Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
13-039 PC Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 13-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE BELLA LINDA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE BELLA LINDA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 22.73 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED.ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PECHANGA PARKWAY AND LOMA LINDA ROAD" (PA11-0275, PA11-0276, PA11-0277) (APNS 961-450-012, 961-450-013, AND 961-450-003) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 27, 2011, Larry Markham, on behalf of Coyne Development, filed Planning Application No. PA11-0276, a Zone Change and Planned Development Overlay; PA11-0277, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA11-0275, a Development Plan, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on March 20, 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. At the Commission's request, the item was continued to the April 3, 2013 meeting to allow the applicant to address the construction schedule for age-restricted, single-family housing, multi-family density, and architectural enhancements. D. At the Commission's request, the project was continued at the April 3, 2013 hearing to the April 17, 2013 hearing to again address issues related to the construction schedule for the age-restricted, single-family housing, multi-family density, and architectural enhancements. E. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on April 17, 2013 and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny Planning Application Nos. PA11- 0276, a Zone Change and Planned Development Overlay; PA11-0277, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA12-0275 a Development Plan, based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. The applicant then chose to revise and resubmit the project for further review based on the concerns raised at the public hearings. G. The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 2, 2013, considered the Project and environmental review 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 be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project and the Draft EIR. H. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The recommendation to the City Council as set forth in this resolution, and findings contained herein reflect the independent. judgment of the Planning Commission and are deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. I. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of Planning Application Nos. PA11-0276, a Zone Change and Planned Development Overlay; PA11-0277, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA11- 0275, a Development Plan, (the 'Project"). A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan Application ("the Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and an EIR was required. B. On April 12, 2012, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. C. On April 30, 2012, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. D. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and associated applications, as described in the EIR. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared. E. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from December 3, 2012 through February 19, 2013. A Notice of Completion was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of January 20, 2013 through March 6, 2013. Copies of the documents have been available to public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. F. Seven written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. G. The Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the March 20, 2013 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to temporary construction noise; and (3) the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Section 3. Recommendation to City Council. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for this project set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of October, 2013. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: Z4��— Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] ,s. .STATE.OF CAlJF6RNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEM.E-CULA ) I, Patrick Richardson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 13-39 was duly and regularly. adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of October, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Carey, Harter, Kight NOES: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Telesio ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Guerriero ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS None Patrick Richardson, Secretary EXHIBIT A CC RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE BELLA LINDA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE BELLA LINDA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 22.73 ACRES, c GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PECHANGA PARKWAY AND LOMA LINDA ROAD (PA11- 0275, PA11-0276, PA11-0277) (APNS 961-450-012, 961- 450-013, AND 961-450-003) 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 October 27, 2011, Larry Markham, on behalf of Coyne Development, filed Planning Application No. PA11-0276, a Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay; PA11-0277, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA11-0275, a Development Plan, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA") C. Pursuant to 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. D. On April 12, 2012, 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, within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Project be submitted to the City by May 12, 2012. On April, 30, 2012 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. E. 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 the Draft EIR. F. The City's EIR consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with CEQA, a Draft EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2012041038). G. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in December 2012, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on December 3, 2012. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on January 20, 2013 in The Californian, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. H. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from January 20, 2013 through and including March 6, 2013. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. 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 on the City's website. I. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR). The Final EIR consists of the DEIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, not later than March 6, 2013, the City prepared and provided to all commenting public agencies its responses to all written comments. K. On March 20, 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearing on March 20, 2013, 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 the Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the Commission's request, the item was continued to the April 3, 2013 meeting to allow the applicant to address the construction schedule for age-restricted, single-family housing, multi-family density, and architectural enhancements. L. At the Commission's request, the project was continued at the April 3, 2013 hearing to the April 17, 2013 hearing to again address issues related to the construction schedule for the age-restricted, single-family housing, multi-family density, and architectural enhancements. M. The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 17, 2013, considered the Project and environmental review 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 be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project and the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the project based on issues related to the construction schedule of the age restricted housing and multi-family density. The applicant then chose to revise and resubmit the project for further review based on the concerns raised at the public hearings. N. The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 2, 2013, considered the Project and environmental review 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 be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project and the Draft EIR. O. 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. 13-- recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Bella Linda Residential Project, 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 Nos. 13-_, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Plan related to the approval of the Project. P. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR 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, 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. Q. 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 state that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. R. 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 to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. S. 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 to this Resolution. T. 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 to this Resolution. U. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. V. 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 to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. W. 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 ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. X. On 2013, the City Council considered the Final EIR for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. Y. 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 substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re-circulation of the EIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Certify that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. D. Declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the EIR, the responses to comments on the EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. Section 3. Certification of the Final EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR„ adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 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 as though set forth in full. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Section 4. Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Development Plan (PA11-0275) each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C Section 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the 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, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of, Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] 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. 13- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT B FINDING OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project 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 Bella Linda Residential Development (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final EIR. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft EIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives. As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Create a high-quality residential community on the project site, focused on a product that will be available to serve the increasing rental market; B. Provide a project that is compatible in density and character to the surround residential communities; C. Be responsive to the City's desire to provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 year old and older population; D. Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive market and increased demand for housing. 1 III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in February 2012, 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) Agricultural and Forest Resources; (C) Mineral Resources; and (D) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the EIR: (A) Air Quality; (B) Biological Resources; (C) Green House Gas Emissions (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and Planning; (1) Noise; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Transportation and Traffic; (M) Utilities and Service Systems. A. On April 12, 2012, 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. The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR The Draft EIR completed on December 3, 2012 found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. 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 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 3. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 2 A. Biological Resources 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 3. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 4. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 5. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. B. Geology and Soils 1. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. b. Strong seismic ground shaking. C. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. d. Landslides. 2. The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 3. The Project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 4. The Project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. 3 5. The Project does not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1. The Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 2. The Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 4. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. E. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 2. The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). 3. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. 4. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. 4 5. The Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 6. The Project would not require the preparation of a project-specific WQMP. 7. The Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. 8. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 9. The Project would not cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. F. Land Use and Planning 1. Project implementation would not physically divide an established community. 2. Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. G. Noise 1. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. H. Population and Housing 1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). 2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 5 I. Public Services 1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. J. Transportation/Traffic 1. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. 2. Project implementation would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. 3. Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 4. Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access. 5. Project implementation would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. K. Utilities and Service Systems 1. The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3. The Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 4. The Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. 6 5. The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. 6. The Project would not result in insufficient permitted capacity by a landfill to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. 7. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than.Significant Level The Draft EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and traffic.and circulation. With the exception of specific impacts to noise discussed in Section VI, 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. 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, as discussed more fully in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. Air Quality 1. The Project could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impact Air-1: The Project's construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) daily NOx significance threshold during the grading and excavation phase and air quality impacts associated with NOx would be significant. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to air quality. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Measure Air-1: All construction equipment used onsite during project construction shall meet, at a minimum, EPA Tier II certification requirements. As an alternative, the applicant may opt to apply other available technologies to the construction equipment that would achieve at least a 15 percent reduction in NOx emissions than the use of Tier 11 construction equipment. Where alternatives to EPA Tier 11 are chosen for the proposed project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that a 15 percent reduction in NOx emissions would be achieved. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure Air-1 would reduce the NOx emissions generated during the Project's grading and excavation phase to below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily significance threshold by requiring all construction equipment used at the project site to meet, at a minimum, EPA Tier II certification requirements. Equipment that meets Tier II emission standards is certified as such by the USEPA by the manufacturer. Table 3.1-6 of the Draft EIR provides the reductions in emission that would be achieved with the use of this construction equipment. With the minimum standard of Tier II construction equipment, the predicted total NOx daily maximum emissions would be 94.30 lbs per day, which would be below the regional SCQAMD significance threshold of 100 lbs per day. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure Air-1, the NOx emissions generated by the project during the grading and excavation phase would be reduced to below SCAQMD's daily significance threshold. Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. B. Biological Resources 1. The Project has the potential to impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This includes Burrowing Owls. Impact Bio-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential nesting habitat onsite includes mature trees and shrubs as well as grassland (in the case of ground-nesting birds such as Northern Harrier and Mourning Dove. It is possible that raptors and other migratory birds would nest onsite due to the proximity to open space and preserved lands such as Temecula Creek and the Pechanga Reservation lands. 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 biological resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measures will ensure that no significant impacts occur to biological resources. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: i. All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1 - August 30). ii. If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1- 8 August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for state listed species, species of special concern, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) covered species; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500-foot construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Impact Bio-2: Burrowing Owls could inhabit the site prior to project construction as appropriate Burrowing Owl foraging and nesting habitat is present. Potential impacts to this species would include loss of foraging and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Burrowing Owls present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. 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 biological resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measures will ensure that no significant impacts occur to biological resources. Mitigation Measure Bio-2: he entire project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) using CDFW approved Burrowing Owl survey protocols a maximum of 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of Burrowing Owl (CDFW, 2012). If no Burrowing Owls are identified on the site during these pre-construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. If Burrowing Owl(s) are found onsite, CDFW, the City, and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if Burrowing Owls are found: i. Sheltering in place of nesting owls until nest fledges or fails, as determined by a qualified biologist (a Bachelor's of Science degree or equivalent experience and a 9 minimum of one year of previous burrowing owl monitoring experience). ii. Preparing and implementing an active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved, and identifying a receptor site for the owl(s) (per the Western Riverside County MSHCP and CDFW). Facts in Support of Findings If occupied by raptors, migratory birds, and/or Burrowing Owls at the time of construction, development of the Project site could result in impacts to these species. Given the timing of construction is unknown and occupation of the Project site by these species could change over time, pre-construction measures must be implemented to ensure that impacts would not occur. The mitigation measures proposed will ensure that no activity will take place that will endanger these sensitive species by, requiring that construction and ground disturbing activities do not take place during breeding seasons (February 1 — August 30) unless preconstruction nest/burrow surveys have been conducted. If sensitive species are found, they are to be avoided with a 500-foot setback. A 500-foot setback is widely accepted as a reasonable guideline by the wildlife agencies for migratory bird species and most raptors (the generally accepted set-back for migratory bird nests is 200-300 feet, for raptors 500 feet). The Burrowing Owl mitigation follows the CDFW March 17, 2012 staff report specifying the requirements for protection of this species. In addition, this setback must be adhered to until a qualified biologist has determined the animals will no longer be negatively impacted by construction or ground disturbing activities. These mitigation measures will reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. C. Cultural Resources 1. Impacts to Historic and Archaeological Resources Impact Cultural-1: The results of the Extended Phase I investigation, which included archival research, geoarchaeological review, Native American contact, field survey, and Extended Phase I testing, suggest the project area is sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, representatives of the Pechanga Tribe indicate the project area is sensitive for cultural resources, and that the project area is within the Luiseno Ancestral Origin Landscape Area, one of the most sacred areas for the Pechanga Tribe. Although the lack of identified subsurface archaeological materials greatly reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources as a result of project implementation, it does not preclude this possibility entirely. The Pechanga Tribe was consulted in preparation of this EIR section. 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. 10 Mitigation Measure Cultural-1: Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012) to provide archaeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources (Mitigation Measures Cultural-2, -3 and -5). Mitigation Measure Cultural-2: Cultural Resources Training: The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, along with a representative designated by the Pechanga Tribe, shall conduct pre-construction cultural resources worker sensitivity training to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and to bring awareness to personnel of actions to be taken in the event of a cultural resources discovery. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. Mitigation Measure Cultural-3: Archaeological Monitoring: Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist shall designate an archaeological monitor to observe ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads. If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more areas located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological monitors may be required. The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring activities, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga Tribe, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Mitigation Measure Cultural-4: Native American Monitoring: At least 30 days prior to beginning Project construction, the applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Pechanga Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City and the Pechanga Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. A minimum of 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, a Native American monitor from the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the applicant to monitor all ground-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads, as specified in the Plan and Agreement. If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more locations, additional Native American monitors may be required. Mitigation Measure Cultural-5: Unanticipated Archaeological Resources Discoveries: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are made during ground-disturbing activities, the applicant, the qualified archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and 11 shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the applicant, the qualified archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the City Planning Director for decision. The City Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Planning Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council. Mitigation Measure Cultural-6: Curation: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of Project implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition as outlined in the Agreement (Mitigation Measure Cultural-4). Mitigation Measure Cultural-7: Discovery of Sacred Sites: All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. Facts in Support of Findings The retention of a qualified archeologist and cultural resources worker sensitivity training will ensure all involved in the construction of the Project are aware of the potential to inadvertently discover sensitive historic and architectural resources. The required monitoring by a qualified archeologist and Pechanga Tribe representative will ensure that any archeological and historic resources are identified and that further work will not disturb these artifacts until they are properly identified and removed from the site. Furthermore, the mitigation requires that culturally sensitive items be released to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment. In addition, if an area is discovered that is determined to be sacred, this area shall be avoided. These measures will reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Impacts to Paleontological Resources Impact Cultural-2: If site preparation activities require grading ten or more feet below the ground surface, there could be the potential to disturb and impact significant paleontological resources. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact on any potential discovery of paleontological resources. Specifically, Mitigation Measures Cultural-8 through 10 will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure Cultural-8: Paleontological Resources Training: Prior to construction, a training session on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project area and the procedures to be followed 12 if they are found shall be presented to project construction personnel by a qualified cultural resources professional. This training may be conducted concurrently with the cultural resources training required in Mitigation Measure Cultural-2. Mitigation Measure Cultural-9: Paleontological Resources Monitoring: During construction, should excavations be greater than ten feet in depth, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained and shall designate a paleontological monitor to observe the sediments. Should these sediments appear to have a greater potential for fossils, paleontological monitoring of ground disturbing activities below ten feet shall commence until such a time as the excavation of these sediments has ceased, or upon determination by the qualified paleontologist that the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources is unlikely. Mitigation Measure Cultural-10: Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If construction or other Project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, or Project operations and maintenance, regardless of the depth of work, work within 100 feet of the discovery location should cease and a qualified paleontologist should be called to further assess the discovery and make further recommendations as necessary. Facts in Support of Findings Temecula's General Plan (implementation measure OS-26) requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological resources is identified. However, significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the construction of the project could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measures Cultural 8 through 10 will be implemented to ensure any potential impacts to paleontological resources are minimized to be less than significant. 3. Disturbance of Human Remains Impact Cultural-3: Because the proposed Project would involve ground- disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential for the disturbance of human remains. Specifically, Mitigation Measure Cultural-11 will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure Cultural-11: Human Remains Discoveries: If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner 13 determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the Agreement described in Mitigation Measure Cultural-4. Facts in Support of Findings 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. Because Mitigation Measure Cultural-11 would require the immediate halting of the construction activity and that no further disturbance would occur to the burials, this mitigation measure would avoid significant impacts to the burials. The Riverside County Coroner would be required to make the necessary findings as to origin and proper treatment and disposition would be arranged and implemented. This measure also provides for the appropriate notification and coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and the "most likely descendant(s)" in order to address any specific tribal treatments or protocols for the treatment of the remains. For these reasons, Mitigation Measure Cultural-11 would avoid significant impacts to human remains that may be inadvertently discovered during project construction. D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Impacts to the public or environment through transport, use, disposal or accidental release of hazardous materials. Impact Haz-1: Hazardous materials used onsite during construction activities (i.e., petroleum products, solvents, paints, etc.) could be released to the environment through improper handling or storage, resulting in a potentially significant impact. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduces the impacts to less than significant. Specifically, Mitigation Measure Haz- 1 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure Haz-1: The use of construction best management practices shall be implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. These shall include the following: i. Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products used in construction; ii. Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; 14 iii. During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; iv. Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and local and state regulations. Facts in Support of Findings Construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. However, the onsite storage and/or use of large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil and groundwater are not typically required for a project of this proposed size and type. Given that the exact nature and quantities of hazardous materials to be used during the construction process are not detailed at this time, it is possible that the construction project would result in a significant impact related to hazardous materials through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials if the construction project was not managed with care and adherence to proper controls at the construction site. This mitigation measure is designed to ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that follows standard best practices and reduces the potential, or likelihood, or significant impacts related to the use of these materials. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requires the implementation of these measures including: following manufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products; properly containing and removing.grease and oils; and disposing of fuels and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and local and state regulations. Following Mitigation Measure Haz-1 will ensure that potential impacts related to hazardous materials are controlled to a less than significant level. E. Noise 1. Temporary construction activities could result in exposure of persons to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration levels. Impact Noise-2: Construction of the proposed project may expose residences to the west of the project site to vibration levels that would exceed the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) 80 VdB threshold for residences or places where people may sleep. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that would lessen the significant ground-borne vibration impacts associated with construction activities. Specifically, measures have been included to reduce noise impacts from construction activities associated with the project that would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration within the Project area to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-7. 15 Mitigation Measure Noise-7: The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of existing nearby residential structures during construction of the proposed project. Instead, small rubber-tired bulldozers shall be used within this area during grading and excavation operations. The use of small rubber-tired bulldozers would result in vibration levels of 0.002 PPV and 57 VdB at the residences to the west of the Project site, which would not exceed the FTA's vibration criteria for building damage and human annoyance. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-7, which would prohibit the use of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration (i.e., large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills) within specified distances from existing offsite residential uses that are located nearby the proposed Project, would ensure that the construction-related vibration impacts associated with human annoyance at these nearby receptors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Controlling the type of equipment to be used in the vicinity of the residences to preclude the use of high vibration equipment (large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills) would result in a corresponding decrease in the anticipated vibration levels at the residences located to the west of the project site. As show in Table 3.9-10 of the EIR, large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills would result in vibration levels more than 20 VdB above the use of small bulldozers (with rubber tires). Thus, with these limitations, it is anticipated that vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors would not exceed 65 VdB. For these reasons, limiting these types of high vibration equipment would more than provide for the decrease in vibration necessary to reduce the impact below 80 VdB, which is the threshold of significance. With implementation of mitigation measures and the avoidance of use of construction equipment that generate high levels of vibration, the vibration impact at offsite residential uses located immediately west of the Project site would be less than significant. 2. Permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impact Noise-3: Operation of the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive resources to noise levels exceeding 5 dB due to operation of heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the Project site. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the noise level impacts so that operational noise levels do not exceed applicable noise standards and the impact would therefore be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Noise-8: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that all new HVAC or mechanical equipment associated with the proposed Project be designed with adequate shielding (e.g., via rooftop parapet or enclosure) or noise muffling devices to ensure that noise levels would not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied residential properties located offsite by more than five decibels. 16 Mitigation Measure Noise-9: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses at the project site shall be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldp or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. Facts in Support of Findings As part of the proposed Project, new mechanical equipment and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust fans may be installed on the proposed residential units. The noise levels generated by the new HVAC units and exhaust fans for the proposed Project could potentially disturb the existing surrounding residential uses to the Project site. In particular, the residential uses located immediately west of the Project site, across the concrete-lined flood channel, would be exposed to the highest noise levels due to their proximity to the Project site. However, as an industry practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise-generating mechanical equipment associated with the new residential units at the Project site would typically be installed on the rooftops of the residential structures and would be equipped with noise muffling devices or shielding to reduce noise levels that may affect nearby noise- sensitive uses. Additionally, according to Section 9.20.030 (Exemptions) of the Temecula Municipal Code, sound emanating from heating and air conditioning equipment are exempt from the City's noise standards. Nonetheless, to ensure that the nearby noise-sensitive uses to the project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure Noise-8 would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dB. Furthermore, in order to ensure that onsite operational noise would not adversely affect the future residents at the project site, Mitigation Measure Noise-9 would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn (average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day) or CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) of 45 dB in any residential unit. Mitigation Measures Noise 8 and 9 will ensure long term noises generated by the project will be reduced to less than significant levels. F. Transportation/Traffic 1. Conflict with the Circulation System Impact Circ-1: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under the Project Phase 1 Opening Year (2015) Conditions: 1. 1-15 SB Ramps at Temecula Parkway—AM and PM Peak Hour 2. Wolf Valley Road at Pechanga Parkway— PM Peak Hour 17 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts to intersections therefore impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Circ-1: The City shall provide for timing optimization at the following locations, funded by the Project proponent/developer: 1. Intersection of 1-15 SB Ramps and Temecula Parkway — AM and PM Peak Hour: Signal timing optimization will occur to proportion more time to the heavier volumes. Detailed synchronization reports with adjusted signal timing are included in Appendix O of the Traffic Study. a. Improved AM operations to Level of Service (LOS) D, delay of 42.1 seconds. Improved PM operations to LOS D, delay of 52 seconds. b. Fair share contribution for this mitigation measure is 15%. 2. Intersection of Wolf Valley Road at Pechanga Parkway — PM Peak Hour: Signal timing optimization: Cycle lengths were changed from 90 seconds to 150 seconds in the PM peak hour. Phase timings were adjusted to proportion more time to the heavier volumes. Detailed synchronization reports with adjusted signal timing are included in Appendix O of the Traffic Study. a. Improved PM operations to LOS D, delay of 40.6 seconds. b. Fair-share contribution for this mitigation measure is 12%. Facts in Support of Findings After mitigation, both intersections would operate at LOS D. Delay at the intersection of 1-15 SB Ramps and Temecula Parkway would be improved to 42.1 seconds for the AM peak hour and 52.8 seconds for the PM peak hour. Delay at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Pechanga Parkway would be improved to 40.6 seconds in the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure Circ-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impact Circ-2: Under Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project conditions, intersections at the following locations would operate at or below LOS D, resulting in potentially significant impacts: 1. 1-15 NB Ramps at Temecula Parkway—AM Peak Hour 2. Rainbow Canyon Road at Pechanga Parkway— PM Peak Hour a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the impacts from cumulative traffic impacts to less than significant. 18 Mitigation Measure Circ-2: The following improvements shall be made by the City of Temecula, and funded by the project proponent/developer: 1. At the intersection of 1-15 NB Ramps and Temecula Parkway, restripe westbound third through lane to shared through-right turn lane. Signal optimization will occur to proportion more time to the heavier volumes. Detailed synchronization reports with adjusted signal timing are included in Appendix O of the Traffic Study. a. Improved AM operations to LOS C, delay of 28.4 seconds. b. Fair-share contribution for this mitigation measure is 4%. C. This intersection is within Caltrans jurisdiction and therefore any proposed mitigation measures require Caltrans approval. 2. At the intersection of Pechanga Parkway at Rainbow Canyon Road, change eastbound right turn permissive phase to overlap. Signal optimization will occur by changing cycle lengths from 90 seconds to 110 seconds in the PM peak hour. Phase timings were adjusted to proportion more time to heavier volumes. Detailed synchronization reports with adjusted signal timing are included in Appendix O of the Traffic Study. a. Improved PM operations to LOS C, delay of 28.9 seconds. b. Fair-share contribution for this mitigation measure is 9%. Facts in Support of Findings All though local roadway segments are projected to operate unacceptably under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, the plus project conditions reduce the average daily trips (ADT) on each roadway and, therefore, do not impact the facilities. The proposed Project would not contribute to the projected congestion levels, and thus, does not have a significant impact on these roadway segments as highlighted in the below table. 19 TABLE 1 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE—FUTURE BUILDOUT(2035) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PLUS BASE PROJECT PROJECT ROADWAY FROM TO ADT ADT TRAFFIC % INCREASE MARGARITA DARTOLO TEMECULA 42,260 42,006 -254 -0.60% RD RD PKWY TEMECULA 1-15 FWY NB BEDFORD 76,910 75,893 -1,017 -1.32% PKWY RAMPS CT PECHANGA RAINBOW MURFIELD 56,400 54,166 -2,234 -3.96% PKWY CANYON DR RD PECHANGA HURON ST WOLF 42,770 42,346 -424 -0.99% PKWY VALLEY RD PECHANGA WOLF CASINO 39,510 39,228 -282 -0.71% PKWY VALLEY RD DRIVE Facts in Support of Findings Although local roadway segments are projected to operate unacceptably under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, the plus project conditions reduce the average daily trips (ADT) on each roadway and, therefore, do not impact the facilities. VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of noise there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Noise 1. Temporary construction related noise generation Impact Noise-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and would expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial increases in noise levels. These noise levels would result in substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise levels at the following surrounding sensitive land uses: residences southeast of the Project site across Loma Linda Road, residences west of the Project site across the concrete-lined flood channel, residences northeast of the Project site across Temecula Lane, and at the Pala Community Park. a. Findings 20 Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project that reduce the impacts related to noise. The below mitigation measures are required in order to reduce noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors to the extent practicable. Mitigation Measure Noise-1: The Project proponent/developer shall ensure that all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers. Mitigation Measure Noise-2: Noise and ground-borne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measure Noise-3: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project shall, to the extent feasible, be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. Mitigation Measure Noise-4: Barriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains shall be erected around the Project site to minimize the amount of noise on the surrounding offsite sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible during construction. Mitigation Measure Noise-5: The Project proponent/developer shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact number for the job site. Mitigation Measure Noise-6: Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays (Section 9.20.060 of the City's Municipal Code). Facts in Support of Findings Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest offsite sensitive receptors would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during project construction. Therefore, the Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby offsite sensitive receptors. VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Not Evaluated in the EIR An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project at another location." While other similar-sized 21 areas of land could be found, based on the known general conditions in the area and the magnitude of the proposal, an alternative site in the area would have the same or similar significant impacts after mitigation as the Project. Given the desire for infill development that matches the surrounding residential communities in density and character, finding another site that meets this goal is impractical. In addition, it would be difficult to still proceed within a reasonably similar time frame for Project completion. The EIR analyzed four other Project alternatives. These three alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the Project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. A summary of the Project objectives and their relationship to the Project Alternatives can be found in Table 2 at end of the section. B. Alternatives Considered in the EIR 1. Alternative One—No Project Alternative (No Development) a. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would be left undeveloped and the proposed residential project would not be built. The site would continue to contain the remnants of a previous structure and several trees as well as ruderal vegetation. In addition, the concrete culvert along the western edge of the project site would remain as is and would not be converted into a bioswale. Unimproved areas along Pechanga Parkway would not be landscaped nor improved in any other way. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 1 does not meet any of the four Project objectives. These objectives are: • Create a high-quality residential community on the Project site, focused on a product that will be available to serve the increasing rental market. • Provide a project that is compatible in density and character to the surroundings residential communities. • Be responsive to the City's desire to provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 year old and older population. • Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive market and the increased availability of for-rent single-family homes The No Project Alternative does not meet any of the Project objectives (per Table 2) because it will lessen residential options for the City's growing population. According to the California Department of Finance, Temecula had a population of 103,092 as of January 1, 2012. During the period from 2007 to 2012, the California Department of Finance estimates that the City population grew by nearly 11%. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that Temecula will have a projected growth rate of 13.2% to 22 about 113,303 persons by 2021. The Project will create new residential opportunities for these new residents. These opportunities will not exist without the Project. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative. 2. Alternative Two— Existing Zoning with Senior Care Facility a. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed with a senior care facility that would include the following components, all of which are permitted uses under the existing professional office (PO) zoning classification (see Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code): i. 121-unit assisted care building; ii. 141-unit senior apartment building; iii. Two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet; iv. 7,200-square-foot Alzheimer's facility; and V. 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool This alternative would also include landscaping and the required parking. Total development would involve 380,859 square feet of building area. Additional onsite amenities would include walking paths with benches, garden areas, outdoor activity areas (such as croquet or lawn bowling), large, park-like landscaped areas, water features, and health and personal hygiene services such as barber shops and beauty salons. The site would also be served by bus and shuttle services. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative Two would achieve some of the proposed Project objectives by providing facilities to the City's senior population. Density will remain consistent with current zoning since a Zone Change will not be pursued with this alternative. Project objectives are: • Create a high-quality residential community on the Project site, focused on a product that will be available to serve the increasing rental market. • Provide a Project that is compatible in density and character to the surroundings residential communities. • Be responsive to the City's desire to provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 year old and older population. • Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive market and the increased availability of for-rent single-family homes 23 Populations other than 55 and older would not have an opportunity to benefit from the project if Alternative Two is pursued. According to the General Plan the City's median age is 28.8. In addition, the General Plan states that the largest age range in the City is between the ages of 25-44 years old (Figure H-2, City of Temecula General Plan). This age range is expected to rise and will need quality housing options. Therefore, Alternative Two would not fully achieve all of the project objectives (per Table 2). The City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible for this reason. 3. Alternative Three—Existing Zoning with Multi-Family housing a. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed with approximately 295 multi-family residential units with 192 triplex units in 64 buildings, 25 five- plex units in five buildings, and 78 six-plex units in 13 buildings. Ten percent of these units (approximately 30 units) would be reserved for lower-income housing. In addition, this alternative would include a linear park system that would run north-south through the middle of the project with several east-west spurs. Water quality basins would be included along the northern edge of the property to accommodate increased stormwater runoff from the project site. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative Three would achieve some of the proposed project objectives. Density will remain consistent with current zoning since a Zone Change will not be pursued with this alternative. The same high quality units will be required for the project. Finally, the housing will remain as a for rent product. Project objectives are: • Create a high-quality residential community on the project site, focused on a product that will be available to serve the increasing rental market. • Provide a project that is compatible in density and character to the surroundings residential communities. • Be responsive to the City's desire to provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 year old and older population. • Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive market and the increased availability of for-rent single-family homes According to the California Department of Finance, Temecula had a population of 103,092 as of January 1, 2012. The U.S. Census Bureau has indicated in their 2010 Census 23.7 percent of Temecula residents are 50 and older. Alternative Three will not allow opportunities for residents that can qualify age restricted housing. Therefore, Alternative Three would not fully achieve all of the project objectives (per Table 2). The City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible for this reason. 4. Alternative Four— Reduced Project Alternative 24 a. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, a residential project would be developed that would include similar components as the proposed project, but would involve a smaller version. Specifically, the Project would include development of approximately 200 multi-family units (a reduction 125 units when compared to the Project) with approximately 10 percent of these units reserved for affordable housing. This alternative would not include lots for senior single-family homes, but would provide site amenities such as a clubhouse with a swimming pool. Unimproved areas along Pechanga Parkway would remain unimproved with no landscaping. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative Four would achieve some of the proposed project objectives. Density will remain consistent with current zoning since a Zone Change will not be pursued with this alternative. The same high quality units will be required for the project. Project objectives are: • Create a high-quality residential community on the project site, focused on a product that will be available to serve the increasing rental market. • Provide a Project that is compatible in density and character to the surroundings residential communities. • Be responsive to the City's desire to provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 year old and older population. • Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive market and the increased availability of for-rent single- family homes The City desires to provide single-family housing opportunities for the region's 55 and old population. This desire has also been expressed as a project objective. This alternative does not allow housing opportunities for the City's 55 and older population. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative. 25 TABLE 2 ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Alt. 1: No Alt. 2: Alt.3: Project Existing Existing Alt. 4: Alternative Zoning with Zoning with Reduced (No Senior Care Multi-Family Project Project Objectives Development) Facility Housing Alternative Create a high-quality No No Yes Yes residential community on the project site, focused on a product that will be available to serve the increasing rental market. Provide a project that is No Yes Yes Yes compatible in density and character to the surrounding residential communities. Be responsive to the No Yes No No City's desire to provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 and older population. Provide a housing No No Yes No product that is desirable in light of the competitive market and the increased availability of for-rent single-family homes. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the Project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. 26 A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed Project is provided in Table 3.. Based on this comparison, Alternative Four (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative.However, Alternative Four would not fully achieve all of the Project objectives. It would not provide additional housing opportunities to the region's 55 and older population, nor would it provide increased availability of for-rent single-family homes. In addition, with the exception of construction noise, all impacts related to Alternative Four and the proposed project could be reduced to less than significant impacts with the implementation of fairly standard mitigation measures; the significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise that would occur with the proposed Project would occur with any development alternative at the Project site. TABLE 3 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS Alt. 2: Alt.3: Alt. 1: No Existing Existing Project Zoning Zoning Alt. 4: Alternative with Senior with Multi- Reduced Potential Project (No Care Family Project Impacts Development) Facility Housing Alternative Air Quality Reduced Reduced Similar Reduced Biological Resources Reduced Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Reduced Similar Similar Similar Geology, Soils, and Reduced Similar Similar Similar Seismicity Global Reduced Warming/Climate Reduced Reduced Similar Change Hazards and Reduced Similar Similar Similar Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Reduced Similar Similar Similar Quality Land Use Reduced Similar Similar Similar Noise Reduced Reduced Similar Reduced Population and Housing Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Public Services Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Traffic and Circulation Reduced Reduced Similar Reduced Utilities Reduced Similar Similar Reduced 27 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 economic, 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 strikes a proper balance of providing high-quality residential development that services different age populations. that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This proposed project promotes sound environmental policies as discussed in detail in the EIR. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. 28 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Bella Linda Residential 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 impacts to noise generated by temporary construction activities. 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 impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed Project will provide off-site improvements. Specifically, the Project applicant has agreed to provide landscaping north of the project site. This area is located at the beginning at the western most portion of the project site and extending north along Pechanga Parkway for approximately 1,050 feet. This area is currently vacant. The placement of landscaping along this stretch of road will beautify the area. C. The proposed Project area includes the concrete culvert and access road located off-site adjacent to the proposed single family lots. The culvert and access road will be replaced with a fully landscaped bio-swale and trail connection for residents of the project and surrounding communities. D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units that will provide residential opportunities for all age populations in the City. Overall available housing stock in the City will be increased. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the 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. C-1 7 £ k + � E E x � � . k CL 9 § . co . � . m 0 0 0 � z 0 LLC E E � 7 7 7 \ 7 0 0 0 0 0 L6 / m . to k « . » E } § E — 2 E u 2 — o § ) k ° \ k E } / d C J » ; E U o EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM O m � O j C C C cc N N U m = —C C C v« WD7 O) O) M c CO U) U„ m N ccC • �� w w aL+ C N J J D m N C C a c o o y rn'fl = 3 ° O)�c m E > > o 1 �' y m•y 7 y U O m L�° m,, m U 01 ami mp.x E o �No :° mE t EL x n0 m Z �t� y�t� o y n-� E n `' n m --oZ E w 2onc° cm 'mnm ' ny0UN �)a - 'Ln C L" C m °) N a V o -C C y a) p cp L C d O j aa)) w C d C w p .L.+ C v m c m LL ` j.2=V m U m co w O p LU 0 M.2 - ° --.2 0 U Nm Uo) =Ld .0cnEcO a> W pL) OC2 C o N -0 2 OYUmyN0 m ° fD mC ° 0UGl °co°c a)N7 c 0)E 3 -Q O Oyc° `E > m° .2 U) Sm cmm -'a Lo, mi oEav m �v « 0 n° no Z N r- yd a 4% «,O m C, O O ' o nm ` cn0 rnmm° c n �F ° o nm c ° ° ai En nna m mm«U--04 m cm : m ,v :s o U) m .a= No E M -2 RO y Nw 7 m C m E 7 0 > O,_ y •N( o a) r- m w ovrn •° .0 L) o C G C—� m? m �° a Z OOm`= ya« >:3 Z @— m m Z 1 0 >Ip w m -.C C La- 7-5 • c 3 N L Q m a)t E O E Y N 0)7--. d C ° w y U—.2¢15 L)u°- M m C(7 N U -d m c 0 8 >fa m� > — O m O U Q.0 W Q E y p m'D •° N m m 7 d L C m N m LL m m 3 °) O C JO: nQ ;t'> c N LL E cUL m > Y 0 CO: o m n m m L9 m� vi m m :: w p x. _. > Oa jU. Z W x -2 CL Q �ctm 3 L° > n3 �U y a—f0i� N N 'vU c y m NU NJ m E c�aci-r- n > ro m E m� a) m e m 3 o�.Lm. o c m _ M U € O FQ- ° wma$ m rn m ° a°0 MCL0a Q��C) c > m2 2 Ea•�LU o c N U) >,'cc•3cU-a > > >U Nm ° m � y "E acc° rnmcm Ef�ra� - ot >Uv ym �� C � m U N — y C m Z p C p Q N y m LLL C=m f0 m m 7 L Z 0 0 C O Uoc•.. E ny yyoN. D-0 tc maw :3 ° m m vo 2 m E ° c v mL aa))3 m:: c°� c FL-y m c c 2 =d �a Z `r 2 c ami co o� ��api¢°N-8 m 42 E; N > c°� m r-.o • c- W cmicL°,)y of 68 2: N(gn�mOLE oaf �� C a) Eo LL 0O m= v= d _c' m c 7 C)H am)o °)y U m m c o a°i y n« 7 3 d m m m-a 7 3 °) m y N . > y�U C m V O 3 W— } N N F-• V > y O C a) y U'U v 3 y m E N 0 C U m N n,q n 0 < m aiQ°o a.T 0 � ° 'mn y m„° m'-is WC C 1 In--no C o m c 4? :2CL w a) 'mn m W �Lm 2 Z ?o n7 y y zE> `o'er c)na)3o m c` tm �z y m m O) O m`_. O o 2 C m 0 0-•- W 2 C 7 C O m m n o o E o c y c `• m N c� c a�Ci m c U-0 •A m _ m m O)U >T-0 C •10 E IDl m U 0 N V O) jo m� 0 Co o o �o QLL Url) n='°o &0 M c°) O)Q m e 2_rn co E d °? E°?L n3 o Uvv.0 E m m •° tm W y E m C D] O) m C_ N O -p C C Cp$ 3 m m m p o m L a m yccwo La � ayi�noo .n :_? mvZ �.� y `om��2C ° U m 3 � C 2 yy C—.+ y m m N N 7 +L.. m y y m a N 7�` O)7 x d m-Da L y N L p U E m U.p,p o o L y C O L p C C II 0 W y m m d 0 CL m O :: m y n° d:N 'U 3 Lm-o. Z O O O)C U U >'p N y In{" m �° m L y N C N U m 0 t V •p y X L` L6.L.+ y « C O1 C m y-°O C ED m C_ n•C m O m a) _ n R C O) '3 W p O)y N L ?ip YO O n m O,.L.. m n v c E m'CL hZL f0� n2 m`o c 2E'E So o ° 3 t o 8L E > m, m d E s L.N a"" N w O E `�—•-• a E 0 N m 7' N c A U a•N C L N d �• n w ~ E'LC m'U d Z'f0"• f_C: O)p C '3n�`U a m n N C• C ai O m y a a E ' m L C 7 C 'O C m :: m m c v O)-rm, N O y �0 C c ° 3 a° r o c« yr E E mow N. (D c, v ° v_ m y N O L`0 Q7 m N y m y C O)"" > > y _O- "a C N O E m m v 1]•X .D O m p C O p C a C y C is Oma_ mmc mrn°a c � c m •�d3. '�� `om c 0 0 3� Omyo " En ayi =� m°) caZLo =Z Co-0 � 2 > 10 C m U n C p .4 m N,p m N _Ol.L.. N m-° a m C w N U c 9 m y J W L N m m m m L+ Q ;E �cOnwmE'y m Eo�t� ' rntaEEaU@ E.EL°) onvn) Lca�v �n0 mLL s L C ' N N m t A C Q W C i6 Cn V� C «� R C w OI y V7 J y O `, m y ° O-- C m Cm D y m« C O, O O O L �. 2 E M D o m m y �w 2.0 Y O.m U > C c O, �6 m w 7'—~ O,C N rn� y� L m c � m>y Sc -- 2 x dig E y c o c E u 0 0 a,'E m u a' MLLE a« E LDC 0)_U O y O,w am R -0 .0'CLcf2 ID 0 m000Ema" ` M >, m C C m c0 C-0 O, a L y j 0 0 3 > j 7=�' . mmcf0 Cao °- ° -eo,mm 0c cEU� c0m yE ` oc aACLiQ0 U;a°i.A o� M� c W m m w c« m c. M E:5 M mH y oa `a,° c °a m o T, cm� o m- �Lc yc oc cnrc M o m {qc m C co ,O O y R O m C 0 E �n 85 �L L.•R U _- c cmlc m c m (Efpp E:2 d O1a°i lyn m m c c c- c �o m cr:� , U, y O,c m 7 � y M O O M F- L O > m m n` 2 m a) y a m'C--,M C "�� 0' oqw, 0 L) C3 �VcErnmm SmcE22 rna8Ed �� cCis oow2 a. cm c « co L) O M(D W«�'.c n U O C ° O 06 a C O C.2 M¢ >+- c W 0 E > y U.- 0 C.N 0:=..C, :3,- R U>�M m R �O` R S2O+ e L O•R a R >V ° M« �L77 m U U CUL y-0,.y:o..m. p Q N of C�?N L`7 ° N x C L as co c•C y Z c c >.�m'� p :1 O W 1Cm••o�...�.An,CL -for w y~- m m. Rt m mF' m m 2L c c 4::8._ • a y O X N w m m C Z`L y N O,y m y�_' 0 U 07 N O C p N c C_Z d am« 7 w O W d y O j y 'Lm.. y C 7 L N U C7 . m E C C m C C m C y C 0 0 p U d U = O' Y C y R L O C O '28 0:50 L.' ,L„ m 0,0.0f•U7 �O, d m!r O O0 y lL m M O W'--O o o'aE'rnU (D r- a°�'3 $ 0 Am? aQ'gcm mc /oic mmmNmam.U;(c6c O.a o y F.aL.. 3 L y C O 3 7 m m Q:c m m r m y O L f6 n m 'O— m L M L N N U a):2 O«L R O c d= co o ni !6 M m 12 C C« y Vl « m N C O) m 7.m`. ° y = Ln O,C-0 F- a s -0 t°� m e V E N O O•V R.0.0-�'M Q C 16 C E 0 07 E m M E m C O C r.� w C y U O OI( m `n O m a 'f%i.y m m C O f0 y m O,U L N L « m R c m m M m y'O m O m .0«'.C:7 m m6yi« E� p��ocwy� C��_ Ey;;c a ` mo pmc��L'r 0)z _ N, - *6=:2 O N tl, m C 'C O c y E m m lC 0 P (D m. M S L E - R E m O y m 0) M •>' d pe U m ° O L L 0-- E � m r N r N C a R O y O � 1-36 0rn`o2rn .o6 :' - � � > ommo cC <.- 03 SO�)g. pE Uu°ifC6° OM�0 too, C O- 7 m 7 0 t 2' 'C«L m m aL.. y C E C R y U `J L m L m y (O m.� a0-. U y R O,U y M C L U C U"O .y 2 m N Z C c (c6 V M O L U 2 V 3 c o l6 0 p-- M �O 6�1�6 0 0 N 0 m 7 = o d m o o �M c rnE m o E0 mY m n� �,. m Ev o n '� n c'c.o 6`, C y o—N m gy m' f0 0 o c C'o.0 3 a m E y� y 0)CL m 3 m v_,2 nN E my �w 6ci m c m cmii�n � m c o "vcrm M«� me �`«' nra �d':� � ecm o' inMCD.0 Aroc' oEv � m«EMocmc ° ccT vE«vn,'y:m °, w 7 w 0 y C U m L C E y p V'.-m+Z V Q Q' � /f-, O 0 EA C y •� U m L y M m :« o,�m ��p U QV y« > Q N°' {�� m'>� 2 c ��o,a�, m o"� j o m rnmin� oc I r- a) I m2m� m IvL7C.8@m I USON— Om y.0..0 OC I OO).- C'O,�- � >. � mmmOlN« nwC� N— n, Om -0 mm > y' :3 r-2 mOLR ° y C. N « 0 m m R y O,« 'v� C'C-0.0 �V O j N L O R'O O m' m_. � m o a°i � � °Do Ym, E �°Lu, n�ct o M �N mo.Lm mLm� � E c o E m 2 M o>t y .o.c =�'.�. O,C L a. 0 0 0 L R U w N.0. y ZE C C m �' C m c y 0 w C O C 4)N y w m y E m m.'C m 7 y O m 2 �C7 U C 3 O,�� O'C O � ' V O)W m' n tJ�' C V 7 U R—.0 M y D;m L y W w N E M U m m C O C'RO U p,'m' Q 16:C E U U.n Q c > O E >.m g CO3 U U�c O . m._��'O 7 7 0 V C.a O m y 0 0 0 7 M N (r6 ° y 0 3 M CI y x N `� Q R L (n 7 a -O C)�= ly6 W Rmm m« m �' �' m o oURUrm m W me dmc@ oma- H o m� $m`"c m m C c 0 m m a M a 0, m m C U R N y d,=CD ., O m c o,a E 7 d C> d y o-c N O'= E:.� C � MM >( 2-0 cock 2vSma)< IR 2rF'cHYSE ° °c � Wc �o moyo.@.cc C C y Q y C m O O 1` C .02 N m C C 0 0 =W 8 Jc E Z N C Of C d -E O C O M'MO 0 y 2 �,= C 7 N O c p, o 01« ` O'C�' E ` U C 7 R O C 2' C 16 m c m m c c e6 C,°O y W m 7 O,° R E A > t U m .R'- c m y C L..' O�-' O 7 m �.. ° y C�c >'•Q E 0 y 0 o, olEm` � «Y`omoay`, oaEi �mvc `c°'mmm ��- v ° cEy .E m.s mNna� nyLD0 nv M E 3n v ac,v «.Sw�vvw v (c6�Y� P?y Q 1°6 o,0-1 �"a m mU m�0:•aZ m L m y y 16 « O « > m m N m -0 0 3 m(a(D E M Z5 F- m o ' c.o N-� 'e 11 11m� mcdE0 �°' naa `1 Of C 3 7 o N-0 o f w L� f6.°c M 2 o L m C m N m m C m C ro n y— U C U_` O.c n °a m > m >�u7 y C m wL, C m n.L 00 E u c ` m m �Pcwooma? (n 67m am _ me oti m m m m cci 2 "c ° 7 W L O C m N m C�y c y w E 05-0 M o >.C o m C C y w L p t' C m.- m 7 Q 1n y W :.'= o o c O 0 m 7 a O U t1 M—L M J m M« m 0 C m�6 3 U m O C m Vm'OLmNmmmMNmmL fLL) °0 �« NN'tllAy qo o Q . u o m o ov Ea E °v T > c E o .0 S .2 m C'O C U 3 m U 7 C y y 7«. > > m O. W ` C > b m O m m O.L.+ O L C U L d M c0i 0 n_y d'u) 3 W m - c ScUmE3'cEy Q1n.+ RR- 7 � c2 c - w U ELII e,Qw n�o n� 3J 1nQ (n rnm E«FL " m LL C m O C m N p 5 m ec C d o rn w �« 0 � vc N cn U— m O) N N y D J m vi d L m _Et-. O p d d V a E d « m o m U N' �p7 o r mdmZ� Cd�a N d O a aaL ' X u) 2 75 a vtm � cmEQmj N cuoai « m U3 m m Emrd mn ON am;i3ppn-L d U c dJ � m am m3° Ccc c3ymococC mC.imwd mao No3d U C m m 2 i6° o d d En co EN o o2o> a mE - m p ?+ p d L O OaD.-ca v 0 CCU C IE m 7 c -C U 0 a O j2 J ad Cmm 7C fo0 -675 1 U . G80 ND YOL O_U 7mdN � y�L � Erna O �'m0 pc? O N m O.0 O p CSL n�.L- U O.0 r0 V- ��L Q O� TEp 7. N m 43 co N'E d v'8a ccw cA p oc 2 E Nli (D c0-- nL 7 cj m C.m-• '= N C.m.. c N G U d 7 a m C m J c m oc e� '-u 0 °N E °-° `mom oa o E m m n m t da E.tm- m E —r cU y E c y d Y, N N N w 2 d n C O p m m G m 2 d a I/1 w 0 m m J yLm• C 5 lU6 HL' dc� 2N >OC d om-2Ew cac n .0 c`C a O. N J a d y C m N.m• 0 G U d 'C O 1 L C — E O C N C y d d O—L m N d m d >` O U N Z` d C m n m OL m. N E O d d d = `L >'N l6 L >a Y w O)� d O m N C _N C N Ol m IIl 0 CL U 3 aci N m 'o E Oma @ o O c� coi N y c d EMS 2 E cc o rn E y a m '�- c �w ai m o rn y d o N O Y c°� E > c o v o � m � A Z --C) ion n o N a m a� m c_ `a-V��me d d 10 O w W 7 m a'y d.LZ`= (D m m g L id f� m fA y U U Er 7 y N m In m m a 07� U E i a O �!� N O m m a m O O.—O N d LO m N E E d N N' N U r- o Icon do n= ami °n acmi �' Acy �� dcc E> mti y O m > m C C O a J N Y m c c m m= C m t O O] N a w O 0 0•- m 0' y 2 m •C O m E a C al Y N c E d noE7�rnO� wyEC0)adX oN?? 7C' Cmf/JL mmac m E E y3 A V o ama omMO E E o 0E crnE QEcmCA w mQm . wo -2 cn m N y oLd O o > C) N^ N > C p ` On LmyC 0Lm O Ca mcInN mt � d aE m ma '.0a > N 2oEcO oU »m wyd �V � QN� 0 a) � p�vdm « o ° oomvr0 rn 9 A m ` E- yEaC Ny mULoC CmcE`y a m w Y � ° mO C L m7 )0d20 > 2oN aio( mE� p6O No � o 0 CL C0V a N p m C O o A ) O 0 y Oo 3` A c E m w C G c_ •'f0 C d 00 n N ELm-. U••p C fA Ol y O)a d Ol m C m 0 m•lC 7 > p N d L l0 Q C y •17 O 7 m•C U N m C C n= :E w N d O'N �• U m N._..-� d'm y V O)w m N O Z d!_a s n — C E d X t9 o N Y L y m d fa? m N d E O C 0 7 7 m �._._" 3 N m m d n� m- o nc �U�d' m.0Q c mU 3 d o cQ m O d 0 a N m O O m C 7 t Eco7mm ov mmE — Toa � a)nM7 m U_ . mO V ma= p nR Nop�ty nmcc vnQ+ CL om- sc N N , E e W=$ cO -O OyFEE pQ n :5m - - CL ca 03 6 -0 "o m E 44 2 cc . c h m �p m d J Uml m N C C C c �� �« (D E 7 O e N O E w p O E ' 3£ crnai ' aLw axil c « m dE N E V d7 0)-e c 0 rn °'. d g o •R j a a m 7 O c C O a o y �� 7 W 16 N m C o C 9 1 $ E o E E O c C 5 d E O: E _ W — m G0)aJ 7 O m m m.- 0 V C O N 4J (� '• U m e C 0 Q m c m a v C rn � o w G n w ma M p C U O C .-. i � 01 O) y U) (A J O _ C CL -D y 3 0 ct m 0 co M y C ti C 2 X y L O :E a) C c m Co �' E dNmH � o '° c y o o_ �� a) 1 to vA mm o v o m -moo a) w 0 y E' w o �� N y N C O a) 'U m y O L C_ a) O•a) Q C E C 7 m m C a 0f-0 =L m E E Occ y; p ;V) �C O LLmywLaE) �`° >, CL U L L " C _ y >E E O 7Q y 0 m -6E2-,L- aod NQ Q 0 L CO C (D C C7� 1 y N U E i M .v2 Ec L2 � yOy)yUm > a) r° LU 0O o f O� is C Lm...Yymti0 ca 7 .LUU C d y� y d Lo ° L mO CC 7 M'5 CL C y E x C ° 0 o v 0) 2 �� L a c � acini on _y U m C °� =O 0'L N U C 3 DL� C"O C a 0 C c0 O H O (D a).0 E --0 U m vi yn O y C Y y U y a.o -,U m O L Co° O M mm E Y y O a) Q7 > N d O ° ' (p2 M N V0l y ,a am E EEm y ° 0 • rcy aaOf L y co U O 3 w m y 0" y � p o f > y n m C O ` .�y ' 2 U (. O C O O > m C 7 C 0 Of y 0 d U C L) w. C O -- r y O a O 0- m w m- U 2 m m 0 y o cn c m -6 d rnm-Z o m cL) 0 ao a UOQ U O > O E 2 C O 3 m C N U O.� - Q) 7 N y U O C U f0 d y N `o d m O• N C a y U °n y•E c m y U 0 N'a.9 C d CO C a) OTl a) Q aZi d d O n N a).0 " a z vl L co 0 C a) U 8 Y O y '� y N N 01 w c > t E cM ° � C•C O 0 E ° d y Q 7 •UCl. f- L" Z�� U O O].2 F a ULLN • N y U ? C m m L d d `� N y c? y 'y a) cQ m C m 41' m w m O N.L.L Cp C N(0 C C C C N E y a)- UI O Ia U y m m U c w � ,u Z c Z m Z o Z Q w 2 — z a) aJ C'y 7 Of m ° C C C C a ° d m a! a•.• al m `L c d o a rn rn 0 Q >v c y OL N m 'y : 9) •N .N 7 y 3 m C 3-0, 7 a) 7 7 j m m m EO C C On C d C C C C C ni gn p m E U m L m-O m m r m O•O O d m C O 'C y 0.0 �• « ,.+ w a) T d m a) W U d C d'y y L O C G O E U > >.a) y y y y a) a)N 0 7 p�a O U ` ` y C d G V Ip C L y G c C m"O 2 `mS Q Q ° d N ° ai m ° ni x °v Q c N � o o m o 0 0 0 W CL ia� is� m m 2 �a °'C of m N o o > > a c c c c of y rn a rn _rn•- a) al-- E a)m o)2 m 2 c� rn c� : O a y > > o �t °c `NL c°) rid 3 3 3 c aa)id N N y N •0 y N d) O i D W 2 (-D v v a' 2M 0.0Mw76c 6 3 2 z E v 2-o 15L~ a)E m o 0 0 o c d Do m OL mL m aci S U m o U as y y a 7 0 0 CL CL O O 0, p On. .0.L.. w d o C w H N L Q d 9 C U y m a) o « o y E o E o c cf n 2 c a 2 2 m C.L.. y vi OM E °v y-0 yw a O ° -0 C 7^C y m 'N IA' d. C O W m m W y V y m m 9 O a) Q O M 0 d 0 0 a) C ; U._ d o > y 0 01 y y a7 N U ca d K CL m N U > O•C m .L.. « O .L. °L W� N X C'O C O Q_. 2 0 E .N m Ol� a) C 0)O) '� _ :U.a) a) O a) Ln « O y m C a n _ m S` a) 0 C•N O O x O y O .. m a•C N•° O N 0•C O N a O 9 c a m Y m E _ a Z 9 C C C d C 0 0 7 y a) > 0 C 0 a) +� r U -C Y C T C O O A O U O a) O p a a) O a C `7 a 0 0 °« m JZ C m a W O a) N d? w O fa N a7 m C m •Z m y N-5 oO N 3 U C� O a) c.�' M y U.�.. m a v m U E m ='y`�dw L•C co C a) C O C d C ° m O Z C C � y O r.L..� O��)� O m � E > C y C y y w O a) y () a) V) a) Z y ; m m y 0 y N C y 0 y C m Q o Q 0 cNao o E E '° E o E m u°:� oaci�_->-_ co3om � aJOc° ami 'o) � � � Q n . d v 0 a) - m y y: E c > N aaa)) �> amiam s a e n a a a a y maaa) aLccm ° a� c5En�IcEE 7w w 2 � acooHQEc = E J E a E a E Z Eaa: E> ycmd envoi °n-j.Lo.� cF 0 m i o ia m m m fO «� m 1r w V= < U m C C C C C W C c C/) U ua c c E @ c 01 N y N W J J N J L6 a) m w O a) a) —7 p C O m ° mL o 3 a) E y o o $ >o YL 3 C N CD N.. °� N Nv ° a)O N N Ea '> cm 0)y-E N R. N C U J w L % C -0 m�- O N 0 3 �N N 0 2 C ='D O 0-6 « N 0 V ca a) a)4. la m vi C `a U > > >ID N r 'O O O n > U d Q ° C) m O L U a) U 3 O m U d a) E C L % O L L d a n C um, aL v C O O C N Q) m rm. a� a)m d m o o ° c 2 CLQ 12L22oy - tea w.N3 ° y 0 n $ a) c C U >� y 0 N a V•m E yE•- 673E (D > $ $ a) $yam °nm ui = oym O)o y N 3 o m d o m Co d d O` m v a Y C) `O C -NO e a V 0 a) C 7 p N C n y C C C'C O r cc a) o E U O r a m y m 0 '-.2°)v a�•o o m E $ y a c c- 0. y °opo co,'a > N o c a d@ N m v m N E ac y N E o y a) oia `o_ d Q y c o a �o m co :3 is Oa o)m $ °1 E� > �O^'w v m >, m o c v m om N N N U U O C.Q V C O D m m U O N m V -•E O N f• r--0 c w a E c 3 a)«) > E 3 o' E C N 2 O N Co 1 3 U =w fa M— N )a C � d >• C O O.�' d a) a)B E V CD' .t.• C m m a) > m O m a).0 C y O •U�v E rn n m o o m E a 3v v d 3:: _rn v = Ev` 0 nw E mL O1L -- 0 o m °ic O F m r 1.2) N p rn o c N C O O m `O >i C p N N `�O' 7 CO^a c o o c m-0 da ° o 2 aci yam' 0 ENR^ co E E r-m � cn E � U y `n'I m O7 C.O. 0 0 C V O 'C E p N W N O a) 2 0 N i p )a m >> 7 U d m > C a) N O o ° ° C-, c 2 g � m a 3 m O C a.. X-2] N y NO E y O CL.°_ d`7 C a Q C m �y C O m ° my d m 5 E O CL-:5 m m o m o 0 o v E 3� c e m° E m n � m v c N m otra m ° a o o.E NW o" " m>� E $w °LSE, n m Nao ama aNn`° a m? 2 ca. o`_ a-Z c o r $' E U K m= oN c m iE y c:ao d o ° L w d �` t y m E mti mac' $ mEa tm. $ r� $ a o o (a) > bi a�"-� = F- a o'ca ac) `o d > o .r a d o 0)C).� N G.a) .�A O.m. •> .. O r 0) n a) A m O O)7 C O N m N `C C ° y C 0_Np y 0 7 m c ` y w C Q 2 m `CL > C L(n= Q N N Z 0m O-° 5i m Z v� C Z m E >. � V j c E 4)) ai E� •� o .E�• n o m >- m o m m e E d C o m E� -O IL o f d a' c E LL 0 0 0 E dFQ E m�aci c rn�Q 0 C)n a06 ) N N j... m CLL N 'j•-� N mei iacoi m3� c - O6C N N O am) I > amm VI R)m79 d�QE2 ° a) aaC OL 10 �'rna ccL� - O Oa - 0 m mO ■ ■ X ia3 �a� ma) 0J o � ° . • Of 0)rvv d �� m c �('>W c V)0. N 7 C ri m m m w m 0_L) 3 w U N a)Lr) 7 t.. UD a) m Q N a) O O C O•O L 0 Y C a) C N O. 22 N = m C m a 7 y a) w a) a) U 0) a(Ua N v m Y C O y y 0 n O N (1 N a C N O U m p« 3 r a, C Q a) O O y E 7 a) U a L 7 �! p O V N m °=-o= W d g O m d C o-C C C N CL = n > 3 v omo._ d Y' m d O lea d y 0 N p•O o w Y ° C, U y ~ W m g a= E UE34? OUN $m io a)'Emn. mm ma a W N a) 7 = 01 1'0 N 2 E w aUiw c�n M ami �m d c ~ N a'•- a� �� 3 E c EQ CL mQo°LL `o w0a°rLoa V v'. my tr aTi I arc E p CL 00 m a o am rns c c ` ° ct y COo m m E c d Zv 0 CD c o V N T� c c 'j G°av o d v T a 2 2 a'm d Q d t00 0 N v d d m W c EQm°-) xdm E12 (D a L° a'oa) 2o W - a- yd E _ oNd2 7 E F- E3:GaU • • 03LL co k = i! k� .\ LU (B 2 J ,R ] � s o I% f §3 .k )2. E/ _ �e \ 0 f .2 � CD E\ e &o § / E °\ 0 \) 0 ) § �k 2 a ]\ k :/ 2 Bk ©\ Q 2 E , ` KE CL .2 gM a@2 . 0 / Y o } "t � ) §\\ O k � _ $ 2 o N G 0\ J \ /f § ) a / / k\/ § § e m_ E ) kk �ƒ % CD - ] t e § k § S i_ E . Co / E o �\ 3 g § . 2 $ ;I$ % / c o o ® - . e J 2� e � S e � (k � @ =§mm2c � « . 3s2 � . §E m § W� 2 I m m E - @.2 S ƒ CL CL=mCL 5r § ) E ] !# ° 2 \ E k i 2 0 " c a£ I E J&a® _ ® - @ f ) ° - . k { } ƒcn § ) $)- @72� R � )ELU °` z � � ` ® ] � ) ) [� % # 9 Lo » + §. c = 08z § \«e S % 2 5t2 E o < e ; e _ e a G $ & c = o ] &�_� @ §2o _ �) [ 22f § $ eGk° e £ e § 22 )�< I / Q � a ; {�m7 2 cl ■ faf \ E\ I & kAc \L7\ a ) , f ` a � k k C } /7/ . . . D k ƒiL 3< . . CL , < ; § CL� , . m - � �$os _ IL aI LL 0 CD a? °»j\ \% §\ {\ ) /\�\ 2 ` a \ �< ra- 2 �£ } � J & )f - § §F.2 § » § r 2r k . § mC',a, z J 2 2 � .) _ > Mm §57 CL jLX §� w E\I £ e£