. c 2 Tm m s m- 6 mZ'mm w
02 ~cL mw a mom~"mmc16.02-0 «N~'mm ay! °Oemm~im~ Eon
WQ cz ma Sam"~$o~N cC daZonHy=cav mo m:o 'ca mayOj oMN
H o L U c m m rna m N c m m m c c t U c ?MM ¢ a
Q'Z 8-' mSmt~ S~om~_~mo~nw:c Nma -3~.4-7E=e
OQ x c3 mUom=m 0Em N¢o-N ~omv,c ma 6 mZ°mU Of/1=~ m Em
ZW c c€ay°°.maac EIS cQ c«~nm aQrUamlrL~j rn m o EnSO NaSE NCQ
Q= mE°m~-UmaamaW c'~ ^a<rn-mm m~m ~Omo cm€m~A0m9 am 0aW
Z~ 'SO m mN iva'6E.WU c N~ ° o:~ m E n df7 m a ° S `mN>aUa m o
c a m>« UUmTi >omNm M-CM O Ti -O=M
OF 'URU N<, °S m6.u 0Nmm o f m=ate -m mm m2mmo mC mrnma u C~Nmm
Z mtcmo'm° m mmawQ ~a ~mn°LC=-;m- , Ti L`aco'c
O aaacMW06-~Eam°54£~wLL 'c£mccv'a~m m acacma w~-V-IL¢i
z ~t=OWCW2~~4Zm oNa 10 m 0 aaozm N--¢o :N En=9m w?-:iE 2m
p ° stn u$m ~~o cam cm m2 mamU-.a um=c Nc °`m o Ea `m
~o~oEmmc 'UaLL n N~m Ea'mc ONy tf wE-' g..2Emmc
m and 6~t mE(Q7m O U~ Lm n-t6 z 2!66 C
N m U N !.N Z 00 N m W N E m m 9 a c nUm' m c m E m° m N m `O = m~ Z O) w
n m~~m'm ~.°mmUNiy 0°`mn mOOc3°m'smFm> ^q Mz EW `~yvmmUm
> ~c jc gc~ommS=co ~a tmoaam`°oacmhg oo~ ~mc0 N7 c,c-mc "
N N m C L O C O N C N ry C=¢ N C T j a r ` N ,Q C w L_ c C ff r ~ m E- c
o m ma~oYimy mm93gU mw0O Wom~mAEmm~cS mmc°°'mT and=3a0 9
m 22=4),-03c cc ~iL '~mEc T.N. E.N.. m"-Lma~c SEmcmNmmv'm ca 3
a E-cN=$E0Em
c w °:EmvNUOmmE,! W ~a'"mSZc=c'6 m °7uam`o°c o0EE a m
a-r om `g
o~Emc~mrn'mmmm2>cmTi~~ moo@m =mN` ^U.~.._~Q
6 m m °~-mm~-~=-~Q .'E
¢ O! pea's a-c.~NV CE3m w>->ca>U>N 9cm0Z a m¢g Q_nN nO'. Em N F
4 f f n of 112 'o m r6 m v - f U m c c a c m S m m 2 rn`o n'? c f m of K O m ,c m K u m LL
N
3
T m C
m m m r m N N m m C t0 lO C E(6 E
c Fm m««mo p,~m °n f m mLX C2 ma ri
m' N ri O
4l m w N6mm OM a C. 0000 -6 ti
Cr tR ~mmCmjm Nm-nOpu) ~mN~COm.OnyO
Q u w u o_2!r ° me N° Nm0 V oaf °mr E~ m(9
>n c °'nJ~S9 02mmum rnON nO p'pomE0
W E m g d 8 0 0 o E N m N N 3 n m U 7 E n U 0 0 L N 8.G a m U
A N
6
E° C
c U m
O m
C
O ~
C N
w
m
o m m
C
m V O V O V
m C
y Q U E U m
0 r
z
4 m
f' a y `m
3 2 a
z °,L m m
W m 0 0
g ~
O N
-i
W m L $m
m m O c
Wz uvE of vo u'~va
KO ¢co %m._ ~L°-
f f U Um (7a
7
LL Lu
w z c rn N n c a ui m c
ME 0
Oz cN em 10.. "m Ti
m m a m
LL 4
.j ~ aVOi 0-5 c - Mm c'vc d00 2
~ C 'C m OIm C co ~ m a1 C ° M OZ
IY O C a m fam m ac
and 0 U ac o
0 0 m m0' U
0 C?
' IL m -
- a)
1 d m•O m N m c LL m N m
-6 i
z a
i
Y m °1 a m~ ~c
F Q. m m Uc- m a$m d
a ~ o €c yL":e E ccEO m
c rL c== 3,_ m mm 6
'c m
m 3 o v ' c v E c° r U m u o E c 00
02 ? ~aia m mm~L °c m€ ° c°md mci$ a
IL 2-6 0 E WH myn ~cnm vmaQ K°mU am rn mU°'m a`°rwcc m'9)9c`mm
Kz «qmN -mm.,c°, rnm«mc3 mcXUC0 mcca =_,nmcc
=N Corner `oNnE 0°c aEim Do0O0€ m mommEE m-nm §~m$-m
QW «m -E U o m'm LLm dz c mm `my m a .qc«NE L`Ca2 2`@Nm W
~x mmoE cUg- USm¢ to°£muin m L)cc 0, Urnmm 3-M..!Rw
z~ OLD C -M.C.C «OLL mn $ E 10 ! WU m 0
m 0 Lccm L
N OgOmm
N«Om Ti TOoE T0 Uo~3 rmm,c- -m r._aa r
Ti 3«o m o ui~ m U ~m m o,,v O Cl ~mmm o i~cc_ YommvE
F' o,~ _c L m arn~ ~-O_
am o o. ~'Gm v ~L°- z'Ocmoc« o ICwmNO O. mmd~ aGramom
z En m $ N n NfiyN N~ o i3.0 `6 o J! mBm pie°$ X62 i-M
O o N OE ai U' mF U mm N m ~N~NaL Z.. mm c
ocm mm 13 z m `o p Ti o o U ~ v Z U c m `o c c m Fm- m m m s m m m m m o o m m$ r m c
F as c c mn~t o c m< m~~ $ac m d Moc=mm= M`m "-c ZNE`o- `M
2 'a
m0o nnmo n'°coo$m y 3n0m9Ern c$ - m0--op°c
Q MiO°° n
$~umio
N° c m.m~ c L.,m~c Lm,? of-y m n N mrnma9>c; amn ro 2` a`o m
m vi;oE Eco2 c~.'~. r'O caKm~0E M -MmAa$-° ' ma`o -CmM.mm €
> mWC a oac o°@m€n 2 0mm°cm ceom O' w~Er'E m
m mymc 'm m$ >NO$Om g0mm to wm6aIL'~> w`o2i_^_ iLl5 -
f ~z a`o~ >.Emm a.camn m.c mIa-c m2• OxAm mm9L mg'n Z5 a 3
0 0 o E m~ w° m N m c L N E mVVI O Op m 2 gm aomm~co 6.L 0j atom Elm ua: a 62 ma,m oxg8 `g°mBa °m E'L°~L oim .!!=WEE cm`ux cHsmmoE
f f35~o a`33« o`aa«m o`d°o a~(~ f2 t9o ocm m0 m>>m~m me
3m..._ C7 m$N~ C7 mom Mm
N
aL t~
m = m m m
LTi aei='~ o oim mL o LTi cc`oo `o-0 am~i rm-
:a E o ° c o r'mu @3mccmL cv Z a m m E-
.R r o a mi o~oQ `t 's
C ~f - m ma ~ y~V OO L.__ mZO00000. lO m _r
C al~ m'~,@Omv m o M- n ad«acrN m°mN rooc °
ma=a2im~mm~¢Em~oo? c moa:°•mm mw m mm v° We
CE Eooa oLmAmU omtiETio Eo9ao-«>wv L„ oiELa
W_ n o N m n 3 n U .J c> N E c E 3 3 c E$« 3
u
~ m
HA
Ec
U
O ~
r
C m
U p °
m
O Q V m
z
= m
3 N n
c °
Z °a
w m m
2
a
O S
o
m
> ncc °cm
W a g o n
O yon mc0
W z UV E
Na
N m
R O a
H~a U Us'
O X
OLL Q $umi Wm ma0 d,a2
~W ut my «ma'~c d
~z f QK mRm Oa _ c o
O Q m C7 4 m 0 U
, iL Y
C7Q @w 0; 3 `om m°c ~ a o5Um 0` mom d
z0 J= g o tm NS mo«Q vc0 °mmc m=,ta.oox=ro ~M=
oZmm.- 12 aco. wam« 2 0WO-my)cm ma
~Q cm3 mmm N °ma N'o a;i . aii EZL, moEx Orn~mc occ
m° mL~ .ou)N'0 NC m mC mSR T 3' m CLmN~m>m NOC
02 ac ac cLc m.E 2a ES M.2 .0a rnma" wm >am nME0 Cc
aQ NN mm omo OcNU mcUC °>u `m,o vmm8 0m 'am E_^0mE yFmm
WF 0 00 QEmx. mm= dm C3N m UdC d~mY Oa C~.C`Nm CN
CQ no- man m0m5c-m- m«°mu 'mo°m- i,Z= x Qqo cz m mn'o ma.A0
LO- =80M MZ 0 C) zy,c9° Acmm~`a5 6.-60- ama°tc:°acFEN ~m~am3mE.N o @cWmn
VmNO U(0 C.) N.L2'a co ()Qmp~TaYImm mmL1C ONZA Tr am,, ryOI OIO
RF ~0ct'j Hom He=cE«ot FL-co~mc''-->a H0-U. Emm.man Ti _o omio~N
p cmm E m%." -V ma ni ciina o a` -C ^>~@(7 E~>. m5 clad c oNm:
H mOCO m2m u p(pm N'N -0, 'c mm.°Na. wNi macro O.C(OC>_mNo€$cUC
p =0>_ ~co' mn'LoOomo.`"-°2• -amo.v,cr, @«w_a$ m-Owcm m E Et Uoo2
cN
° "o ou),6
Namc 0 mE>crcLm °E c c..oa 10mm m N Ncm c cco ca o
c oamo m._ L cm- _
019 =0~o MmRmm-cm mmao5'(12=0=2E> im 0 n12.E'mat >m ~'«mmE o'«
O_ ~10a ai f
pcmc oc3 o«2n0_mA o._~Eo mEoc pn-E;-°_ momma M.E3
i0 nm c
Q ooim N°c Lo°~O1camL ~a'mEmmmm o,m~ 00E•cm°0LMar moo
mFloz rmmm mU >__mN m°_EOI'On L_=C ~D W.- VELm°OOy-M.v >W_ c
~ OFmm Wnc ~vac§Ecm °NEE mc2$ -0,2e 0;65°2', v_ 2 cN m E N m mV
` 25 om a:* fmmcm°oL K=mmmETE~,` ` ~mWCU ono`O"_ 2~umNCEiem m
q C'oNm K'~_ K0«0momc £~"m n m0. E•cc T L m
m Wm N.D W n W~WCN`. 2._ W5`m ow °c .`.cma u-1 _EmEU aommm com c~c>`om
.o mo~c m5m m°Um E Dc« m~K mca=r m2~c mai m`m07;6,21.5090 =,cmc
m o aNOE a2E a~o_oSSo aco:cmaomI aoom~ mtaLm°am`°EEm,~3m 9
` S 0 L°arn L°c1q'm mVm L°c~°V.aSmcmo @«Vac cNcm2cmZmmmgnqN3 S
E u m°nocc mmm m2E=~ ulmr monnEV=ico°imc•0 m00
,a0 - mmc,'K CO mrmu
< f G~omo (7 nE C7 n._o EoM>N U' nE$mm- U'a2a.` amzm m0o~o mmac
N
b
E
F
y
w c
E v
c
Q n
w 'E
u
m N
S m
E
o_5
o U ~
O W
C ~
O W
u ~
C N_
Q m
m
c
rn
A
m
C
~ V O U
m « C y
n O Q U E
f ~
Z
2 m
F a d
N T a
C L °
0M v
Z w m o
a
O N
o
> CC `oa
c
w c42 o'mo,
O ?ua m~OI
wZ uvE J._c
a0 Qco -@°-
LL Z C y O1 a 0
w A N W rn b
c 0 m
O z rn (L
LLQ `om o mrn-W v a`
« W rn- cat U' c„
Q Cm m cma U m N
KZ fa ai o~W to mm o_c o
K('Q m c~ a °°o v
w E o
OQ c mm Iu mrnc uo ? me m mm W _o a
Z~ mm ma mN0 Er mb a,u1L W COIa= L m
02 0 000a a;Tm xEJOcc 0 0> 6a.-- mo '~,c aomi
U _ o we
WQ occnoZy ai m oc ~;a„°c a~§, mm°Ea m$
Z O m'- C m CN 60 m J a m Qa N c O N O 0
J = N a C 12 W a
~Z IL EmoNN tWmaUa Wmm oaam O
wm N
0 'o U
OQ U Ntm0 m scm 3L~ cS 0-=O o LM NS
Qw ticW ,L Eo- -002 °iat UOmam m2 V) T = gJm Moc oxoo ~I^m.omm aNmo y.1,
0 oW
C7 F- 0amxW ~-vi u Wg mm$s o~u- mac `JUi .2
z t..NN10 (nV T~E•a WOmCx Umc mm-
K oFi~$~N 3mOU mamma C2.0 m°auq3 me
J~ mN W~ Cx N N ma
0 ,00
'0.-OM«9 0carn '-6c 3:0 «°nE `m~ mm
ST<
Z z>a.tc o =a2a m am>c m oao~ C'u
C-m°mv a"mm mm ~ c" mJo o a4`oa menmm2! ~o
z a o memo a W`2V 00 00 mt amim N WUCO a:c
F 0 m 12 0 a a 0 m m N m LIO W° o c Vml J m N m u u J m 0
F °N Tm m codm nSg2a, a°9N a$-6m om
w2E-8-L motor aOoacN cx W ° am tmO1°~ mo
J JEZnoN mop- WOWR'm mu)00 On'~amm Gm m
m 00~~m`u Z10 oin nmcmao ~mcm QmS=Maui ~a Qc
m x._ oc r!~§ aoma2E m S
o r 2
-I ~m o'cE Eco °a~0
c V J«N CA._ W ao a ~o _o ~JOa~ N
J ti A g m-3 m W ` m W m W m m a-2 0 N c as m$ W Ui m e a m
c
1°-yamtmE ~cao~ tc aa3 eam(o apLCN5as U'om
f sma°-u2._ u$~- tis.. mNmm aim_M B1 5 am
N
a
E
0 ~
E
c
Q R
c 6
wE
m
0
A OI
6
OL
~
U m
c
~ m m
T
O
' u o u =u
0Q OF U`y
Z_
S m
3 q a a
C o 0
Z am. > >
W m O O
a
0i
m c m €
j mcc mm `om
W c« m ca ca
0 Sum mm
Wz GaE
w0 Qc0 ~=nm
U m m~
LL W m m
S m c
Oz Sin mvu mu .
m m
w Q E` um~ ~.J 'J L ~
~Q c m mm c me
W = ` a m c m
~a 0 a oma Qa
(L
6 a m m m $ m
o _
G 2 O 0 O m d
z 0 y a L C U ~ L m Q ~ m O M=
f 2 T` 0 >C 0 0 0 m ~ L L 0 m Y N
K~ Hamm°nc2°-m°--mLL'm U`in am >.=aoo-m
WF LL mta o ,w =V 1
U)>EWN o €°a ~fitm TNOE
W Z A m = m c On _ a. Z a m b c m a m> a c m o
OQ c5 °c 000 mE~a~ mna°ucc,_,M-czwE
@ 0
Zy ci cm" m>Zn - mmmm K ~mm c._ mm noc-
QW m m ~V o~MtO. , ~gm c~Tin~ ~c~ ~_cn€
(7 S N G m S N m=> m V C m OI V t N N> N j L~0 01 6
Z~ m m am M7 W. av £W m~ o ~~nQm n~a
Q' ~mmmmm.co-16 mc 3'.ou3m=,=°mm=u i°a
O w r w E° m~ a° c ° cc m c- m 3° E O m m-
rn a° N .-m maw U = =0120 r o '9 m 4 r m m o
M.- m E a c m m m.~ o m> m
z m~~mmmScc~am^ L$mmmHoitmV2mEm
Tm a a=ooz =~c=gym mm'
O (0 -5Ern-0
F= ~R cm=Ey~m~mcw o°.odDomol--wmam
(7 cmthN.c=,-.5 t£m c_ c
N O O m m m m) - m m m co rj N n C m L m p C m a m C a m
m @mcmy~wmo "6- i ay~'nc$_L. co'm mom
U. m
m m mco,ma=m"mFEm u=i c°o ~wca~ mm 2 mm 55
g r m~ f=C -
° m mm0€acW„mamma mL0-OO«nloi maEw0 d
m c c c o 0 o m_ a m c 3 m m n c= S" L m m m 0 00 2
a° y.o o0_ayc as °a M,,,Odmm~m~t
Q m mwc5-r=mO SSmm =mm_; .~10~G~mZ~
Q Q L L m co vca i-2 c V « co >m " c 22 6 Q m~
g ;...~~W,.., f~anco.m moan a_ o
m m
m
m a
5 U
m L U a c
IL- m'~ c Z g 0.2
~
U1 m N -6'6 C 0
m
C (aJ n
y 60 m 0
C Y1!l 0 m c= m ml pC
.0 E
>a n°>>oo-mg
U1.9 E282`0
u
. N
6
E
m c
.cl um
o w
c
m n
° 0
an
3y
G m`
9c >
w
E M . . m
T
i U O p O U ~O
C 0 m 4.m
N pQ U~ U~ OF
f
Z
= m
~ a m
m n 0 a
c o 0 0
w oa > p °
0
f
IL
W ao 'om `o omm- m6' °cm
> m« Toma
W oam ac ucmE. _ m
m TE°acc u.a
i
O -~n mom ca=J2rc0= as cww
uo E ama a~ ami w'z :°.Ec m,~> jcc
KO Q n> .mm~cE Jm amo m'o'a
cU QO . M. um o E'-o mm -
a $pO U'M
LL X
LL W me
a' Z pi,~ c .9 .2
O Z .5 a ° t5 '0 a a 0
EL m a3 c
QQ E. M.5 m e W> E 9 0
C~ fa o'a 1m o'w ~ma
(9Q O`o
KH r
m
a m m m m a m
a
z caE me-c 0 via mmm$ CO
a
a m U' X000. .2!2.0 ~_ys m Et o rm M am'rnm u am
N-Fa o
~Q unvi :m0-05 c _OO1W-t_Co-ECQ vy am y°~o« J.ss'ma
O PL 0- a- a,~ m O N N O O V a d" a C m Y O'D n p m O W= N'~~ C
W Q a J= 0 tO C V V u m m t- a 6 C m m O- a 5 a> g y m« 0 a am
8 U c%~ U N O N on
a' 2 Ni E° n€ c J° m c 'i 3 E c m m'«°-m z« ~ L F 0 0 m a a c E c `m E A E m m m
pQ m~.amm.rmya ..__Sroy c.ov<m Mmo°£cmo=JuaSm~
Zfn wp m2a my4 wm .ammocu mgac.~t.:m a -m 0'S c!c c°
Q W m= n n m a N OI m !F ~p c o E N 0 N c L u D) C N_ C U C -p m c
T m m m 0 C N 0. m C C.. ...L. K U m -601Q E N M- m N O N J m O a p
OF ~3. mm. £R Ja 3'ccfe u~?5 mw atl1a imt ,mcrmaa OS
J~
m
A -a > m o n r c a m m o a m m c m m m 'ov a m d ~i n m t m c c~°E~ E O .P, E
F n0«,, .~«ooE«E amm«r°€Emrm .OEm aQ rs€03 m Q
Z 0W-z '3p1m°JO omoom$Mma`o m3aa O oiw cmmc~m'4yc.m
O Na«0.0 rE Em JNucamvmmm -am c~Oi rnom.:a ar~u~°-E10nm
o-ErJmw oi~=cuc='O~ocE-Ma O goad °'p>oy.aU o'ca C- 0 Z mo-O VJiccm§ omoa °m a€%A£>m~+~`oS orn KCQ mc~om~am 00 wmcE
OF Q mM00 o`o°« u> m U'mtwmmaom~aE ° mm 3= U McOr vca.; my E.~
Q ~mESa °o pa ,m cem°> °%mm'^- anm'°,~- -EV x~mEmacOEa a 00 F r'c°aacL>V m.'mommz .J«mo cc aOCO vm m0~ 1qm. aaM>0 ma,tm, cma
ain m.«cmmv'~mm ~„+UpmNT`m.oma m«oV~o~ wUA$c=°ccc~~~~~E
N N f J m :s r ( r l M on a . m . . a N « m c w O W t m m 0 m O N Z` 0 m O J 0 W m y J a u Qqc
m 0 L_ . a m C n a c° C 6 m L0 9 m 41 C f C .t' 0 J p °0 m J ma m F 10 m C« m m C O O O
c c ~amn.E«0m 10U nm ~uymya '°m--; Tiro. ma>i. fow-nm«Auca nEmE 2
0 ~ u% M= ` c 0 m u u ? o E F m m o c Q" c c 5 m a 5 E m u mg u m c E m• 8 c u
a .m. aw pE . mTiZ o mT~~c'm moonEo2oa-
.e m maumNZ9Efuom
oN ym L 0 ME a m a ugmonn rn`m ~ m°.O0 m°n°.m ~u0 °Mm a« m E
g mm0 c°'mauam~ fama(7 ZamEO0.'m mnn fvuam3mw'm m Em~maE `m c
N
9 c
32 0 a ;a E.
.9 E a v n? u a m F mom'-.2
u 8
m ° c _ ESC c m Jo rv mm0 E5 cm of y'
Ey K nti! LeocZ vi 00 vja>5 v; om.E
U y. O 0 m U Y O01 0 6 0 0
> a G C 7 Y O Q.C 0 0 6 as 0.7= OR
W E v E °o am 0@ 5 `m m t E a °m Y E 2 m m O.D
u
m n
o. a
of
U
0'a
C N
m .r
C % % w
C p u 0 U 10 75
o Q U E U E U E
z
x m
~ n m `m m
0 0 0
Z na o o >m
W m o 0 0
f ~
a
-1 2 , 0 .2 16
W cgi 8a SYlE2~ca Dy ~c E2m~6adc~
O 0u n ~c o€o E=m u'> ;€m y.>_m ELm'0
W z u v E y D N m c Ti o N n m N w K c Ti " o y am u
FO QcU Na L) a 02 L) a boo
1=L Lu m me me
W z W^ c y S.2 S.2
OZ Sm Wa Wr) °mU
~ Q A p~ C p~ C C
Q 111111 .0 c o
K fa ca cU U
04 0 a `o Do
04
Kr mm _ - _ N - N
6~ A9 « N`o c o W emcc~ac C)
m Oc «m
zo oc mr0 E a m omit o`Yl;m mDd mot a
c 12 ~Q M-T oo c am - mE - EOocmcm E'^ mvoc QO?°nw.°
m D oaoy3 me mc5v E(j ^wDc E> > oLN mcmoc3o t mo y m
02 >
0-'C~Tf AL
WF oo07ico~--~ °u >MW mEi°5Qa-8sW m00m rn-aom«°Htmc aomm`
m00 c- c N u m> c m m C a c m o m mF m S WE V;
O Q ° o m V m a M m c c _t L W N
<W Lm wm E0 aEo E= m° --'om`. ~.<,o io maw- no Emr D'momc>o nD '"Ti
Q= nm«mmm E 1_~ c mv)--am-. o' oWWmau yNzrM 0 M0
C7F -O OIO>mm~Qa wD qc€o~Oow" o -D ~.N°0 c!-mmaw E MM -Mmmc
z o>amwcyncm m~`-->wlm-oU ow m'o-c c`0- > mEcw EDc mmo$m
coo On o.ym m.~+a>oocN9mE3 ««cLm
O mWm gEErEa m«Lm---mEF
Z C.O. O mNy J 000N000ND a «Ow'~w om.2 2 Q wC%m> m't m wm%
p ow~ym..~crm mL` N`oooWmmc cc>o-ya uoaDmom- O1 E
Crm LwON« C gcU° VM mD «fqN L>Lo N.°D O
Smmymo O->>$v t°~c°c a2`m yDa yLayy ~o ~S ocm
p O-'w aQua Opu tyMao m wOw 10Q E Q0S^1 -5§-0 w W c momCn0 M~ 0-6
F UE °oL w'o aym - - ~DUamina o-'smi oD'ocmmc€w Eon
v m, Ti
MC cmnmy
Q % E m a m c' c m D w- c y - Ffm
C7 M mW a«mc~mw q mw-mmW ~.cN ac.EwY-i '~mvm« adta °-r m
oc LLUC `o~c w.>_o.~
Ma tic :c ayi FE o ^q3o~y"=Ny%°c'o vioumNcao>=2 aw oc-Apa o
.2'c
~crwoD`rnD me G0~~CCm?$m@ ~O-Dmcrna 102` 0 `on oCmvmO
> or>>cD Uc~ ~ooS E o-C
% N C a .q w h -R t U w IJ C O GymE « Om y EO w N 0 C m '.-i U 2 0 O S O' m-° y L
2 13 ° m 0 a m r 2- 3 tll C D L YI (n y a a N :E2 O N L° a= C m
~m a> >v C m a w M N
0 O O Lwswm 6wr-~ OcQ ~ C-mY" Cm~%~mC0y :tr'L'O^CVC ~C%cw~ Q
C A A wa CmNyD `D ~VVV' md - mm 0 `m O~amNO E D 60 O m w wa0>
m m m Ti o c_ E° a m«@ m r 12 W 0 E a« E E m> c ~ O> `o c m o~ n 0-6.
. E c c~ c o
~qo>'o mD m'otc W0>°mZ ODOm10 y8womUHEmm=oSmoaa oOwDyc s
f fz na mm~EW>~ faw.2 ww mME f'o m2! anmnam'- CL a1L--mms m
:9 T cr
a r 3 c w `o
m O- o D m o m m 16
r w C > m o o m D c r m E r m o E m° 5
w W0 = `mU~ma`~ YE aL i?'o Dm 0 r
N pC M W S.2 C c QE m w in M 8 0 C q M 0 m T O , p°p T U
L M R O D y c«= >'j a m w m w w y '0`0 0 0 O j
> a a a- m a C am..- J C a.F E V a n y O' m O 0'
WE E as 0 0 ~'ami Zi no) Eam 3~ Ea - ME==@
u
m a
c..
05
o U
p W
O
o
u !9
C N
>
m
`m
O1 A A
C
V O U
m 0 c C
y 0 OF OF
Z
2 m
F c m v
3 c a
2
F O W 0 m
Z maa >d >m
w m ❑ ❑
z
a
€ €
i W NC m
C O d O
m
O °u5 m°i mO1
WZ u v E SE °:g
KO Qco _a _v_
F~ _U m m
7Lu
U. W rn rn
a'Z 0 aY ax
~Q oa mm and
f~ Et me We
a A A
C'Q oa oa
C?
K F m m A p
W
a~ c= ma c `m ° 'c a
z0 0~~P m 0M mcmo
p d c E m g a a a c
m m a o
aYio a nmmm
IL o
Q E9?,6 mD ES>ma
a' Z _y ` pm'6 E m_9°m
~Q tmEu°vw ~£«0-
QW U) 0
°c~msrn °tmM.
a._wv c ac p1`m
a `0 2• c 'm o me p 'c
Z m' d c E A m a5 30,
_ mmom a °aS-Swc
O 22 ~,m=e o>ma2•=d
F a>aLeto
m 3
v
Z =VOW N "-E
@ c s ' K
Z =Mwc3 ap
O 0 !t LL E 0 v' r ~LL A m y
Q Q.y L,m mm laV tQ ro T
W cm U >0 m b W N 5 C~ N
Oi .t..Sovrl M d T p `o
a- M
5 mDLmco Ovc .
A 2 2 c m CC
0 0mE jmtl1 m y
m
m O p 6-r m m
E 'got
a° cc Z°mma Rc audi~w„A_~ F$
N m N n- y~ b
'a_C w
~L m rC w~ Y M Aa'° L Mi c
- N
_ mm A
' m m ~wm? 4 O m m•- 5 mU pm pri E
O d `O m C yq~ L O L_ -F ~ O 8= m
E ° m>> 5 m o m> Z - v n vi m`w ~m>>ii5 mmuio miri- mo. oil n0 0 it
'ru 8
m °u ~o~m n3~m5 ammcm c° o€° ~m °'§wm°3Zmcm c°dof€~vi r
~o n a o S o m c §,E o a a o E-'- o'er v
E 2 m E c 2~ o'_ ° c m A m ,C m e
c m rim o:._.. c_%pw -7u ryEC`oi m mvi r+m o.q-2 wpm E c and O
N !i C c g A O W 8 U A C C {p q O tY p 2 p {p C m•-~-. 12, U ° V m y _u U 0 3 O m 2 CNN m c 6 mm to m A U p u mm C a-
> 6 y 6 a O m N O> m= C- N a C A_ m 6 m d U a a O b m O m D m'~-~ N C A C u a d 0
cE z°$c~a mcEE u
udi~oomi Ea3a'i nm 2=0H ss'maciEEudimoo`
W_ M. aim amaa-V m42
°ct iF« Am ccc 2`" t0
u a m m m" o m 2` c y N m m m A« o m c y N
R N O' C m C J 'L" U OE L. m L C O' C A p O L U m« m L V 0 C
a.'_A. ~0a12 0~5 EWO ornmr oc m°o"mErno
E C A O m 0 ~ m nL t m m e m O A m m a L L m r m c
0- 3 mU 3OE=q aE.-.o ~mmU §OE -Ama E 'oo
oN -oo2eem°c mm NJ;dam ooEac'~m°c ma.Jn
ii,2 !g .2 ' rn o rn d
'60 _irur
c m m° c m A p S m m rn p rn LL' o u a W °c E E o c
m E 'o m m o o a a c m E Ti E Q m
m > c m Ti
r-. 0) ccdmTic coA>Dm vm0 ~'BacoOoNa
`m~ Emil`-c~ wc°aa aE E_ Em~f c-Daa nE E_
.,m m E" Din m m E''
y 0 A N O A
C V an d L' O U ` N L 0 V
cW ~-o J OZIE i0c oDE
fa U0UUF UMUUh
Z
S m
o°mO i'E °`0;;m
c m c
W 1a OUN°~ OL)w 0 m
,
K U`o Uo
a
W ao 0 °N p mN _.0m
~c0 a0 ~aom;om
D ?t~ n ~=T-imE`O c N^ m`^
y n m =C -Ti a
p C E N N U m O N C q gym" °
wo Q_0 Nm'~2 Nam 2
n
LL W
c
1% Z
c v o 0
OLLQ Ew `1J m~
0 L O° O c
It 2a o 0
Q U U
0
1 w F
LLQ: c c«`p m m
z~ y m .2 0 0j3 'om a
m m
KK a - o m m a> @ y E c m E h n U m a t c m E
m M: , am
02
WF 530 0 om3cc ~Nwaomc2~.`0_$m
WZ a'E .`o-mm~rn m0 «=-'OcEE0->Om
Z N ° r `i m> j V= U ~ *6 r m c o Jo m ~ t o o A
m F A s
Z d c r o o E m J m pi N 9'N wU L) a
a2 OME a,MOZroE mit 0a OccoE Lm,>
z m o m m J° c m m m._ A
Z Et ¢O L'c$cuma moarnmoomm$L>>
p 'QEE0Z'O EW C3 M ~Mr maE,omc
F m e w U c o E m c J c m w e v) m a-, E m
OpL=pJ=bm, E- g-c mom--._a0~
Q ',U m U m U U E° L° o g c 0 c; c t s h o o
m O 9.2 z E m , c m° A `m m m c v a - W o° E m
z m c~g.«c Ab =
O me{=p a~0> moJ m.y o aUc§E'6 0
L N U U c O m c C aD J 0 _ m
Q cy a-Omc' 0 N°a m mm o J 'm m a o >oNmAm
L N A A E t 0:5 m N" E m c C
A N a° C c L M 1 S8 A c c
92.2::=_ E L. m N v" a
l7 m R2 , wo- O m a: a m w m 2 m
L- L O Y N
m m m a g t o; c E a % L'
m o c'~ c~yy " m c m
m m E F U M S m a q J I O~ ~ t` VI U Y ry m~ L
m
A A 6 p 0 C L y p m m T C C C MV
L) 6
o m mm::op~vEcmaq mnyoOOmmEoU r
a c 'om maju c0~c0m acs c c 5
R
c 2 c@mocEnm~°S Ti =a m20 mE
m m°NO m$m onA=m m --J E t.. ao mb'D~
a M. m a c :E a m m 12 0i E 0 a a. E E 50 E n
Q m E MUE! SS££ m« 2cQ EO:E EEU E a
m N
L.2
'L' m c m .Z' m .L- a L m o m
0 t;
m A m N m u m N C
wc 'T 'o rl
A m o ~EEo`mac2 nmmmmmrnE NaE°'°c2 cm qm wEEc z'
N E i 14 O V 0 C 7 m O 0 OfD C O C 0 9 0 cm J a0 m o m LL C` m C Q o y a o U
Qu n u otOUE a `^w :s 3mmoo1OUE a°a~mo N o n 5c2 u,cm_m
W`E ~A` Em2u>EU1Kj<<mO na`o n o EmE n EvlKj~Smma o oar a U))
m
c Qm° °mo
m'n ~S m m
a A o m rn m a_ o A
3 m._ _rn m o -
E= mcE m._0
c U 'u mom E'mmm
mac of m c ~m 60 c F o m v m 0 `o
qq m E $
U ~ y.V E 0
< CN Uaa cmo'
9 > v t E ~ E m
m m
T
m
w
3 zv c°
m ~O, G mew 00
fn 7 y2'E
fa UU02
W
Z
2 m
o
~ c 9' °
Z as i i o' ? O E
m ODUw F
K
IL
m
> .cc orc~-
m a 0 ° M
O .4 cmin =m ??9mc
KO ac0 0,A ov_
7- U 12
EL
H Q
LL w
LL
w
w z a-
0
LL Q = m 3
rzQ ~m
W =m t O c
~w fin. U
Q
'KH
a ~ c m m
=m a
`m m
~Q E'm mmmma mcm
02 E.ont Em .m a3a
WQ aoadn°wr °Om
0: 2 aa5~0 E C" c
0o
OQ m m•. ~.uc m Smc
2w 'm ° m c mmn cm
Q W 'a R:2 00 _c m`c
Z~ °mE =u O- m$°
a~LE
a m ? c
O m ~ O
O m0n=m O
f 3mc Em umc
Z o 2 ° m m n- m c E
Z .°o -o<mEOE ~:a
M
O umi°=L6'va"c
f co 0.-E c'~ c0~
0 0-6 3: 1
:9'6 75
fJ Mp J':30 o `m m `m=n
"2pjw-°mp mmE 5
> °xo~oi O1i 6 o umc
a
m m m m°-m m
m 0 T_ L m m V m m 0 m 5
f Evam mEm d
° p co cdo va+ 0cm S
m.°_ acE «?F d
a am L°mma d'3m Brno
f Sao0-Emm=3E 0 E o
N
o m m o m E
m
a
myZm 9fqq oiU m--E.°.. (7 °c 8 1.01
n°mviom 0 % 0 "6
E ~ooxg0vmoo)v »TmOmm0 OOm«-;,mo0 mmm a
QW m me 21 Tmi mmTmiti n%° vom =~.n'9°75c °mm
omm~o02-Om m~rnom°accam>~,3>£EvE
c° o~WE'o
wE ~n«umi3Un$$°mnm°L°~Q`momn5lL-sm `enmaa`ofmU '
o
o y o m o y o m
c L L C y L r
C a- y y- a y m
m N J N.- M O w 0
F6 C N m'r°-' m% m G
U m a°i~Em eE mciEm"E
OO E c=_~F E~cc~F
p_{u FO'Oa ma rrn~amo
me me
o0rnc o~rnc «
~ N r .n - E° U ~ n« m mp 6
E m ~ O m E m
> V m n o = m n o
.C E r n E
~O m w N
C >T O m m
E m C y« E C « E
0 CjKUF UKUF
Z
S m _
0 06-M
m n O O' a° D
c Sa- m aoi °cL"om
Z na ioi0E >02UE
W m CUR tm- CUR 12
2
O _
W W U O m m r Ol m o m w m A O
W `c«m m~oa cn°OS~m ~a 3a'c 00:
O o l
a c m m c c O c c Y3' m m c C O c 0 13 KO Qcc w€a2 3am'mE m€c$3~mE
H~ U _a ^n Uo -0. 8L
Uo
U
U.
W
m -
W z
c m
OZ o-O ~-6O
LL Q p m c= 5`
La U o U o
U U
10< mtO o m 0 Ti v4 ^ , u m
Z/ m `m c j0 c o c m U m C c o C m d
~Q V m(7m 4 MM up2 acin rn Wm 2vmcm= mm~ 0mwm>.M cm
LU =oa ..c>>>m'--- >Lo as c3.ca ~O y~~ ' d: ?>mmc as
F o m o= o c r- n'-c o 0 o c
~Z a"'U E ~mn mo°'~at 3m .°mm'- $>,mnmO-ZM'z 3m
m0, on Mna o- mmm h m O mac aaAC; nmmm 0m
pQ ao=a °a o'm 'c cE•-m'~° ~3 ~K 3m oa o'm 'c cE..-m~°
0 oa ma a Am
Z 4i QW m 12 Dom o=-ma-5tc- 0 -5, OM m m E m0 :E ccm>m5room O
OS UE._o°•,. ~w no ~we E -m c0 3 63003a-;mcE ~m
Z~ «0 Of m c«n3 m: ca22 mr ym:E c c=n; ms cNH«. 0-
R' j =@ m a m C «0 m~ o o C J m j Q m 0 c m an d m 0 y N ~ o 0 c= m V,
0 a
m" mo om0m3°v« ~0"Z0 mOCm°U9« c °
mv"0= °'cm ~0L m=-m °o°ai oa0 m Ecm ~°M m' ~ m'om
0~- 0
2 4mmcm >.Ev°c
at cUEE c..a mRma 7a °E >.Em°a«cUEE cLa
2 W?M'Mo EQ=mcmm@I' a a> m£Ia $$n° i Eat m o m m Lw n c°>
O m =m co ° m£" msca m`o E ai 13 m mymmOm m mE.om° W9> O E vi c
~ 0c_a
t toms `acamA ova N m,cc ~ E c~,m
'O C 2 L~ C Y= m T y ' Q: c Y= m U N .ij C7 Imo%yu LLL EEo.:n=E m~W ~'-MUm'mwa L^.sLL EEo~a=p
n~ m%>>amcmcm ..w ~'+m OCw> W mmj>am cmt m 'a=~
> ;c•23aa n`mE nu~oEac °uo2 ~'-0E'o aam aLLt aSEm Emc uoc F
m mm= ~>MET=cmmo mm~ ma .O$m m>Q~mE.6.m mo mout°'
c m L) gig f! > 6...o - ovm m` as 0M >+nm m ~ 0 nRm o m
5
E
f foz 0-~c m=n~nm °-'E °v ~aEm LS..E mt nm m-a W=m 3
Am 'S 0 -:5
On E C o agnc wU m `m m . @ o r S m E m $ m m a0'oK m ` m E A M Mu Y5E w
w ~~m~ac0 mi=noo 2mm« caa_ opcm 3'~y mmuS mQbm y$ caa
mo=o'-°oom =mg=t EE m~L Zm= 0o,v c =mm FLEE m~,mc >m'o a
< F F5 amUE fE.. ~._:.a`o 02 2U ~`o- ms a`o
00 16 '9 a
_ 16o M,0=LL mm mQ WUE
M -0 go m
N m ACm mO mymmN001 nC>mO mL 2o:a .c
'OGiO U
L._-mom Ni s~i3a mm.°S as c9
E WK 16
Qv oodmHmmor.m uy°m~TOEjO mom 2
g
M m m:3 >.nm Eo~3m m.mE cm9mmEco o~i
> Q g m
a a N ° a o ~ . 0 o m ME
J-
WE E0. ..U!?m00'A°~c0 En«m3U o.- 0 nm L~
a N o m
u c t !E
9" N
A m -5 j A w 160
nA ~ a.Do m
m J m - J
05 ~cm Eav
maEIA E
°G_ E
C N ~ W m L°
J O N r Z
tR .R TO-mau
m N 0 0 E
% L m M :I
a0
q F a E
w
R
g W
c 0 9« m m
N E m c .12 aJ°i ,
c W ° m'- E E
fa UKUF OF
Z
S m
h aoao~ a
2 12 0
~ as >
>mE >
Z m m o> U m m
t DOW IT o
d
W WO `mm-- o° mm%
w cam 8aoaE,°odom °EO
O 0 2 m4Gmmcc c UEo
m
KO <.s0 m€mc°3~mE Z.Qo
H~Q U -d~a U~ w>
7 X
LL W me
LL.Z W^ c c o
c % o m 'v
T
LL Q N W I t 22
C J ml7N
CL O 0
U
OQ U U`o
LL' F T L ti
(gQ mac EO
a m c Fo M c c m u J o o L9« m q.m d
ma'~o °cmm a to mn CJa 2 20 mc o ` m« TY
mW m m°-0E o«« `m WE v`m« in NW "0V-a W°
Om ~ a c N a m ma J N c T J c m e c c c c cow -6.
Jp=c"mac `camocmEaj o ct u$a c °u- y tam>%mo °o
dQ L+~E aSv Em> -o «.om m"c a_a aoc - .2 - E>mJ L
d'Z ~°m33d- £>.ma m°°car 3m %m2 m m'O mo`r~uc o>o
w o aac aa!O c3amm N m m~ $ uc'"c> J m~ m
Zy rd ~£3 E E n amc-mv ~m`ma
c.-t0d c m > m0 % 0 > U m-m a m V a m c._ .-M '>-v c
Q= a °a-L- ocm m:°5'saom w0 J Oo r J J u Jro me 'c 'n'mo
V, Jcm3 aat~m '«O~ao ~a"mcE Sm cm°a c c° c€N O1c o~ mmov
'Z~ mUcuiam momnmcc~m aw mcl°0 0o mnv ca d> a°°CO
m N C7 m E'-'5-0'='-O JO mE L m a mw mmmm.ya m. a C-0
~OCm J mmcaouyy,;c c Lo E M Lm Lm La E Em mmma
O oOL`N mac oz, mma~ % %o aJ% L-c
F c~'oa~cm acN o$mJ`-Od ° ou cmom cJ ca cu~0 m c'o vmam
Z -Om ammom Emoo.~moUUc ctn ~ci., ~E 5N u~a~=tm om«
O NOm"Omo m>~°c' cv EE ~oZm .n2` m 'aa .o. awo ao WM 0 .2
Z«.,d aim EaLW°Cm awn 3om ma- 12 - M~ am E-0 2! E
m°T my mm m~~m~at mmma
O 02071 m mE«m 00150 0-E of c r~Lm La r:$ z,oC Ymc E-, am'
t/1 m OC CEO E $m,a m`m ~K2`:s oa J ~a cc Fo F% F Nw m m=% E o'
(7 `Um mca E'=LLmmrnLm,amo agm ~m0 3: U) .9--a o:E E «a
f m amcoo0ai- aLLto0W.- '~E cm~ aUtE am Ot acummoo @0 ~
ai aiR OUocYm a>mE utcm Eo marn m'co'T m Ja w°ca1°LWm= mn`o
m maaaoa m WN mrmnQN OrjN OJ~C m~ m mLU%N`m> 00Cm
f f 0EJOO m02:S m9 mg ~o,E ~0 f m f A ~ W mMWJEZO 2cm7@
2
> ma a'-m°mEaTO'E ma'E c°o cc cL ca Ec>0ca
0 0U mR
m mDmdmna_ `mEmO1~>Erm~ «ma a°mgm a°°' a°m a°d>>d'm mm a°V mt _
W WC OLD.N Ra90am¢m« 0N~ OI~>E WQ OI'O1 pl OntfO Nt pN 016`°."m.'
f go §16 `ms h-E E 10
Yp9«°c LmaJLEa`o5 Op 2 m E m 2 o f m ~a cm U cc° 0 0 N .L.. mW
«.~3-«
m
rci _ Tm nLL U m 0-6
.irm u
mN RL '°Q> C u
T % 0 m 00 0 f
h 5 0 m 9 m~ 0 0 a o
m A!m O'°m2Nm 0 CDO a 000oW V
E wi d'K mL %-m:0 ij nc%00.2! i
P u boo o m m~ m m `o t 2 m a 2 "B's c E 0°i~ W
> a n-, m mm08X= on
m momcnc~N EWO° -m ac ncmnEvJc
w E E o.~0_00 00oa son z° Esm rnSmalm-a«umi
u "
w w
a
E C
U ~
O N
c w
a0
0 19
C N
0
7
C m
E-
U
0
H
Z
S m
~ a m
3
2 °aa
W m
2 C
IL
W a0 `o
acq ma otv~c
W om_ ~~rn n2mmma
W u v E o A 9 ¢
LL'O O Q U C9'S 8 $ a o
H~Q m @w
X
O Z c N y m a a-6 2 0 o q
LL tm Caom2r oGr rlm
Q Qq i. Tmi`20 mU -2onm2 z
a C
QW fa mac '.cc Ua as~o~m
LL(g< N ua v° `o
ad' ~ ~ ~ a ~ m N
OQ m m'n m 0r ° m,0 ac ra a° m
2W LI) 0 '6 0 o a c8 ° 0 m m> ~ c d
~Q n vi °c 'm cy m m 0ul vE s :5 m am ~rnd
WQ 0 m a to ooW 0.vm cm c rn°vc mt n Fwo~o
H E m a .2 o m °'mo c .ma
OQ ° °cm m ° m~ m" com V~ > nn ac o c aEnm@
QW 2 a« «o ao ci7m wa n-M 0 o Ma `o° o. 0a mTi S nwt0mc
C7S c y. c r mm«o~ acm °mcsoc cau ~m`o > £@.'d
2~ uc mm°aac-O omE oc m'cna E£_y mm ° 0 nrE2ME z
O co mm c cmEmro C. W -MM - in m3m m~ m ac 0NE~m 0 U- M o >om m mtaTi m mm a2 m' B 0m E'o t c« `m m
2 n` o a ~`m ° 0 acuEv o_mao a ct m$ 0 m_ Wat
O me na m cm-mco W cm a 3O'm« o m-a vo m
c a mm c on0~,«wP `4 'o :~P`m °cQmA.:rn cE >a 0 Cm nar moo
2 my 0 '-0>9mrvc m>.amg °$w>aocmmom £a 1« aoo~~c
O a U m 8ouSo mym Ccmw Eoo ->o .2cv o d xo L mmm m 0 F3
Q E E~ Z:Em mhm mvoyaccmarn u m,n`_ 2.2 m.m.. vl 08 `Doan no
F m« 0 Yin°m.2cmm'o-i gmca~m~q°~tc m m oc o'v Otl1cw nY3 om~c
F m c~ m `o cO14 2umE? nn"noc `oL o ` calm.-onE° TiE 2`m 8c-F °E_~on
of ao a~ c o ~avm6 @m.2Omo E.O6oa Qo ma - ,63: a L
°uam~~xc To°-m$@~9 ?2m$0ao0°~o..~°-m'-0~n Za°ac 'c? pugfi m o oa WE mao°mot mmrn~ommcQo2Tm,~m~mOOm EL~iom>y arc0 a
m qE mr E No`Oa..Om@~nF,K~na aFN O2mU~uaWa~2 Ewa m.~~n m'm
2 -°1m Fm a
~ ma u a m crnt _ e cE c o nvnmmm52
f f n a v
9 y
c n
m 0-6
2 3
o a o m j y m
a o m m 000 .j3- 0
U
N E m 20, ° m W AD Vl
a 0a5 UE
c„ tY ni~
Q u t2
N c m
uom
M m N O m X- m a
> a n C a C m n E N c
wE E$ma~m°I2`om
u
ma
a!a
o
v U m
cc
r oW
a°~
C N
G m
m >
c
a
w a
C T _
9
' u u
'c° c o m
m 0 U E
F
2
= m
a m
3 N n
C O
~ as >
Z
~ m O
R
IL C
W wu Or€ cnCO,~ 0 =as
m cR wa 0tSa
'omcc
w Sun cWv°i n2N=>a
W2 0BE ym.95 QcrEm~
w0 <Sc N(7'- v8 aa'-o
HQ U m Nr
LL W X c
=
m0aaF5 o_ oo"
LLQ m tm 2 -2t oTr nTi d
00 c'a m>°'wcc nw °-a n-
0a mac maUa ao0>o 0a
OQ U)sao rO ° nu
'KF -
K o m
U' Q m-c° m° cm cam vi N nL m ~ m
2U' >30 m m«cm«a°m..``-.W>m 5 m Y' a morn iL
KQ WtcicoL moms cW'icB >E mE¢aa m:°. ~0m "am BOmam
02 aamwv Ma ='60 m`oiov 0Y't° - NOa`a"a Ti
CQ W m M c.. aaN0 W 30cmN y Ti 2N=a '==w ME, mo wm
W~ o 0 oww ma ma~wc° E Na ° cw~nc v-0-m aM.0 m am
0 .5 CmE
K TC oNm'-
Z 'a'maaa m5 ov~=5a ~rW 010a v
Oy > E"-'>.a n ^m. .>'_'°m`. u>>mc 2a;. n2Ea
Z 2 uSmFca Ea uimmmmmgmLC moom° 62'^ .Z`vic n`.'um
z F t m V o o m x o m E c a m° m a = o'O = f; m~ E m° _ °y m i3
a- 0.
Umam °a c9EEmmmoaI waQ ao anpc ono a5 a«
K o°
con«~Cn cN'm °=mmEv'o~W cmmm3 mo~~ N~yaj L^ cj w-
Z moo°m mF3 ?nv EpZ 2 oomc «o~a @NFmE om~v
E 2ASo E o. >
0 12 °cNO aa ut lti•.cO=a-a °N - m mai 002, -
N E V' a2c.. NE On- w a m L m o
c Er, -,=E3 wn m a tr m cN m
ow n0 oN -mm-:3 Nc>c amE c- n `m-a a 19 Z -6E =v0 N~`"aWam'mmm m:°.a aaaa ao°ma !a nm
O ' N>>~ cc W mq.-mt o_ Nonoo C-AL° w.`a o n O ccn
F. is- Nacicw £v 8a m$t==aVO '-amm°p'°c oa`A= ai.>a ~a3m
Q m d°am oo came> m NI"N~ 3 ~N.T Em,t`_L_c m ISmacW o =m am '--w
f9 a°LL nG m~O m 'dc c m«~~$r a c:c WV •E 13
Na mn mnam`.=moZ`om ° W% E,r°ai`m> rmEm fi
i«ma Nm am 'N°•• $a= n _wc Ew Oa '
` ~2G a amt
m- , L 9 n- N U C W O C q Cq n E m m N TA m O M im ~ O O E= C d ca
0 M2 'Z c m Nc wv mET CcWN~«uwa Or mu a0 OE mO 2'°TL ~mNN~ ac
O W N 3 d Y C m > O L W J. OE M2 - ,A L a C m
g a Z:°.«a5>Wm cO>~Fia mm c'N °c_cmEa ,2 m=om cY,m t €
0 12 a 42
c ` N m~ f mm.. ar YWm o- t
m m E Tcn L'g 2Eac W C a ~cacm oasn NNCa nm a
w C L 'J m L`- U a O 202
.o m L= m c U N? a m -O .m {A a f
r m>> - MC-4>
_ Hut_mmo` mma2 < ' a.. W a~O Om
oL c m-ax QmL 2'., Na UA mo > m m xo
U vaN'NFn .n >U>oU'maF-ma 6MV0M Pm~Nu. mca2 m£«mn
N
A
E
c 2•
E °
c
E W
> a
WcE