The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 2004-288 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-288 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 04-03) FOR THE CROSSINGS COMMERCIAL RETAIL PROJECT AND CONCEPTUAL TENTATIVE MAP; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") has received an application trom Yacoel Properties ("Applicant") to redevelop an existing outdoor storage facility with assorted used vehicles and equipment located at the southeast comer of 1-805 and Main Street to a commercial retail facility ("Crossings Project"); and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on the proposed Crossings Commercial Retail Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et. seq., "CEQA"), and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et. Seq., the "Guidelines") and City CEQA Guidelines and City Environmental Review Procedures; and WHEREAS, all action required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the EIR have been taken; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received during the public review period and the response of the Agency and the City thereto; and WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact for the Crossings Commercial Retail Project, dated August 6, 2004 (Exhibit "A" of this resolution) conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superceded or withdrawn. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the ordinance adopting the Crossings Project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Final EIR are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with the Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Crossings Project; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista adopted Resolution No. 04-03 certifying the Final ErR and recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR as well. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: 1. FINAL EIR 04-03 CONTENTS Resolution 2004-288 Page 2 That the Final EIR 04-03 consists of the following: I. Final ErR for the Chula Vista Crossings Commercial Retail; and 2. Comments and Responses to Comments; and 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (All hereafter collectively referred to as "Final EIR") II. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO THE FINAL EIR 1. Findings of Fact; and 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. II1. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT That the City Council does hereby find that the Final ErR, the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A") and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B") have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), City CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the Final ErR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. V. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council hereby makes each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A") B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact for this Project, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above-referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (Agency or City) assigned thereby to implement the same. C. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact Section XI, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091 that alternatives to the Project, which were identified in the Final ErR, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and/or meet Project objectives and/or were found to be infeasible based upon specific economic, social, or other considerations. D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Resolution 2004-288 Page 3 As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B"). The City Council further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the Agency, City, and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista certifies that the documents constituting the City's record of proceedings on which its decision is based are contained in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista and the City Clerk is the custodian of records of those documents; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, hereby certifies and adopts the Final EIR for the Chula Vista Crossings Commercial Retail Project, in accordance with the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, City CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by CA Yì/L~ Ann Moore City Attorney Resolution 2004-288 Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 24th day of August, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas and Padilla NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: c2LL adilla, Mayor 'G.--- [jJ 1'1 I ~~.n. .J Susan Bigelow, MMC, Cit Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2004-288 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of August, 2004. Executed this 24th day of August, 2004. -:: ;;;"J.t.. Ú-I....~ 0 ~ Susan Bigelow, MMC, Cit lerk J' DRAFT CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR # 04-03) CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT August 6, 2004 &/IØI T '// // Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act TABLE OF CONTENTS Section PaQe No. I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 II. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................1 m. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................2 IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................4 V. TERMlNOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA..........................5 VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS....................................................................................7 VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................8 vm. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................8 A. Landform Alteration and Aesthetics..............................................................................8 B. Biological Resources ........................ ................ ..... ...................................... ..... ...........1 0 C. Cultural Resources .................... ...... .......... ................ ....... :................................ ...........15 D. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................16 E. Paleontological Resources ..................... .................. ...... ......... .....................................20 F. Water Quality and Hydrology .....................................................................................21 G. Transportation, Circulation, and Access......................................................................25 H. Air Quality ............... ............................................. ........ ..... ........... ....... ............ ....... .... .31 I. Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................34 J. HazardslRisk of Upset . .............. ....... ......................... ............ ... .... .... .................. .... .....38 IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES...........42 A. Biological Resources ........:....... ............. ............. ....... ....... .... .... ....... ............. .......... ....42 B. Water Quality and Hydrology......................................................................................45 C. Transportation, Circulation, and Access......................................................................48 X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..............................49 A. No Project! No Development Altemative....................................................................51 B. Existing Zoning! General Plan Designation Alternative.............................................52 C. Reduced Density Alternative .......................................................................................52 RJQ/"nnA Chu/a Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: City of Chula Vista; Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH #2004031002; EIR # 04-03 R/Q/?004 ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the Chula Vista Crossings (project) addressed the potential environmental effects of the proposed Chula Vista Crossings co=ercial retail development located at the southeast corner of I-80S and Main Street as a co=ercial retail use. In addition, the Final EIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project: (1) The no project/no development alternative, which assumes that the project site would not be redeveloped and the existing automobile storage facility would remain and continue operation and; (2) An alternative that would involve construction of an industrial facility consistent with existing zoning and General Plan designations and; 3) A reduced density option. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Guidelines. These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (CaI. Code Regs., title 14, 15000 et seq.). II. DEFINITIONS "APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District. "BMPs" means best management practices. "CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act. "City" means City of Chula Vista. "CNEL" means co=unity noise equivalent level. "dB(A)" means A-weighted decibels "LOS" means Level of Service. "MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program. "NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. "OWD" means Otay Water District. "RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards. "RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Board. ''EIR'' means Environmental Impact Report. "SWPPP" means Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. , g/Cf?nnJl Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proj ect would consist of redevelopment of an existing outdoor storage facility located at the southeast comer of I-80S and Main Street to a co=ercial retail use. The proposed project would involve the construction of seven buildings with an approximate totalleaseable building area of 188,038 square feet. The proposed project would include two free-standing restaurants, a main department store anchor and additional retail spaces. Shipping/receiving bays will be located along the south and west sides of the retail buildings. The project would include parking spaces consistent with City requirements and standards. Due to the site's visibility from I-80S, the project will include an illuminated sign feature along the project's westem edge. The project will include construction of a segment of the Auto Park Trunk Sewer (analyzed under a previous CEQA document) and other public infrastructure facilities such as water and gas lines. The project site is 24 acres, the southern 6.8 acres (consisting of the Otay River and associated riparian habitats) of which will be dedicated to the Otay Valley Regional Park for conservation and/or recreation purposes. Discretionary Actions In order to implement the project as described above, the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency will need to take the following actions: · General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from I-L (Limited Industrial) to C-R (Commercial Retail) · Zoning Code Amendment to rezone the site from ILP (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) to C-C (Central Commercial). The southern portion of the project site is F-1 Floodway which would not change. . Tentative Parcel Map Approval · Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit Issuance may be required (if MSCP permit is issued by the wildlife agencies prior to proj ect approval) .. · Design Review Committee Approval . Owner Participation Agreement The following additional permits/¡q¡proval may be required of other Responsible Agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board: Storm Water Discharge Permit and ¡q¡proval of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any applicable requirements related to the non-native fill materials. 819/2004 2 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact · California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Decertification, for the drainage easement at the southwest comer of the site. · City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department: Approval related to relocation of an existing sewer line at the southwest comer of the site: · Otay Water District: Approval of water system improvement plans. Project Goals and Objectives The project is intended to acbieve some of the following objectives identified in the Otay Valley Redevelopment Proj ect Area Redevelopment Plan: · The elimination of existing blighted conditions, and the prevention of recurring blight in and about the Project Area. · The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities, increasing local employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area, and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the Proj ect Area. · The creation of a more cohesive and UDified community by strengthening the physical, social, and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial and recreational land uses within the community and the Project Area. · The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system free from hazardous vebicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interferences. In addition, specific objectives for the proposed project include the following: · Removal of outdoor storage uses from the site and redevelopment into a productive commercial center providing jobs, property tax revenue and sales tax revenue. · Dedication ofland to the MSCP Preserve and Otay Valley Regional Park to promote the goals of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan related to conservation of sensitive species and habitats and park experience. This will also assist the City in the Otay Valley Regional Park and Greenbelt System. · Establish a freeway-oriented commercial center to provide commercial uses that are easily accessible to the surrounding community. A/C/?nM ., Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact N. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this proj ect shall consist of the following: · The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City ill conjunction with the Project; . The Draft and Final EIR for the project (EIR # 04-03), including the appendices and technical reports; · All co=ents submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public co=ent period on the Draft EIR; · All co=ents and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Proj ect, in addition to timely co=ents on the Draft EIR; · The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project; · All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; · All reports, studies, memoranda., maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's actions on the Project; · All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing on July 7, 2004; · All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with the EIR on the project; · Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or videotapes where transcripts are not available or adequate; · Any documentary or other ,evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public hearings; and · Matters of co=on knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider, including but not limited to the following: - Chula Vista General Plan - Relevant portions of the Zoning Codes of the City of Chula Vista - The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan MSCP Subarea Plan 8/9/2004 4 , Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact - Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan - AJ:J.y documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and - AJ:J.y other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910. The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above. in reachÌI¡.g its decision on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff' as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Proj ect files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City was aware in approving the Chula Vista Crossings Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agencv Formation Commission (1978) 76 CaI.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 CaI.Rptr. 873]; Dominev v. Denartment of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 CaI.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 CaI.Rptr. 620].) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff' or consultants, who then provided advice to the City. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City's decisions relating to the adoption of Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 CaI.App.3d 852, 866 [226 CaI.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society. Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 CaI.Appo4th 144, 153, 155 [39 CaI.Rptr.2d 54].) V. TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the signi£cant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); R/Ql?nM . Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of tbree permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(I).) The second p=issib1e finding is that "[s]uch 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[ s ]pecific 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta II") (1990) 52 CaI.3d 553, 565 [276 CaI. Rptr. 410].) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar V. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaI.App.3d 410, 417 [183 CaI.Rptr. 898].) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." ŒlliL see also Seauovah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 CaI.Appo4th 704, 715 [29 CaI.Rptr.2d 182].) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms trom the other contexts in whi.c:h the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve proj ects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures A/Ql?nl14 ñ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the hoìding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 CaI.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less than significant. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the proj ect lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a proj ect for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ i5093, 15043, subd.,.(b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound· discretion of the local officìals and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II. 52 CaI.3d 553, 576.) VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the ErR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, to implement R/Ql?nn.d. 7 -------------------"' Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the reso1ution(s) approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(I), the City ofChula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during proj ect implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the document titled Chula Vista Crossings Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. VIII. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts'') that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided. - The project will result in significant environmental changes to the following issues: landform alteration and aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, water quality and hydrology, transportation, circulation, and access, air quality, public services and utilities, and hazards/risk of upset as a result of the Chula Vista Crossings project. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in EIR # 04-03 (City ill #) in Table ES-l on pages 1-3 through 1-18 and in Chapter 5.0, pages 5.1-12 through 5.12-6. A. Landform Alteration Arid Aesthetics Standards of Significance: . The proj ect will have a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. . Substantially damage of scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. B/91?0114 8 ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact · Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding. · Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Significant Impact: The project would introduce light and glare within the project vicÏcity. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the' proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: The project would introduce additional night lighting within the project vicinity. The proposed project includes design features to direct lighting to the project site and avoid spillover lighting into adjacent areas. The project will be required through the Design Review Process to demonstrate application of these design features. To ensure that spillover lighting would not result, mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. · Prior to approval of the Tentative Parcel map, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan as a part of the Design Review application for the project. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that project lighting is shielded fÌ'Om surrounding properties and that only the minimum amount of lighting required for safety purposes is provided to avoid adverse effects on surrounding areas. In general, lighting fixtures shall be shielded downward and away from the adjacent Otay River riparian corridor (see additional discussion in Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures, Bio.!9gical Resources) and away trom residences north of Main Street. Significance After Mitigation: With the application of the proposed mitigation measure, project impacts related to light and glare would be reduced to levels below significance. 8/9/2004 o Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact B. Biological Resources Standards of Significance: · Substantial effect, including indirect effects such as habitat fi'agmentation, on a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or habitat of that species. · Substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species · Substantial reduction of habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. · Impacts considered adverse to the assemblage of a preserve design. Significant Impact: Short-term indirect impacts include construction noise impacts to sensitive nesting bird species. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season, no significant indirect impacts to these species are anticipated. However, should grading occur within the breeding season, a significant, but mitigable impact would occur. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Short-term indirect impacts include construction noise impacts to sensitive nesting bird species. Species anticipated to be affected by such activities include the least Bell's vireo, the southwestern willow flycatcher, the yellow warbler and nesting raptors. According to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (pg. 7-26), where noise associated with clearing, grading, or grubbing will negatively impact, as detl:IlDÎned by the City's biologist, an occupied nest for the least Bell's vireo during the breeding season fi'om March 15 to September 15, noise levels should not exceed 60 Leq. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season, no significant indirect impacts to these species are anticipated. However, should work occur during the breeding season, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure [a]). Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to mi"im;7.e indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: R/Ql?n04 10 ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact . Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise attenuation features (such as berms or walls) shall be iIDplemented during construction should sensitive Wildlife species be present. Implementation of any required measures wiII be verified by the City during construction. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Long-term, indirect impacts could occur due to the proposed development's proximity to biological open space. This impact was identified as significant but mitigable. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's proximity to biological open space may include lighting, noise, invasives, toxic substances and general human presence. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimi'Ze indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=UI1Íties and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · Per mitigation measure 5.2.5 [a], light shielding to protect the Preserve from spill- over when deemed appropriate úom a public safety standpoint shall be implemented. Low sodium lighting shall also be utilized. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Short-tenn and 10ng-te= indirect impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, associated with construction and general site drainage would be considered significant but mitigable Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or ¡¡void the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. 8/9/2004 11 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Explanation: Short-t= and long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's proximity to waters of the U.S. may include lighting, noise, invasives, toxic substances and general human presence. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to miT1imi7e indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: . Although extensive landscaping is not anticipated next to the preserve, any landscaping shall utilize native vegetation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, landscape plans demonstrating that invasive plant species are not used in areas that could potentially result in impacts to the Preserve shall be submitted and approved by the City. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The habitat linkage/wildlife corridor would be subject to the same edge effects described above for wildlife. Further, long-t= indirect impacts to the habitat linkage/regional corridor including lighting and noise are possible. Therefore a significant, but mitigable impact would occur. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Long-t=, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's proximity to biological open space that includes habitat linkages aJ:ld wildlife corridors, may include lighting, noise; invasives, toxic substances and general human presence. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: . Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed in all drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of contaminants into the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading plans and approved by the /' _t R/~/?n04 12 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact City prior to issuance of grading permits, and installation of such measures shall be verified by the City during proj ect construction. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The introduction of potential toxic substances during construction as well as during proj ect operation as a result of run-off would result in a significant but mitigable impact. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Urban runoff containing contaminants that are hannful to sensitive species and habitats has the potential to impact adjacent habitat areas. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to mi"imize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · If the project is to be constructed during the least Bell's vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey shall occur prior to issuance of grading permits. If an occupied nest of least Bell's vireo is discovered, and if noise associated with clearing, grading, or grubbing will negatively impact the nest, noise levels shall not be permitted to exceed 60 Leq as determined through construction monitoring by the City's mitigation monitor. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The introduction of new light sources within the project development area could potentially impact wildlife and sensitive ecological resources within the Otay River ValleytMSCP Preserve. This impact is considered significant but mitigable. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. R¡¡¡/?004 10 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Explanation: New light sources are considered to be an adverse indirect effect within Preserve areas because they have the potential to disrupt wildlife behaVioral patterns. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to m;,,;mi"e indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: . A pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall also occur prior to issuance of grading permits, if proj ect construction is to occur during the r~ptor breeding season (January 15 to July 31). In areas potentially affecting nesting raptor sites, noise levels will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise trom negatively impacting the breeding success of any detected pair during the breeding season. Compliance with this measure will be verified through field monitoring by the City's biologist. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season(s), no additional mitigation measures are required. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Although the project does not propose uses that are anticipated to result in long-term noise impacts that would have an adverse effect on adjacent breeding areas, however, construction noise impacts are potentially significant but mitigable Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: High noise levels in preserve areas are considered to b.e an adverse indirect effect within Preserve areas because they have the potential to disrupt wildlife behavioral patterns. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to mi,,;m; "e indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: . Any trimming of willow canopies extending into construction areas will be done under the supervision of the City's biologist. 8/9/2004 14 Chu/a Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Potential impacts to biological resources could occur as a result of introduction of invasive species. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Invasive species represent an adverse indirect effect because they have the potential to displace native species in areas of sensitive habitat. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · A biological monitor shall be present onsite periodically during grading and site preparation to ensure that grading and disturbance activities do not encroach into sensitive areas. Implementation of this mitigation measure will also preserve regional wildlife corridor functions of the Otay River Valley. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less than significant levels by incorporating mitigation measures as described in the EIR. C. CULTURAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: · Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 · Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries R/Q/?D04 11; ~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act Significant Impact: Due to the presence of recorded archaeological sites just east of the project and potential for buried cultural materials on-site, potential impacts could occur. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incOlporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of signifi"cance. Explanation: The record search conducted for the project identified several prehistoric sites in the vicinity, most of which were located in the Otay River Valley east of the property. After a field reconnaissance, no resources were identified on the property although much of the site had been leveled and covered with gravel. However, due to the proximity ofresources offsite, there is the potential for buried resources to occur. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings. . Prior to issuance of grading permits, an archaeological monitor shall be retained to provide monitoring of grading work. The archaeological monitor sha11 monitor grading of any previously undisturbed soil. If any archaeological features or deposits are encountered during monitoring, the archaeological monitor shall halt grading at that location and notify the City. Subsequently, any resource identified during grading should be evaluated for significance and, if found to be important, mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce potential impacts below a level of significance. Significance After Mitigation: Should cultural resources be encountered during grading, the monitoring program will prevent impacts to these resources trom occurring. Therefore, due to the preventative mitigation measure, impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated to a level below significance. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Standards of Significance: . Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk or loss, injury or death involving: 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 8/9/2004 16 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Landslides. · Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoiL · Location 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. ' · Location on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. · Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Significant Impact: The existing undocumented fill is not suitable for support of additional fill and/or structural support in its existing state. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: As outlined in the significance criteria, location of a structure on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project would be a significant impact. Therefore, the impact is considered to be significant, Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings. · Prior to issuance of grading permits, the proj ect applicant shall demonstrate that appropriate remedial measures to provide adequate support of additional fill and/or structural loads within areas of existing undocumented fill will be taken. Remediation shall include grading in the form of complete removal and compaction beneath building pads and removal in parking areas sufficient to create as-foot compacted fill mat, in accordance with the reco=endations on pages 7-18 of the Geotechnical Report contained in Appendix D of the Final EIR. Because the existing 8/912004 17 ----.--...--.-..----' ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact fill contains an abundant amount of oversized concrete chunks (approximately 20,000 cubic yards) and trash and debris, spreading out and cleaning of this material prior to reuse as compacted fill will be required. Additional engineering treatment related to structural stability of the site will be required. The work shall be conducted in accordance with the engineering specifications included in the July 2003 GeoCon Report (GeoCon, July 2003, pg. 7). Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Due to the presence of a shallow groundwater table n~ar the southern edge of the proposed development area, impacts associated with groundwater could occUr. In order to mitigate for these potential impacts, mitigation is required. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Presence of shallow groundwater has the potential to result in impacts associated with liquefaction. Therefore, this condition represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings. . Prior to issuance of grading p=its, the project applicant shall demonstrate that appropriate remedial measures will be taken to remove and recompact alluvium beneath undocumented fill to within approximately 3 feet of the water table. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Ground shaking may occur as a result of the project's location near active faults. In order to mitigate for potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking, mitigation is required. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. A.JQJ?nnA 1R Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act Explanation: Seismic aCtIVIty is well documented in causing damage to structures, therefore design standards have been established to reduce risks associated with structural failure. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings. · The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) summarizes seismic design criteria for the Rose Canyon Fault System. These standards shall be applied during project design and construction. These standards include seismic zone factor, seismic coefficient and near source factor. Demonstration of compliance with UBC requirements shall be provided prior to issuance of building permits. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Existing drainages along the southeastem and western margins of the site are subj ect to erosion that may affect the stability of the :fill slopes. . Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant enviro=ental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Erosion at existing drainage locations could pose a hazard to future development on the site by eroding soil that supports proposed structures. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings. · To prevent continued erosion of southeastem and western portions of the slope areas, grading to redirect surface runoff from these drainages or placement of drainage control devices is required.· . Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that building pads are properly finished so that the drainage water from the buildings, lots and adj acent properties is directed off the lots and away trom foundations and the top of the slopes toward the project storm water system. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. QJOJ?nf'\A '" ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act E. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: . Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Significant Impact: Since the proposed project lies within a geologic formation with high resources bearing potential, and the proj ect would necessitate recompaction of potential fossil bearing alluvium, impacts to paleontological resources are considered to be significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Impacts to paleontological resources could occur during excavation and site development when geologic formations that have resource bearing potential are disturbed. Impacts would occur when fossils are physically destroyed by such activities. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings. · Prior to beginning any excavation work, the City or its contractor shall demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out a paleontological resources mitigation program. · A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during construction activities that disturb non-fill soils or formations. · If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt construction until such a time that a complete assessment of the resources can be conducted. If resources are found that are determined to be significant, the paleontological monitor shall direct activities to recover the resources. · Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos and maps shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. AJ~l?nl14 ?n Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Significance After Mitigation: With the implementation of the construction monitoring program (outlined in Mitigation Measures a - d above), impacts to paleo~tological resources would not be significant. F. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY Standards of Significance: . Violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. · Substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes 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). · Substantially alters 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. · Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff. · Places 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. · Places within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. · 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:" . Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Significant Impact: Potential impacts to groundwater quality that could result from increased pollutant load resulting trom the project are considered significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of significance. ~ 0' ¡ -~ g IQ,")nn" Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Explanation: The Otay River, as the principal drainage channel in the Otay River Valley, would receive runoff trom the project which could potentially reèharge groundwater supply. Since runoff from the project would still reach the Otay River, groundwater recharge within the Otay River would not be affected by the proposed project. However, contaminants from urban runoff could affect groundwater quality. Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of grading p=its, the project applicant demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) p=it requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOl) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General P=it for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the co=encement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's Development and Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual and fill out all applicable forms associated with the Manual. Finally, due to the project's size of over 100,000 square feet, it is a Priority Development Project and hence subject to the requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required: · Soil Sediments: all landscaped areas will be self-contained due to the gentle slope of the site. · Fertilizers: All fertilizers shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over application. Proper wetting and other management techniques will help eliminate blowoff or other non-absorption problems. · Pesticides: All pesticides shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over application. As much as possible, pesticides that decompose into non-hannful elements within short periods of time shall be used. · Metals: Application techniques such as coating shall be utilized in order to reduce potential contamination. · Organic Compounds:. Hydrocarbons and other organic compounds shall not be utilized. AJ<¡1?nC14 ?? ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact · Trash and Debris: Trash shall be contained in covered receptacles and collected regularly to avoid exceeding container capacity. Containers will be placed on-site for tenants and patrons. Any escaping trash will be picked up during regularly scheduled parking lot sweeping. · Petroleum Products: The parking areas will be swept regularly and steam cleaned to remove accumulated soils and greases. · General Site Runoff. During and after construction, slope protection/erosion control measures will be required. The following site design treatments are required: · All runoff generated at the site will be captured and treated in an acceptable BMP facility before reaching the storm drain outlet at the Otay River. · Pervious surfaces, including large planted areas adjacent to buildings and beneath roof gutter outfalls shall be used as much as possible in order to allow for more onsite percolation. . Large planted areas, where feasible, where runoff can collect before entering the storm drain shall be located around buildings. · Where feasible the roof drains shall discharge into the landscaped areas prior to entering the storm drain system All Source Control BMPs identified in the November 2003 Stuart Engineering Report shall be implemented. The following best management practices shall be adhered to during construction: · Gravel bags, silt fences, etc. shall be placed along the edge of the proj ect site in order to contain particulate prior to contact with the Otay River area. . All concrete washing and spoils dumping will occur in a designated .location. · Construction stockpiles, uncovered material and dumpsters will be covered in order to prevent blow-off or runoff during weather events. · A pollution control education plan shall be developed by the General Contractor and implemented throughout all phases of development and construction. · Severe weather event erosion control facilities shall be stored onsite for use as needed. Significance After Mitigation: The proposed mitigation measures and project design would mitigate all significant impacts related to water resources and water quality to a less than significant level. As a condition of issuing the grading permit, the hydrology/drainage report shall address pre-development flows versus post-development flows. ì _ R/ql?nn4 ?O ----~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Significant Impact: Site preparation and grading, including excavation and recompaction of unconsolidated materials would result in exposure of soils to erosion potential. Increased sediment-laden or contaminant-laden runoff would result in potentially significant, but mitigable water quality impacts. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Sedimentation could adversely affect water quality and sensitive biological resources within the Otay River. Additional contamination hazards are related to the use of hazardous materials in the construction process, including fuel and motor vehicle fluids. The SWPPP that is required for the proposed project will address erosion control and accident contingencies to address these issues. Mitigation Measure: (see EIR, Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measure, specifically Mitigation Measure [aD. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: An increase in surface runoff and introduction of urban uses would increase pollution levels in receiving water bodies such as the Otay River and San Diego Bay. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Pollutants that typically become mobile from this type of project include automobile oils, fertilizers and other co=ercial fuels. Introduction of these pollutants into the Otay River would cause significant impacts to surface water quality. Mitigation Measure: (see EIR, Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measure, specifically Mitigation Measure [aD. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. AIGI?OrJ4 ?4 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act G. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS Standards of Significance: · The City of Chula Vista has developed traffic standards to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of projects within its jurisdiction. The significance thresholds depend upon whether intersections, street segments, or treeways are being analyzed and whether the analysis addresses the short- or long-t=. The project significance criterion then determines whether the proj ect impact is direct or cumulative. These thresholds are consistent with the intent of CEQA and in effect, provide more specific direction for significance findings. · Proj ect impacts will be defined as either proj ect specific impacts or cumulative impacts. Project specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition ofproject trips results in an identifiable degradation in level of service on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections, triggering the need for specific project-related improvement strategies. Cumulative impacts are those in which the project trips contribute to a poor level of service, at a nominal level. · Study horizon year as used herein is intended to describe a future period of time in the traffic studies, which corresponds to traffic model years developed by the San Diego Association of Gove=ents (SANDAG), and are meant to synchronize study impacts to be in line with typical study years of2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. · Criteria for determining whether the project results in either project specific or cumulative impacts on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections are as follows; Short-Term (Studv Horizon Year 0 To 4) For purposes of the short-term analysis, roadway sections may be defined as either links or segments. A link is typically that section of roadway between two adjacent Circulation Element intersecti'Ons and a segment is defined as that combination of contiguous links used in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program. Analysis of roadway links under short-t= conditions may require a more detailed analysis using the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) methodology if the typical planning analysis using volume to capacity ratios on an individual link indicates a potential impact to that link. The GMOC analysis uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HeM) methodology of average travel speed based on actual measurements on the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program. 0< ~ DIDo}')nnA -._-_.._---_._-_..-.~-_.- -- Chu/a Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Intersections a. Project specific impact ifboth the following criteria are met: 1. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Street Links/Segments If the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio indicates LOS C or better, there is no impact. If the planning analysis indicates LOS D, E, or F, the GMOC method should be utilized. The following criteria would then be utilized. a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF for 1 hour. ii. Proj ect trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Freeways a. Proj ect specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Lone-Term (Studv Horizon Year 5 And Later) Intersections a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Street Links/Segments For street links/segments, the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio methodology only is employed, since the GMOC analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon. a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more oftotal segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. -..:.:; 81912004 26 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the 'segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway syst= operations than street segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above occurs at study horizon year 10 or later, and is offsite and not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered cumulative. Study year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13 years in the future. In this case a traffic study is performed in the period of 2000 to 2002~ because the typical model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e. 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020). Study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year 2010 and would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than 7 years in the future, study horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future. d. In the event a direct identified project specific impact in paragraph a. above occurs at study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is offsite and not adjacent to this project, but the property immediately adjacent to the identified project specific impact is also proposed to be developed in approximately the same time frame, an additional analysis may be required to determine whether or not the identified project specific impact would still occur if the development of the adj acent property does not take place. If the additional analysis concludes that the identified project specific impact is no longer a direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative. Freeways For freeways, published guidelines developed by the San Diego Traffic Engineers' CouncillInstitute of Traffic Engineers (SANTEe) are used as the significance criteria. The SANTEC Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (2000) was developed by local traffic experts, Caltrans, SANDAG, local cities, and the County of San Diego as aregion-wide guideline for determining traffic impacts in environmental reports. The SANTEC Guidelines are stated in Table 5.8-4. TABLE 5.8-4. Measurement of Significant Project Traffic Impacts Allowable Increase Due to Project Impacts" . VlC VlC Speed (mph) "- Delay (sec.) Ramp Metering Delay (min.) level of Service with Project' Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections R/~/?n()4 77 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Notes: * All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedUres for peak-hour conditions. However, v/c ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24- hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally "D" ("Coo for undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitions). For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are considered excessive. ** If a proposed project's traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are detemrined to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant shall then identify feasible mitigation (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see above * note), or if the project adds a significant amount of peak-hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on-or off-ramp storage capacities, the proj ect applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes. KEY: Delay LOS = Volume to Capacity Ratio (capacity at LOS E should be used) = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour for Congestion Management Program (CMP) analyses = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds = Level of Service V/C Speed Significant Impact: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main Street/I-805 SB ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The impact is not considered to be a proj ect-specific impact, however it is still considered significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main StreeVI-805 SB ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The impact is not considered to be a proj ect-specific impact because, as noted in the EIR, the intersection would already operate at LOS E without the project, and project trips would not comprise 5 percent of the entering volume. 619/2004 28 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Mitigation Measure: For the significant cumulative impact at ,the Main St/I-805 interchange, southbound ramps, the following mitigation measure shall be impl=ented: · Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a fair share, as det=ined by the City,towards adding a second westbound left-turn lane on Main Street trom the I-80S southbound off-ramp. The second westbound left-turn lane is included in the City's existing Capital Improv=ent Program (CIF). The funding source for the second westbound left turn lane is included in the City's Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The City of Chula Vista anticipates that improv=ents to address this cumulative impact will begin late 2005 and will include lane re-striping and signal modification. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant Significant Impact: Short-t= impacts along Main Street between I-80S and the project driveway would be significant but mitigable. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: As stated in the significance thresholds, when a street segment is calculated to result in LOS D or worse, the GMOC method is to be utilized to det=ine whether the impact is significant in the short-t=. The GMOC method is thus applied to the segment of Main Street between I-80S and the project driveway since the project would cause this segment to operate at LOS D. As seen in Table 5.8.8 for Main Street between I-80S and the project driveway, the project is calculated to add 7,800 ADT to this segment (50,800 total) over the existing + cumulative projects and growth scenario (43,000 ADT). Based on the GMOC significance criteria identified in Section 5.8.3, the project would exceed the threshold of 800 ADT. Next, the project would be LOS D for more than 2 hours, since the calculations for LOS presented in Table 5.8.8 was calculated on a 24-hour basis. Lastly, as shown in the table, the 7,800 project trips would comprise 15 percent of the segment volume (7,800 divided by 50,800 equals 0.15), exceeding the GMOC 5 percent threshold. All three GMOC significance criteria are met, and in conclusion, short-t= impacts along Main Street between I-80S and the project driveway would be significant. Mitigation Measure: For the short-t= significant impact along Main Street between the easterly edge of the Caltrans right-of-way at the I-80S and the project driveway, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: R/QJ?nnA ?O __J Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design and construct a raised median on Main Street between I-80S and the proj ect driveway. No median breaks will be allowed. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: At the Main Street westbound left-turn at the project driveway, impacts resulting from queue lengths are considered to be significant, as this would result in inefficient intersection functionality and an increase in delay. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: At the project driveway there will be 640 feet of storage available in the eastbound direction, 220 feet in the westbound direction, and 200 feet in the northbound direction. The maximum queue is calculated to extend 421 feet in the eastbound direction, 356 feet in the westbound direction, and 194 feet in the northbound direction. The 356-foot westbound queue length is for the one-lane left-turn into the project driveway and exceeds the storage capacity available and therefore would result in a significant impact. All other queues for the proj ect do not exceed the available storage. That is, queues at the new project driveway or the Oleander AvenuelMain Street intersection are calculated to not extend across adjacent intersections with the exception· of the westbound left-turn at the project driveway. Impacts would be significant at the westbound left-turn at the project driveway. Mitigation Measure: For the significant impact resulting trom queuing on westbound Main Street at the project driveway intersection, the following mi.tigation measures are provided: . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure new traffic signal equipment at the project driveway. The westbound approach on Main Street shall be designed with two left-turn lanes at the Main StreetlProj ect Driveway intersection. The provision of two left turn lanes would result in the need to widen Main Street to the south, east of the project driveway. Section 1512604(a)(I)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the effects of a mitigation measure shall be discussed in a CEQA document, but in less detail than -.. .., /-, . 8/9/2004 30 Chu/a Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact . the effect of the proposed project. The widening of Main Street discussed in mitigation measure (c) above would result in the loss of 5 parking spaces on the adjacent SBC property, and the loss of some landscaping on the Fuller property east of SBC. The total size of the existing SBC parking lot is 50 spaces. The City Municipal Zoning Code (September 1998), per Section 19.62.050, defines the number of parking spaces required for designated land uses and structures. While no exact match is found in the Zoning Code for the limited industrial use of the SBC facility, the Zoning Code does define parking requirements for service and maintenance centers, and business and professional offices. Service and maintenance centers require one parking space for each one thousand square feet. The building square footage for the facility is estimated at 8,200 square feet. Therefore, under the one space per 1,000 square feet criterion, a total of 8.2 parking spaces would be required. Using the business and professional offices designation, one parking space per each 300 square feet would be required, or 27.3 spaces. Therefore, with the 45 parking space that would remain with implementation of the project, the SBC facility would still meet City parking standards, and parking impacts would be less than significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. H. AIR QUALITY Standards of Significance: Criteria for det=ining significance is based upon the Chula Vista General Plan and Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the Initial Study Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). For this section, the following criteria are used to determine the significance of an impact: . Conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. · Result in the release of substantial concentrations of pollutants such as ozone or respirable particulates (pM-1 0). · Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). R/~/?nn.:1 " _J Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act . Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. . Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople. Specific thresholds of significance for regional air pollution emissions have not been adopted by the City of Chula Vista or by any responsible or co=enting agency such as the SDAPCD. The City of San Diego has recently updated its CEQA Assessment guidelines for air quality, and has included emissions levels that should be considered "substantial" even if there is no means to directly correlate these emissions to ambient air quality. In the absence of any other guidelines, use of the City of San Diego thresholds (similarly used by San Diego County DPLU stafffor all pollutants except ROG) are reco=ended in order to determine if the project would have an impact on the regional air quality plan or contribute substantial amounts of dangerous particulates. Table 5.9-3, City of San Diego Thresholds for Determining Impacts summarizes these thresholds. TABLE 5.9-3 City of San Diego Thresholds for Determining Impacts (Recommended for use in the City of Chula Vista) Recommended Screening Guidelines Source: Giroux and Associates, February 2004, pg. 11. Significant Impact: Contribution to the San Diego Air Basin's non-attainment status ofPM-lO emissions would constitute a significant impact. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: In total, PM -10 emissions resulting from proj ect construction and site preparation would total 37.5 pounds per day. Despite the project's commitment to incorporate minimum dust abat=ent measures, contribution to the San Diego Air Basin's non-attainment status of PM-IO emissions would constitute a significant but mitigable impact. 8/912004 32 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Mitigation Measure: In order to control impacts related to temporary PMIO emissions, the following best available control mechanisms shall be irD.plemented during construction: · Limit simultaneous disturbance to as small an area as possible. · Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. · Use electrical construction equipment as practical. · Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. · Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. · Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. · Stabilize (for example, hydroseed) graded areas as quickly as possible to minimi"e fugitive dust. · Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible. · Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building construction. · Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blowoff during hauling. · Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph. Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above would reduce residual impacts below a level of significance. Significant Impact: Ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) will have a significant cumulative impact even if individual thresholds are not exceeded. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElF... below a level of significance. Explanation: All pollutants will be below significance thresholds during grading activities. But because of the non-attainment status for the air basin, ozone precursor emissions would contribute to significant cumulative effects. Mitigation Measure: During construction, equipment exhaust emissions shall bemitigated by employing control measures. These measures include: · mandatory periodic 10w-NOx tune-ups for on-site diesel equipment and; R/~J?nn4 .. u__~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact . restrictions on idling times (not to exceed 10 minutes) during breaks or while trucks unload. Significance After Mitigation: Cumulative contributions to the non-attainment status of the regional air basin would be mitigated through the incorporation of this mitigation measure. I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Standards of Significance: Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: would the project 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 fire or police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities? Instead of simply including this broad question as a significance threshold, the City has adopted Growth Management Thresholds specific to the needs of the City. These thresholds are consistent with the intent of CEQA and in effect, provide more specific direction for significance findings. These thresholds are therefore used. The project would result in a significant impact if: · Adequate water storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are not constructed concurrently with planned growth and water quality standards are jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. · Sewage flows and volumes exceed City Engineering standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering standards. · A total oB acres of park land per 1,000 residents is not established east ofI-805. · Police units are not able to respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within seven minutes or less or maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within seven minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of seven minutes or less. · Fire and medical units are not able to respond to calls within seven minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within five minutes or less in 75% of the cases. . , 819/2004 34 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact · Other public facility capacities and/or service levels are compromised ¡is a result of the proj ect. Significant Impact: Because the project lacks interior water infrastructure, the Otay Water District would not have the ability to adequately service the development without connections from the street to the planned buildings. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: The Otay District stated that the project could be adequately serviced trom the 12-inch potable main located within Main Street. However, without the proper District-approved infrastructure onsite, the ability to adequately serve the project could be impaired. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. · Prior to issuance of grading p=its, the applicant shall submit water facility improvement plans to the Otay Water District in order to ensure adequate interior project laterals. If it is determined that additional laterals are necessary, the applicant shall be required to install them or pay for their installation. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Development of the project without relocation of an existing sewer line would cause significant impacts to the pipeline. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: The development includes placement of a structure in the location of an existing City of San Diego sewer line. Relocation of the line will be necessary and will require approval by the City of San Diego. OInJr')nnA Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. . Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that the proposed segment of the Auto Park Sewer and the City of San Diego Sewer serving the proj ect have adequate capacity to handle proj ected flows Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The development of the project would increase demand for police services and contribute to the cumulative need for additional officers and equipment. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: The Chula Vista Police Department haS indicated they will provide service to the project. However, development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in police service calls, which would contribute to a potential failure to meet Growth Management standards. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. . Prior to issuance of building permits, the proj ect applicant shall be required to pay the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as determined by the City Engineer, to offset impacts on City fire, police, emergency services and other services. The applicant will also be required to pay the Fee Recovery District Fee, as determined by the City Engineer, to help further offset impaëis to City fire, police, emergency and other services. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire servJ.ce demand throughout the City. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen 819/2004 36 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: As the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista continues to develop, and redevelop as is the case for this project, additional fire protection services will be necessary. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service d=and throughout the City. Mitigation Measure: see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures [c} Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The proposed project could contribute to increased demand on school facilities resulting in a potentially significant impact. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Although the project would not involve additional residential units which could in turn result in a strain on local school facilities, construction of co=ercialland uses never the less indirectly contributes to population growth. Overall population growth results in the need for new schools. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition ofapproval and is made binding on the City through these findings. · Prior to issuance of building permits, in order to offset indirect impacts to local school facilities, the project applicant will contribute to a state-mandated fund in the amount of $0.36 per square foot. A portion of this fee will be transferred back to the Chula Vista Elementary School District and/or Sweetwater Union High School District. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. ,.. A/~/?nn4 '7 ---~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact J. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET Standards of Significance: P1Jrsuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts would be considered significant if the project would: · Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. · Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment' through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. · Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. · Be 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. · 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. · For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety. hazard for people residing or working in the project area. · Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. · Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, IDJUI)' or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Significant Impact: Because the project is plarmed on a site known to support potentially hazardous materials such as sandblast grit, involving exposure of the public to harmful conditions, could result in significant impacts during construction! grading activities. Finding: P1Jrsuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen , ), 8/9/2004 38 ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR,. below a level of significance. Explanation: Based on information contained in San Diego County Department of Environmental Health files, between 1978 and 1981, approximately 2,000 truckloads of sandblast grit from shipyards were used as fill material along the north and south banks of the Otay River. A preliminary characterization of the sandblast grit at the southern storage facility was conducted in 1986. This study concluded that the material consisted of waste sand from the blasting of boat bottoms included toxins typically found in paints, mainly consisting of heavy metals, including copper, lead and zinc. These constituents have the potential to result in significant impacts to human health ¡j not properly handled and contained. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. · In order to safely contain sandblast grit trom the project site, special handling of the fill material is warranted. Prior to issuance of grading p=its, a health and safety plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be reviewed by the appropriate agency. The plan shall not be limited to worker health and safety but shall include hazardous material handling specifications, proper waste characterization for disposal and storm water and erosion management. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: Development of the site has the potential for PCE exposure. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will s)lbstantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of significance. Explanation: PCE was detected in a single sample at an elevated concentration. Follow- up soil vapor sampling around the sample location did not detect the presence of PCE or other VOCs suggesting that this is a very localized condition. However, location of a structure on a site that contains potentially harmful materials, that when disturbed could result in exposure of the public to harmful conditions results in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. -- R/Q/?004 00 --_._.._--.~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact . In order to reduce risks from PCE exposure, r=oval of 10ca,lized concentrations must occur before or during site redevelopment. During grading, a· qualified hazardous materials specialist shall monitor grading activities within the areas of potential PCE contamination. Soils shall be excavated and sampled using a mobile laboratory onsite. If elevated levels of PCE are detected, the impacted soils shall be r=oved, handled and disposed of in accordance with existing state and local regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils shall continue until contaminant levels reach acceptable risk based levels. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Significant Impact: The oily stained soil observed throughout the site could be a potential hazard during site redevelopment. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of significance. Explanation: Potentially exposing the public or surrounding environment to a hazardous substance, such as is evidenced by oily stained soil, is considered significant. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. . In order to mitigate for spilled oils or other automobile or equipment residue, proper cleanup. of soils is required. A qualified hazardous materials specialist shall monitor grading activities within the areas of potential petroleum hydrocarbons contamination. Soils shall be excavated, sampled and properly analyzed. If elevated levels of PCE are detected, the impacted soils shill be reused onsite or r=oved, handled and disposed of in accordance with existing state and local regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils shall continue until contaminant levels reach acceptable risk based levels. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant Significant Impact: Containment of hazardous materials onsite, as opposed to r=oval of the materials could result in exposure of people to hazardous conditions. .' 8/9/2004 40 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Finding:,Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will 'substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: The proposed proj ect will result in a site that continues to contain "inert solid wastes" on a property located adjacent to the Otay River. Therefore, the project may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to enroll in a maintenance and monitoring order pursuant to Section 13264 of the California Water Code. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. · Should the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) decide to add the project site to its inactive landfill list, the property owner shall comply with the RWQCB's requirements with respect to monitoring and maintenance of an inactive landfill site on an ongoing basis. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant Significant Impact: Redevelopment of the site could expose the public to hazards associated with abandoned septic systems. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of significance. Explanation: The existing residences onsite are serviced by septic systems, which could contain hazards to future users of the site. Potentially exposing the public or surrounding environment to a hazardous substance is considered significant Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and. is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings. · In order to mitigate for potential hazards associated with existing septic tanks onsite, the construction contractor shall fill in the septic units. Filling the units prevents contamination during the decommissioned state (San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, April 2, 2004, pers. co=.). The project " 819/2004 41 _ ____J -------.._~-_._,._-_._--- Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact applicant will then be required to provide proof of septic tank filling to the City prior to issuance of building permits. . Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. IX. CUMULATIVE MEASURES SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION In many cases, the impact of a single project may not be significant, but when combined with other projects, the "cumulative" impact may be significant. Section i5355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "cumulative impacts" as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) states that "the discussion [of cumulative impacts] need not provide as great of detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone." Section 15130(b) further states that a cumulative impacts discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Cumulative impacts can occur from the interactive effects of a single project. For example, the combination of noise and dust generated during construction activities can be additive and can have a greater impact than either noise or dust alone. However, substantial cumulative impacts more often result trom the combined effect of past, present and future projects that are located in proximity to the project under review. For example, the wastewater treatment demand generated by a project may not be significant when analyzed alone, however, when analyzed in combination with the wastewater demands of approved or proposed projects, the wastewater demands may exceed the resource capabilities of the service agency, resulting in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments which may have i¡npacts that might compound or interretate with those of the project under review. A. Biological Resources Cumulative Impact: Continued development within the eastern areas of Chula Vista and the extension of SR-125 would extend urban land uses into vacant areas characterized by natural habitats and utilized by the region's sensitive plant and wildlife species. . Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project ") 819/2004 42 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative: is described in Section X of these findings. However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources and is a requirement of project approval. Explanation: Although the project will result in minimal direct impacts to biological resources and would not contribute to the elimination of undeveloped land for urban uses, development of this project, combined with the others described above would contribute to the increase in human presence within the Otay River Valley and eastern Chula Vista area. It is anticipated that cumulative impacts to sensitive biologic8J. resources could be mitigated on a project by project basis by preservation of open space. within project boundaries, and contributions to the MSCP Preserve. The MSCP was designed to address cumulative and growth inducing impacts on a regional basis. The proposed project is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and will provide mitigation for individual project impacts and reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: . Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise attenuation features (such as berms or walls) shall be implemented during construction should sensitive wildlife species be present. Implementation of any required measures will be verified by the City during construction. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines.. contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · Per mitigation measure 5.2.5 [a], light shielding to protect the Preserve trom spill- over when deemed appropriate from a public safety standpoint shall be implemented. Low sodium lighting shall also be utilized. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, .c./o/?nM AO -.- ----~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · Although extensive landscaping is not anticipated next to the preserve, any landscaping shall utilize native vegetation. Prior to issuance of grading p=its, landscape plans demonstrating that inv,asive plant species are not used in areas that could potentially result in impacts to the Preserve shall be submitted and approved by the City. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed in all drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of contaminants into the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading plans and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading p=its, and installation of such measures shall be verified by the City during project construction. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · If the project is to be constructed during the least Bell's vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey shall occur prior to issuance of grading permits. If an occupied nest of ~east Bell's vireo is discovered, and if noise associated with clearing, grading,' or grubbing will negatively impact the nest, noise levels shall not be p=itted to exceed 60 Leq as determined through construction monitoring by the City's biologist. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · A pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall also occur prior to issuance of grading p=its, if proj ect construction is to occur during the raptor breeding 8/9/2004 44 II ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact season (January 15 to July 31). In areas potentially affecting nesting raptor sites, noise levels will be modified, if necessary, to prevent nOIse from negatively impacting the breeding success of any detected pair during the breeding season. Compliance with this measure will be verified through field monitoring by the City's biologist. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season(s), no additional mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · Any trimming of willow canopies extending into construction areas will be done under the supervision of the City's biologist. Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigati5Jn to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant co=unities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows: · A biological monitor shall be present onsite periodically during grading and site preparation to ensure that grading and disturbance activities do not encroach into sensitive areas. Implementation of this mitigation measure will also preserve regional wildlife corridor functions of the Otay River Valley. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less than significant levels by incorporating mitigation measures as described in the EIR, B. Water Quality And Hydrology Cumulative Impact: Runoff from project construction areas and regular parking lot and landscape irrigation systems will contribute to the incremental increase in urban runoff to the Otay River system. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in Section X of these findings. R/Q/?nn.¡ A< -! Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact However, the following mitigati9n measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to water quality and is a requirement of project approval. Explanation: Although the project represents new development with an associated increase in impervious surfaces, because the project site currently supports an urban use with a greater potential to result in contaminated runoff, incremental increases in water quality impacts would not be considered significant. Further, compliance by all surrounding projects with applicable federal, state and city regulations for stormwater and construction discharges, including the application of Best Management Practices would reduce cumulative impacts to water quality to a level below significance. Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NO!) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the co=encement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's Development and Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual and fill out all applicable forms associated with the Manual. Finally, due to the project's size of over 100,000 square feet, it is a Priority Development Project and hence subject to the requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required: · Soil Sediments: all landscaped areas will be self-contained due to the gentle slope of the site. · Fertilizers: All fertilizers shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over application. Proper wetting and other management techniques will help eliminate blowoff or other non-absorption problems. · Pesticides: All pesticides shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over application. As much as possible, pesticides that decompose into non-harmful elements within short periods oftime shall be used. i L 81912004 46 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact · Metals: Application techniques such as coating shall be utilized in order to reduce potential contamination. · Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons and other organic compounds shall not be utilized. · Trash and Debris: Trash shall be contained in covered receptacles and collected regularly to avoid exceeding container capacity. Containers will be placed on-site for tenants and patrons. Any escaping trash will be picked up during regularly scheduled parking lot sweeping. . Petroleum Products: The parking areas will be swept regularly and steam cleaned to remove accumulated soils and greases. . General Site Runoff. During and after construction, slope protection/erosion control measures will be required.. The following site design treatments are required: · All runoff generated at the site will be captured and treated in an acceptable B:MP facility before reaching the sto= drain outlet at the Otay River. · Pervious surfaces, including large planted areas adj acent to buildings and beneath roof gutter outfalls shall be used as much as possible in order to allow for more onsite percolation. · Large planted areas, where feasible, where runoff can collect before entering the storm drain shall be located around buildings. · Where feasible the roof drains shall discharge into the landscaped areas prior to entering the storm drain system All Source Control BMPs identified in the November 2003 Stuart Engineering Report shall be implemented. The following best management practices shall be adbered to during cqnstruction: . Gravel bags, silt fences, etc. shall be placed along the edge of the proj ect site in order to contain particulate prior to contact with the Otay River area. · All concrete washing and spoils dumping will occur in a designated location. · Construction stockpiles, uncovered material and dumpsters will be covered in order to prevent blow-off or runoff during weather events. . A pollution control education plan shall be developed by the General Contractor and implemented throughout all phases of development and construction. · Severe weather event erosion control facilities shall be stored onsite for use as needed. 8/9/2004 47 , __J Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. C. Transportation, Circulation, And Access Cumulative Impact: The project would contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to traffic circulation on Main Street. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in Section X of these findings. However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to circulation and is a requirement of project approval. Explanation: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main Street/I-805 SB ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The impact is not considered to be a project-specific impact because, as noted in the EIR, the intersection would already operate at LOS E without the project, and project trips would not comprise 5 percent of the entering volume. Mitigation Measure: For the significant cumulative impact at the Main St/I-805 interchange, southbound ramps, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a fair share, as determined by the City, towards adding a second westbound left-turn lane on Main Street from the I-80S southbound off-ramp. The second westbound left-turn lane is included in the City's existing Capital Improvement:I'rogram (CIP). The funding source for the second westbound left turn lane is included in the City's Transportation Deve10!,ment Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The City of Chula Vista anticipates that improvements to address this cumulative impact will begin late 2005 and will include lane re-striping and signal modification. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant 81912004 48 ChuZa Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact x. POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a proj ect as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the proj ect as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. As noted earlier, in Section VI of these Findings, an alt=ative may be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, sociar, and technological factors." of a project. (City of Del Mar. SUUTa. 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; see also SeQuovah Hills. IDllm, 23 Cal.Appo4th at 715.) In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, as is the case with this Project, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alt=atives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 CaI.3d 376 [253 CaI. Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 CaI.App.3d 515 [147 CaI. Rptr. 842]; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 CaI.App.3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]. Notwithstanding the fact that the Project would not result in significant unmitigated impacts, the City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alt=atives as "infeasible" pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a.successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." [Pub. Resources Code section 21061.1.] The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 states, "The lack oflegal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 CaI.3d 553,565 [276 CaI. Rptr. 410].) Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to h RIQI?nn.,¡ 4a Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which ideÌ1tifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final ErR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(l).] (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. [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(2).] (3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project altematives identified in the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3).] The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar V. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaI.App.3d 410, 417 [183 CaI. Rptr. 898]) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 CaI.Appo4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182].) These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the proposed project has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet. the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental impact. The findings below examine the alternatives to determine feasibility. The detailed discussion in Section IX demonstrates that all significant environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal mitigation measures reco=ended in the EIR. Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives identified in the Draft EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to these . .. ".- "__..r / 8/912004 50 Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact impacts. (Laurel Hills. supra. 83 CaI.App.3d at 519-527; [147 Cal.Rptr. 842J; KingS County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 CaI.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 CaI.Rptr. 650J; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 CaI.3d 376, 400-403 [253 CaI.Rptr. 426].) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior. A. No Project Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the project site would not be redeveloped and the existing automobile storage facility would remain and continue operation. Project-level impacts would be avoided. The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative would not meet the following project objectives: · The e1imination of existing blighted conditions, and the prevention of recurring blight in and about the Project Area. · The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of local co=erce and needed co=ercial and industrial facilities, increasing local employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area, and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the Proj ect Area. · The creation of a more cohesive and unified co=unity by strengthening the physical, social, and economic ties between residential, co=ercial, industrial and recreational land uses within the co=unity and the Project Area. · The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system me from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interferences. · Removal of outdoor storage uses trom the site and redevelopment into a productive co=ercial center providing jobs and sales tax revenue. · Dedication of land to the OVRP/MSCP Preserve to promote the goals of Chula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan related to conservation of sensitive species and habitats and the OVRP Concept Plan. · Establishment of a freeway-oriented co=ercial center to provide co=ercial uses that are easily aècessible to the surrounding community. Finding: The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the primary objectives of the project in f"lfilliT1g the goals of the Redevelopment Plan to convert underutilized land uses that currently contribute to blighting conditions within the project area to economically productive uses that benefit the co=unity. In addition, the No Proj ect alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation R/9/?n04 1;' ~ Chula Vista Crossings Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact B. Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation Alternative This project alternative would involve construction of light industrial uses, such as light manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and office-related uses. This facility would likely require s:imilar site work and redevelopment efforts as the proposed proj ect. Building footprints would likely consume a larger percentage of the entire site. The Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation alternative would not meet the following project objective: · Establishment of a freeway-oriented co=ercial center to proVide co=ercial uses that are easily accessible to the surrounding co=unity. Finding: The City and the Redevelopment Agency have determined that, due to the location of the site relative to regional access facilities and existing residential communities, co=ercial uses would better serve the community and would more fully satisfy the project objectives. In addition, the Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation. C. Reduced Density Alternative This project alternative would involve the development of a co=ercial retail center similar to that proposed, however the size of the project would be less. Instead of developing a site with up to 188,000 square feet of retail commercial space, a total of 141,000 square feet would be constructed (an approximate 25% reduction in total building square footage). The site would be prepared, graded and designed in a similar manner as the proposed proj ect. The alternative would result in less land cover of the site. Finding: The Reduced Density alternative would partially fulfill all of the project objectives as outlined in the EIR, but would not provide the level of economic benefit that the proposed project would provide. More importantly, the alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation. 8/9/2004 52 II Etllft!;/ T '/;3 /1 INTRODUCTION This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the Chula Vista Crossings comn:ìercial development, to comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which req1rires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed proj ect and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following: · Monitoring team qualifications · Specific monitoring activities · Reporting system · Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures The proposed project involves redevelopment of an existing outdoor storage facility located at the southeast comer ofI-805 and Main Street to commercial retail use. A total of 17.2 acres of commercial uses are being proposed on the 24.1 acre project site. The proposed project would include the construction of seven buildings with an approximate totalleaseable building area of 188,038 square feet. The remaining 6.8 acres and 0.08 acre will be set aside as open space to be dedicated to the Otay Valley Regional Park and planned improvements to Main Street, respectively. The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR inc1u4e land use, planning and zoning, landform and alteration, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, agricultural resources, housing and population, water resources and water quality, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, public services and utilities, hazards/risk of upset, cumulative and growth-inducing impacts. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced· through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Chu1a ChuJa Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01 MMRP-1 Augus1 2004. - ... · .. . ... .at -. Vista Crossings commercial development, therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above. MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and the MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities: · Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in working under trying field circumstances; · Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special features found in the project area; · Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost- effective mitigation options; and · Excellent communication skills. The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following: · Implement and manage the monitoring program; · Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring; · Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final construction monitoring; · Act as liaison between the City ofChula Vista and the applicant's contractors; · Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs and ESs in the Understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project requirements, construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort; · Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit conditions; · Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation or proposed additional mitigation; · Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and · Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and personnel responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance. Chula Vista Crossings EIR 39~1 MMRP-2 August 2004 - ---_..~- -~- CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and functions are to: · Maintain a working knowledge of the Chula Vista Crossings' permit conditions, contract documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation requirements for his or her assigned construction area; · Assist the MM and Chula Vista Crossings construction contractors in coordinating with City ofChula Vista compliance activities; · Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit conditions; and · Provide trequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist the MM as necessary in preparing status reports. The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project implementation and to provide direction for mitigation. PROGRAM PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects. An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. .All parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City ofChula Vista would include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and the construction crew supervisor. The MM would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time fÌ'arne that these mitigation measures are anticipated to be implemented. In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the Chula Vista Crossings ElR 3984-01 August 2004 MMRP-3 j,' . .. . ... ... ." mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MM following the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major accomplislunents of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each EM or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the MM. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone 10gs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula Vista to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project. ACTIONS IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted c.onditions of approval: · Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment; · Intraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or task delay; and · Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay. In each case, the MM would notifY the Chula Vista Crossings contractor and the City of Chula Vista of the noncompliance, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily basis. There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01 August 2004 MMRP-4 --~--- ~- --- ------__~-.-J CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY OF PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES The following table lists the proposed project mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Crossings Project has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors, the City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will further refine the mitigation measures. Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01 MMRP-5 August 2004 L. x x x !~,§Æ~ ~Eê æ~õ 'õ......-ã,--S ~-ã---8'5 "t:: .="g.=1fJ= ~1s15 Is '" ì! .,.. '" " - '-" ã5 co c.·=-I!)uar"'O~m·e. II) .......~ CD .... ë3 CD "'C!j B :a.å.·I-~~!5æ 5c:: CO CD _ = t:n r:-- "C=,6....-§,.9.si.ê! ~ ,m == '" '" '" I!! ~.E"* g>õ~.,; ¡¡.@-O ¡;¡ g~'Ëë·>~.g ¡;]¡~ ~~~gÈ~t:n~æ!5~ _j!5~ruCl)..EQj 'CiS:¡: 1ü '"CCI) '-"'O-->'wI'C .= - E c;...ccaa II) mF;:,gJXrnÕ "'C r::::;t:-=ðEøi::a> .!2c rc~CI')":=ï=Q::J::_"'C1U IS..:> ffi .- t:- tI) 1'ð r::: . ~æ1S.~;; à.g-£5.~-æ §"I -= c: OJã5 ..I:: ct) -0 c: .... ~ ..c: 0) C::'- - _-¡¡0 IV ftJ 0 ~ w 0--=-= .¡:;.,- .... = c: =CI)-ðU~..!EIC.3ID:2 11! <C~=~ð~Q)~=~C::~ :g.s..æ-g ~ ~ ::êc:2t'1:1 ~g~",~; ~~CD·~æC =~~CI:I~ ~Ë:æ;:,a:c.. c: c: E n:I Bg~E>.~ ctJ- 8 ø en '6'a. 0 =æ ..c run:l-_>~ Q).!3c: ~æun:l>-CI'J =..c ~"'õ....æz:- ;:, E 0'- :§cn'_Q) U ~Ø-~CDQ) £íd:æ== §C:06!5-o-'" IU -.E II) "~"'CŒI cn"i ~.~ gf § § U,j ]ã.§·tJu~ ~ ~C::8.c:>- .EtsEcn.2SS Æ§..a~õ~ -:æ_~c::u J!i2~5g~ .- CD tI) II) .s E'i "'051;- ~:¡¡~8åJã! -t'I:I..c::_¡::: ~g 3: U) ~æ '6"ñ$....§-> ro -= 0 = Q) .... - u....:..c 0).!!U'.I2æ:= _œE1ñw"j O¡;;..8§~CI) CD § c.. e gE~g'.8æc: rc CD ··c to 0 ~~£..s ¡ß ~u ,,!!!cu;:,-o"Q"Os iii~ga.~CI) 0_ c:: en'- s;¡ - c: 1I)!12 ::I Ö .....~eE.ægr:n 0= ::::I~=.... c: o¡:: c..ñi c..B >.;:: a.. !6-.s.s"3: æ-5 1:æRl'.8 g go E --"E£= '" e '" ..............siš U1~-ê ~ ~ 8"E e 5..- ~ a.. g."'t:J "'" co ~:;"'t:J.$! '" '" ~ E -¡¡ E - 3J _ª ~"'t:J.æ roO ern 0)- CD 11) ~ .~-¡ " " .... ~ as:5 Q).::: > ::::J c..~o . ;;; ... ., '" '" ~ Q a: ::¡ ::¡ '" w ~ " c ". f! u s . :> c ;; .c U ... o o N .. ~ '" ~ « ~ '" '" '" ';- Q, 0: ::; ::; ~ g~8g~]~~ ~~2~Æ~~~g ~~~~~]~~æ~ S~~ iii .. 'iij E ~ - > " ...- 'i E - 15' '£ 2: 1i! w" >!i!'"!5 ë. '2 is " ~ '~CÐ-æ.8.¡;rd13i '::¡~-Ë~ë:!l~a. -ê~;Cñ¡-ag»:~~ Œ~oJij ~ ~ifQj;i; ~~t~;~æ;~ ~~1~3~~~~~ '~;8 : }qti~~~ ïJ~~~U~P ~1~iS~·I;;-~~g~·~~~1 ~ ~mc ~wS~ ~~m œœo~~ 0~ i=~ cœ~ ~=~ ~ ~5~~1==~ m~5~E~B~= §£ ~~~ómS§ CÐ~wt ~ œ£~ EI~j E~~§~~~iU Æi B~~t5j §~i§~ ~ .lli~!~;E 11~lill~~ B!;I§IOlllli!l~ ~-C0~~œ~~ ~~-E 'oS§ ~~~~=~óE~5~u8I i~~"1:) g'.!!~~j'5 >."ª ~ E-š ¡ §.g~~.§"Q~.ð "-~.Þi~·:1J~~~ ~~; i=~œ~O~~8.CÐ= ~œœw~~m ~o=iE ~CÐ~~=-~~ ~ e IZ) o1U co- CU Cf è:;u 51ü 01;; e.£z:.iñ-c !s..Æõ.8..!i~1:1.> E1!u ñiEi- œ~~~~"-~-~~~~~êS~~D£~~œ_œ=~o ~=~~ _~= ~o~-"Co"Ci~œ-="C~E - "C~~~ØWœ~CÐ~~m_~~~~~ ~~~~jæ~~8~~~æ~~~~~æ~~~js~~~j=~~~<~~ª . . . . '" iij i:\ '1 u .5 w :> . ;; ... U ... 8 '" -;¡ ~ '" ~ ~.8__~ ~ ~=¡..ê m..ê § ~æ ~~-g~ u -~~~~~-~ ~~ ~~m_ ~=¡~gm5D~õg ã~ 0 ~~ M ~~~~~ - ~m~~-gS~ ~~C~ æc~3·E ~§~~m~~ ~~-£..êE~~~~ W~~~ ~g =mæ~- ~m~§ ~Zo~~o~ f6-ir)ìtSC1.!!l:5 0= g. :ëepC-Õ -8.~ a.ß·ê= E 5-.:t'6 !;t;=-,,,.Q'g:È c:: oOQ):::J-5-oLL.CD16 è.33~=æ"" en c-::;"'O_j"Q). u8.0':;C U)(.)..r::: C)e-8 ~~~ ~ = c~~mCDcnC1~~" m~m~~B= ~¿3~e..r:::Oc::C= C-cnn iO _ m=_~CD_ _cn~~"'O_~~ cgÕCO~:::J ~ .....è1So..~ï5.......!!L~51..... .Q§~"'Ooüu) ~BcE~E=~ me~~_ -m~ ~~~~~8~]~~:E~~~~6gm 3 "'00) .r; oC)mECCD~ =mCD _C1Q»_C~ 2~~~8~o~~€~ oE~~C~~cn~~cn- æO~M ~ ;;j"8 ~~ gJ CD~C!!:! ~ ð"B CI):ëi-¡:: e~ æ ~CEcouDU8nE<£5<&~'6u . . ~ 'i .§ e'õ ~a :¡¡ 6 E-c ~'E .28 ~~ :=:.:a E~ 0_ :>.. .- C'C CD £§16 Õ·~~ § ;;.~ 1ûè:CI:: ë~iû CDeÕ ~ Q.Q) o..O..c: .E~15 -~o 0.,.,- S ~~ æ E CD e"- en " I!! -'=1"" 6-:::JCD I!!-a¡£ ~ ~ ~ 0 c-ol!! s>¡- áJ '" ð "" . :a- ~ Q) .!!l '" - '" Q)c::~j: ..r::: C'C.__ -ã:"g æ S -- t.) .- == I; 3=m-¡ë: B~"'C "v.¡ C::::JSC ~ '^ <tI ('C ---TI~ c. 0- § CD CI) ~ U=~.s! ,.,.... i?'i\!í >. æ.Q"'C..r:::i3-c: '!5¡-è1ij -è ~ " i? li! ~'¡;-a¡ ~~~,g~!5 o>,.,¡;¡~C~ effi¡¡¡ '0 =", ~ffi1! ~ ~ f¡J 8'~ i 1IIo¡...'i iii ~'--5 ;;;i!~æ_æ Õ'6~~..ê Os:: :S- i~!5g;ê6~ i... iß'8 0> ~ ~~_C ~ :t-.- c "-¡;j ¡;:¡ 'ª ~ « is.._ ¡: O)U) o ..t '" '" '" 'í '" cr' ::¡ ::¡ .. ¡¡; i:\ c 1: e u . '¡¡; :; . '3 .c u ... o ¡;¡ ;; ~ co ~ « ~ ~ '" '" '" d. a: ::; ::; .. .. ¡;; ¡;; 5 5 .. .. "5 "'5 '" '" U u '5 '5 1!:- 1!:- C3 ð x x x ~.~~~~Iš]Æ'5§læ].E.§ EÆ ~~!giM~ e~~~l~~~~ë~~~E~~i~ ~'5 ~a:~~E~~ Ili;iii!M~fl!~ii!~ :! ~~i§~~j ~~Æ§~~§~a:~~!~i~~~=~ j~ ",]ª~~:8 1 ~ w -o~~- ~- C' - Øm~ ~~~'t5~-Š_~~~-~:¡~i ··jÆ H-g~~~~·5i1:1.g, ~:S8~~~i~æ~~~Eil~£ ~~~m~~~~~§ s-c-Bi=g=~~æ~_-~Ia¡ ~..EêuE~]__ ~1-]E!~~"~'5I~;:"!Æ~1 ~1~1~11~lo ~:!!iË0)5.,gQ)-aöOra =æ= .S Q)l:"'O~~CI)cdQEç -.c~æU'5 ~ -~.,c c c -c~~o g~~~~"læ=I~~~æ~~~$;1 Æg~~m~~~~~ '" ¡s,-'" I¡; ,¡¡ ~.. .. .~.- .. i E ~.o '" ~ ~ w ~ m ~~ ~~ w_ _ Q)M_~ u~ II ~ f m¿rl~~i.!~ l~iø~~I¡¡~ .E ¡;¡ 1] i ~£ [.5 ¡j is ¡¡ '§ e i'õ § ~ æ < e ~ i5 ¡;¡ 8 i6'i5'!¡ ~ '" ¡¡j ill c .~ U ~ :> .!! = '" u 8 N 10 " co " « '" '" .!!! .!!! 'iñ 'iñ W W 5 5 5 5 '" '" '" '" :; :; :; :; .<: .<: .<: .<: U U U u 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ "'" "'" "'" "'" ¡:¡ ¡:¡ ¡:¡ ¡:¡ x x "o°5-QC)ctI>"(D"'t:JECD i- el:: "t:-:5CD -5 "'w._'2'õ II! ...,g", c c CD ~ ~ DE ~ ~ ..æ ~ ~ g- am a. 0 =e >- ~ Cf,I .... c: .....r:: > .;:-. rÐ § ~ C)1ij CI) C) 2 CD .!! ~ _ ~rn~-5-;;58:æ:š~ Cf,I i 5mæ-~:Š~~;~ig. .=~..ê Q),S.2 ~CI) õ-=lij -g 08,_"'''' I?~w" ~. §oF2';;~~C::;:-Q):; --0 i3'ë CU'5'~ c:..r::õ . K ~CI)-=8~1D=-cSQ-o..~ Q.J..c:::t:: CD CD £;..5 J!to oû) Æ "i=gg'~oñi~16-;cn ñi J! E 0 2 .1: "'ffi - :5 : "'0 -g == æ ..c:ï==~~f!!-55"'O -n:l!ijnl""Cñí w"'''SO'''"'C-=ª=E=ctJ r::~ (1)8. ;'t::-C:"'F -rt)I"CIE ä5 1: ~~-Ë~..õ ~g..Q~.:g ~ Õ E c:: Q) CD ëS..;:' V) 0 iñ 'õ > c:_ E 0..&1) C)""C CJm= Q) - Q) .... U nI c: en c::..c: ctI ts ~"'5~.!!e~ Cf,I-.c:=e-"'OQ) :J..c ¡;;¡';3- ~ CD c:~ w_ c. W õ :=. 3: e ë5..t=: ~~;§ ~::g.2 e B " '" " w .!!! .s x x ~~CQ =æ~ C5.s¡"i~'Q U!eõ -- 1iS~ã.U.s.æ ø"'ffi°E"tU.!2 --ðE:::J .... :5='» Q)"C ~=8-g8"8~ C"'t:;œ=_ 0:::1 c::_ ~ ctI to ~..ê: _ tV I'll _ en O'iãu 0- ¡¡¡¡9!'!øE"š 3:=.9 c: CD ~ ~_.......o _ I5S-¡g..cæ "!"iä; æ~ ª rñ 1i~.sctl=æ:R Q)caEo(tlEB >U)etI=..c:æ =..c=Cf,læ"'ffi~ ~~ã)·ËCIJ :¡ij«lª_~o ~æ~Ø)~gui"i-5gð:5~ë >."'0 m ê -ë: u 5 æ e en Cf,I"C .s CD 1:::-.0 5: ~.s~ >8-'Ë= e 5 5= ..r:: U) II) s::: º c: CD 0 IV .... g'rn ru:ß-¡;; c t::.!! E :::J-s-ã5 ~ ·-......r::.....uS.e"'O c: Q)C-R 2~_ëão, 6Q)"æ·ºõt'i;coilS O>ffi·!!!.2 0 en .....2ü_ CIJ:5.... S!2J=~ :g.§~ocu8'.sæQ)",,:..9 .....cO-=;:::I cn-ClJEo" o8-.s2'"CJU)=.2s;¡U):;~~ :::ø§§¡:¡;rn~ :g5iits:ß~!5~ O=Q)Q) C-CDcSGS_V,lQ) c._ ð: o""[16<JS g:= ~~ æ;·~~ x x ~~.¡:¡ ~ '2!Q-ª,ñô 8.~.S!:Z 'iii"'~~ õl1ñië ø= 0. " '" .~ iii:5 c ~ CIJ ·ic?J Q. :§E§~ ;0 == ",'" " 6 æ ~ K! ñ5~.s.J: .!!fõuuË ëñ...c::!:æ;:::l CIJ 0._ CD J2111~æcñ~ ]~.¡;¡..§:::;; ~~ '" &j B' CD_ = V, à:Jg.s8:i: <;; ... '" 0> M o n. a: ::; ::; '" ¡¡j ;¡, . .~ u ~ ;;: . .. .. u ... o o N ;; ~ 0> ~ ~ ~~f~~i!~!~S~~~i~ijlt~~I!~§~~i =:5CJ~8.~~~..:~~I"'8~~"ª .2(0 c:u~8æglõã: ~œ<~~E~œ~~SØ~~~~~~~2~~Eæ~~-S6 ~S ~w~~Si- ~<~co~ ~ ~-§~Æ~~I~' ~~§ CW ~~~ww-~c:5§œwm~Øm-o ~~ e ~I~~IB ~!~~~~~_~E~~~.-~£~i -j 8~~~-m ~ £BZm~8 ~2~~~ ~ª~œ~~~B ~e E~~m~~ ~ = ~~_m .~Em ~~~~ ~~~Æ$O~~c cø~~~~~ø~C8~m~&~~cøc~¡. ~m -cø2m-e~B-cm>E~9 E5Emcø-w~œ~Ñ cøi_s~ ~~;~~~~b£~~~C æ8~¡~~·~= ~ ~~~€glr~~~~~~~§8~a~~~s~~~I~sil _ 0 !1I!o= =' >..!!! 2'" a:: ::;:J3:<= a)U) _&."0_ .- to nII~VJ E =c.....n:¡ C>~CD ::I~"'C C ::;:J CD ~nII~-E5tO =æœEc=-Q)c ag~~gcø~cø Ž tO~~~~_-o~b=~~~~æª~m~ §~tOa::§~=~~"'C CD> - C::;:J nII~_-U ~ to>-o~__o_-ø~c ~-ŒæWStO~ ~>~Ø2æ c ~C~CC-CD~ ~m ~CD æ Uwcø 8owm- oc~o ~CDCD::;:JæB - IficøÆ~~t~ll~c:~~~~~i~~~~lfi:~jl~ ~1~~~i~ð}i~~æji~~§t~§~~;i~i]l~ - ~ '" C) '" - - ò.. a: ::;; ::; I ë 0> \j 2' rã ::;; '" ¡¡; "ij.. · .. ED!! c .~ '3 ë '" cr " .. <.J ... ~è! s g · N :2~ :> - 0 · .. a. " O>::E -; C) ""ED ð ~ ....- 5~ ~~~2 ~~~é~ ~B ~~ ~~~~~~ m~ .~§ ~~ ~~§!~~ðic~ ~~i ~~ m~_§'§~~i~~'æ rc 0 g."'O .§~ ti"-c'" 0 '-" t!:: c = ~=.b"'C'a.RI CD!Q-c e ;~ ;~~~~B~·Rjl ~o ~~ il~~~~mE~i~i ~ ~" .0 rv CO .E- Co - -cg 1ß ~ -g, ~ .r..[ 55 -g "i !; -; ~ -g g' ~ -g ~ ~o~~c~O~[~ &~ Iw 0~~£rc~Õ~_Rl~~~ N~ ~-iæ~~- ~ ~o -g ~~gS~~-CD00~~~ ~5 aW~~0æ~ £.5 ~ ~~m6ëCD~~~~C~e c: ~ "'E ~ en g ~ "'E :1 ~ .5 CD . '. 8. u rc .0 ~ rv CI) CD !!!.9 .~ 0 ..... ~ ~];;2 0 E -:5 -"i 6 ~ e ", ~ B $ = to ¡,; >. "i $:: .J::l =~ :;;;:c:,CD.!Z"ii)c: '3 C:~=t::8.:2ID . '"j:c..-"iñio8.æ m-c ~'-~cc~-CI)~ .R=rc~ ~>~>.~~~u-_~o~ ""'C ~~£~g_~< ~~!~~I~ ~8~~~~~~t~~~CI) ~~ <~ -æ<ê ~æ~~~rcE~ Q ~c..B~~e-~ ~ .-æ 0 E..c 0 :5ECDc.=-§oe" .EQ)rJ1ñO)..c~ë...!;-1I.I e ë ". ëi.i . Q) Õ ;,¡ 'w ¿ ~ ..c <C co U 0 "tJ ..... ,.5 0 ~ Q) ë:i) 5 co -0 ~CI)§E~.CI)oCl)Q)_..c ..... 1::"'0 C:C.CI)~~CD_CD 't:i cy . ..æ= CD 0:s!..s:= CD_ëU" "'êõ..!:!Æ . '- CD"'g 15 0 ~ >,:i en >"¡¡1:S E ~~~~[~~1~[~~t~t~~~~~~iY'~~~il~ª~~¡ ~~~!~~~~l~11~~¡~ið~~~§8§~~t~~~~8§ . . . . . . . . ~ ., '" '" o . Q. 0:: ::;; ::;; '" ¡¡; ¡:¡, = .~ ë u c '" > .!! ~ '" u ... c c: '" m ~ co ¿ J " õ~ '" 2.~ ca~ a - '" > " -_9 0- '" "'- _ a. mE a 0 u :E >0 "'" U ~ " 0 - '" a. o => '" -"" '" '" '" C) E - '" u. 0 - ,,- 0 u. 0 £ m-';:: £II:: E 3 -¡: i=~ 0 Do ;¡; ::;; > en C) z >0 U C) " - '" '" Z I- " '" -;:: <t £II:: 0", - ~.== en 0 0"", en <; 0 Do -c.. '" 0 W '" r:a=: £II:: U C) -", ¡! ~ " o 0 Z o..u - " en £II:: .2 m - 0 ~ '" -' > " ~ .- " ... ::;; ô5 0 <I: - õ au Z '" .... E ~ 0 ~ ",-:ñ u. - <= ::c :E '" 0.. 0 E u U ¡:: Z 0 ::;; ,.... - ~ .. C)I .. -I !:¡ :¡æ' ~ => ~ '" '" ::;; " o ~ '" ~ " Æa..·5 ~-5"§ I!:! ~~ "ffi.g =ã5~ -;~Eª rI) ~c. "jJ!i!¡: 'is...8~''' == gJ .æ~!5 G:) C';I..e ge êCD ._ c.. _ I?"'C "'9.. 2"C 1! æ E "'P¡"'", .9!æ;;~ E "C"2S ~g:5 ~~~=æ m~ ._ð.~ c: =c.sEc iCDt!18~r::: 15co~ -..fi:E=- :5:g.....~·Œ .s.- ~ E "5 ...ê.... en C»= CD æ "'C $-¡~æ-:,..c cn~ ~-€..8=- E œ101!:!:>.~.sJgõ¿co.æ"'C ~.9 (OCD ,go_l'ac:o C:C:\U=CI) ffiJ=mococ:':§-~"'CCD5~OQ) 0I"g 15 Q) '§ B O..!!15~ e æ"j.:š:5 ctlã5..c:cn,~"".aEco.E:~CD en :S"'C..c= CD"i.1!!liS CDiS..,8 (2)- ~.c: CCD ",:::::I :;rn~ ~- c-" 2.a~Q)'~ U) t:I)&.~ CDg e~~ Q."(J = ¡;;. co - rI) E?- Æ U ø ~~~5~;ª~§~8ÆS:~.E . . . . "'- =]1 "' .5"§. ã! '" 0;:'" ~o '" " :2'$ ",.5 0..'" :::E" "'w 't: - '" 23 ë'" 0", . u~~ 1! _ ~ 5~-!. ~~e >- ~~..8 -¡¡; .<= '" '" 1! ~ c. 'Ei::: ~~ '" 2 g'-¡¡; ~ § '" êi.i .§ ~ª '" 0 ,,- ~'ª ~..ê '" '" '" ¡O:~ ~.5~ g' !!.5g' _~"'E -a. CD"j"§ ñirn8 15 ai5"'C 1iiãjo",."I:>g u"ê'~ ~5:::::1tsc: Q)~'ã. '~'jij ..82 _='" "'8';'ëi5 :ß_1C .-g-..!!:r;;~ u0"3coca"iê..e9 ""'0'" -.¡.¡"'~ .ÆC)"'Eæg'~ðr;;D "i co ......- 01- c.J5 == C.~-5šïñCl)E_ en Q) C::I ra CI) :::::I c: . _S-ælL~"'C "'O!2.!! t~§gJ~~i ~¡ _~.sCDg8~1!.sæ ~SQ"'=88cn·æ"'= mè'!:íQ)£j -1S-Q)ttI øë.]~;¿~U~~; . . . ~ '" M M ~ Q. a: :::! :::! '" ¡¡; iii> · -= e u ... .!! 8 · N :> ';) · " .. '" .. " u « "',,- .c c 0 -'" ~o:3 CI)~; æ.,:,-5. 0. i5 _ . .§U1ü.g -ëä:_o ~1D8£: ::J C:.c en ãJ<3§'§ õ CD '-~ -E==æ 8 ~"i 'E .~ãJ¡¡1! :ã8"eB" 8._,,- "'- " > c. > " E " <C""C._"'C . x ~ ~ '5 .!!! ë~E-gJ!!rnB$c: R_::J::JQ)~"'" CI,) .2 >.....8 c:: g.::J Q) E 8::.Q~.J:~ü~-ªg.. CQ~""C:;E ~ (jj Q) c: c: O::J -- E > 5 "Ë ::! W 'T C)""C CD u)Q5~Lt'Jj~~.3~ êã)~~"'C~Q)ij~ ~~~-;§ ¡::--ê t:Ð ~ "'Cª :; .ß _In .-:.."'g 8. . c:: ~ en >,Q.. ::I '" E =öru §a>--==Ü.8æc:! _.&::: CI).... :l:U_......... ]~nJ:::-g E~I- ...., J!'! ~ æ ~ CD ~ 3t ~c... Q "-- ""'ª,- (U""C-""" --lL Bm"OU)1n a..."gu5 c::_n:J CD ~"'''''' n:I ::I UJ.5..c:: c: .&::: ~ª"E~I---æcn~Œ) cn 'E ctI 00:::. E .- Q) :S8~§~~~~:§~ ::s=æ~Q)~.2ês.-::I(t ·i:::.e=c:t::uEoue c...Cf.lU1!!o-=__.5:_ c o 1 /- '" ..!!! ;¡; ~ :> :> '" '" "5 "5 "'" "'" U u 15 15 "" "" U U x x x x ~"'C"50C::Q)""C>' ~.....-Q)C:E"'~ ....fijCDZn:sS·Õrn ....tJ..c::o ""en ic:Œ .=gõl;!9' .i~;"§~I-ª c..1:» >.EQ) -1OC:::5I:"""o-'1:E m 1.5 ~ CD.S;..9 "á~ cu ö c:: 5.. 0 C .a CD..... m á)..c: - -c CD - ~ c..~ £....::E>I-» -=5a.m.e;r;~ .:!iB =§ t: ds rn-g W"ëii:;-g= Q)~ "E", § .,; ~ 'E ffi .. "'~-8 iiš 'j ë' ~ t::.... uøË°"-c 6!S..::: !~-~ ë~ ~.E~~ OJ~!il~õ CCD""Cc..COQ) U)c:m._::þ__c: --....Q) - CDCI:I-Ern~rntno ;g g' E ~.E rß §:; n:J ~ æ ~-~ ~ c: ~ .5 '"= .c~!E.....",_o õæ~-g~CD~2~õ~~ .Q~ês. CD .!!? cu :5 .E c = ~::o:.=¡¡¡¡ CD uSe:! w- a>Bcolbcu..2..c:: æ"5 :giiimmC~æ.sr:::~CD.s1- ::J....caa¡>e·.s:[D~~;::,..5Q»= ¿ ~~õ~..cE""'-5~Jd~:;=§gñ5~ OCLJ2ŒJI:: ~m"ioä;~,"CI) ~ -==¡;;~.!!!::s!?6P'N~=C/Jèf)c::m~ -g ~ ~ .G "i ~"-. ~ ð "g ..ê -0 "ë"ë'6 I:: .!! a.. CD ö.8 E ==-¡ œ-a.. en æ CL:E~"S o ;;I; 0) '" :! rl. a: :;:¡; :;:¡; '" ¡¡¡ · .. "~ ë u · :;¡ > · '; .c U ... o o N ;; ::0 0> ::0 « ~ >. "' " ¡¡ a> > "''<: ,.'C 2~ 'i'~ " a> a>= ='õ ,,- _ 0 - "' 'Sa> o - a>= - 8 "'0 ~ a> ~= II)ml:....;c:ID~""~~"''C~CDC)CI) .13)....;(1) -- ~=2:-"'C øS-O-~ ~~= c:c: ~C:O~C:CI)=c:c>~e~=c: C:--eD - --U -m --C:UO(l)~=~O~~~. 'ã fi3.B õ'''g.E ~ 6 Õ G) -,1a II)..E Õ 15 ~ IE Q) "; ~ ê CD ëD.r.:.æ _ ë :E !Iî!:__a.tf)~ ~ C)CÞE~ C-Q)--o CD o..,S! o.!::. æ"ëñ C)æ as æ -l:J rJ ~=c:""OII)~ c:N~ -II)C:II)CI)C:~~ _w~~EU~~ ø CDCDBm" ~~ .~o~~~c~wg~-CD~~CDm~~ <§E&f.ø~-m~&f. æ""O~-~E5~1I) ""011) -~~ O~I~a~""O~~~~G5~E~~~""O ~II)""O~&f.8~~CD~&f. wen 0 ~ ""O-~~ - ~tf) lI)~æ8.CD ~5=1I)C: U~ ~m9~C:CD~Ë~""O~~~~~S&f. UM~~ m E cþ~~m~&f.CDC:CD-"'C~œpC:~&f.E c..~ .0)= !mðŠŒCD5m~~~Æ~Ë..ECD a~~~o~II)~~~~ ~õ~~..Elæ~~~~ii¡~E~I~~iI1~~;I~1 C&f.mCDm ~oø~~~~~_C)CDlI)œoc..~~~&CD~ xüc:=,,~Uc..II)ÕC)OCD C>-C:&f.&f.c:"~N0,, Oll)="~ ~ø- -cnUJ_c:u"'C!;s CD]" 0)_(.). SQ: _ ......:::J ~~~!õ~C)~~~~g-~~N!s~im~I~¡rõ~i ~CD~c:C)~..E=:c..-q~~SCD-EE~~ ~~~§~&f. ~=a~.ECDE~"'C~UN§~~SCD~II)"'C""O_-~C)~o..~Ei ___rn=c:: c..C:8,.cc .c:r ~>-'Et:::c:8."'O«Ic:""anrtl- ~~~~~c:an~oØ~~e~ð~~rtlœ~3ø~m~'E~~ -m_~O~"" m ðE - ow~~m~ ~ø~~~~~~~~~!m~~~~~]~~~~B5~~s U~~~œ9~~~~c:~~g~U~'E~~w~œ~~~~'¡: mS~~~=~~3~~ø~~om~mmrn~~c:o~E œ ~~w~~E~~~m~~wwN~....uØ~~~O~~_ , c¡; ~ C> M '" ~ 0.. 0: ::¡ ::¡ ~! 0..", " 2] L.: :U§ '¡~=æ ~-.<: _ 0 o § 0 i= E " 0 '" ESC ¡¡j -0"' ~§¡ 1\1 · § g'iS .~ '<: - .9-5§ u 8 .!! 0 · '" iDl§.!!1 :> ;¡; ~._ .c o "' .!! , 0= · C> - "' .sãSi; " ~ U ~ '" € '" -;¡; '6. ~ '" ~~ s8. '3 ~ E '" we '" '" " ~ "':::> <= o 13 .s o 8 0> E 'Ë ~ <= '" :2 8- ~ o '" '0 I!! I <= ~ o '" 0> õ; o Q) '6 ~. .2 "E! '" !1 .2 5 ~ .§ = -'ü g Ijäj.s ~ [It) ~ ~ .§"3§ 'E",'~ ~~~arCl) e..92ë6- ~c"i= ~CI:I~~c...-ææ '3Q)~Q)'Sa>~- ar:5 a.::3 ar~ ~~ . . 'E Q) E 0. '3 if " o = " 2 -;¡; <= 8 . . . .9 ~ .¡;¡ "'. ~ ~ '" ~ "i~ fJ õg> 1~ :g I ~ ":9. E :; .s C5 ...9 C'" It) en ~ '" <= e~ go) 8.9 ~~ a! ....."C ..c U) Cf. CD .cÞ8. ~ lIS ~Q..EfJ W!i "Ct\:>. ë !5ãs ~ ~~ CD .t: æ =... -3 æ .?;-O) .ågc:r~E :n ¿ CD CD fJ"C ~ Q) ~ ¡¡-:§ NE!::!CI')g? ;§ã;~5 =:5",:e~rnCDE5.0 "ê Œ ~ ]' ~ 8.:3 .æ 8 . . . . -. ,. '~ ~g> ën "5 os", ~"= -æ~ ~:c 'E fj ~~ è5"ª ~.9 is'E .s os "3"ª .,êg 1ijõ ~ 0 '" Q) 1';-5 U.E . os -;¡; :> os '3 r. U 'õ "'" U x x 0, _5 '3 os r. .8 5! '" - ~ ~ '" g Bui "CEi5~ æ~1IJ1 B a¡ i5 E c:B~e l1) ~"ë c ~~CD8 o <= C> "6"jiñ.~ '" 0 'õ It) Æ ã. CD 0B~~] 1ij-ê t.J ~"E ~..E "'O"CŒ)"'O~ 8.~a.,;~ II) rn "g.g m ~§WEE " o 2 ~-ð o a¡ 2 0. fj- ,. >< '" '" Q)= ~ .s"i ð.¡;8a ~ Æï;; (IJ ;o-Q)~ .2~g:B .", &. g> Js '8'S = "I: g:s! g" 2t-¡;¡ i5 '§ ~~ §:: -aiS11Š-g -gëpEÈo E15i!!"E§ . . o ;!; '" '" ;! , a.. a: :;; :;; . '" ¡¡; · .. = .~ ë u " · :> · "5 .c u ... g '" 1;; :> C> ¿ -~ .. .. .. ;¡; ;¡; ;¡; s: s: s: .. .. .. '3 '3 '3 = = = u u u 'õ 'õ 'õ .?;o .?;o ~ i:3 i:3 i:3 >< x x x x .£.~s ~~I~~ ¡~~~JSi0~~:RBf5 -g:g I;; "" _.so.. ~ æ õ',,_u'5àj'_ ¡;¡ is.,.- _ ,,:r -1ï;1ü-l.ê ~~o i..e: a.Q.. ê 5 ..= § ~~ ìñ.æ~=¡ IDE" ...C5=:ñ g ::Ew:;... 0 ~ CÞ'; "g ¡..;"= æ"N.ð~ CD.2 ~~I~~'" .~~C~~ -S~~m...~æ~ðE_æID§ ..,IU cG'''a>5)....- ->o,.cnt'O CDCI:I~..c:-CO"" ~~ m~.eæ-..c:ø~ ~mt'O~cn~~oõS8ëcn~æ _~~§_~Q..~=oa ê~$-~~~I~cn5~~51ü ~~~~~SCDoO.B ~S~~~~~~~i~Ë_t'O~ nÕ_~~cn5--C ~ U~æ=~2 ~~t'O03m ~ Cm E_CD~CCD £i&o ~E~"g~~~c~~ cnCÞ~ ~~o~Et'01ü ~3Eo>-_~..e:CD_~=O-Ø -5 m 16 ctI ~ C ~ 0)(1) g. .- C"'- - U C c frl u.. c:e CD 15 0 ::1=.,2..... 0 ~ 0)- CD B e¡: ....-15 B~,g ECD.= fà-- o.s~ =-:¡¡ Õ.ð~º~o~ _ ,,"o-æ~ ""r,,,,,o. ." cn~~~~-~æ~~ OCDE~~~>CDCD£~§ Be to E t'OR~cnU~ Bn~~Et'08~B~W-C~t'O 'Ec..e!éCD ãS_~mrtlcñc=Q)c::Q)CDCDO).-tnls..'i t.Jü· t'O_::IQ)=o"-m ..e:..e:~t'O~>w ..e:~w" =o,,~~~E~ Rccn_ m..e:"'" b::l-CD ~~Q) '''8- õ."E~3~E=cn~~¡c.=cnc~~ Q)bCDOS~ ~~~ ~ t'O~ cQ)t'Ol~-¡:cnuo0~~...~.~æ-...cc t'O~ScnCI:I-st'O..e: Q)1¡j0....,,~CDCD-CCD~·~ ~ p~-~= u-~ -u2 u=.. ~=~_~,,~ðð ~~œ_~~~= ~ ~==£ ~-~-ð .M=OO =E~-œ~~~~~œe~~~_~~~-U ~~ ~fi ~_o~cS~~£ø£ ~~~E~~~~£E~~~g~~ Q) In ra Q) ,s'- -,s d~.c ~ n; 8."" 'EEgo" ==.- "'':~I!! "',s 0 ªõ~.8 iC)°= °.5 e3 Æ ~1~~ §.<: ~ .. ~ - ,.- >011 0 :æ 2!t~.æ ca 0"1::. co o _0.. In OlD. "t:I ::'ii5àj¡¡¡ ~&!~'Æ "I"" - ~.<: ~ CD '" ... rL II: ::ä ::; .. ¡¡; ;¡, = .. ~ U S . :;: .!! = '" U ... 8 N ;¡¡ ~ '" ¿ '" ;¡; :> '" '5 = U Õ ? [j .¡s ~ :> '" '5 = u Õ ? [j x x x x ~ã!___~!~ ~""~~=æÕÆ~"'5f-g-gõ~ æg.§~~E.!ð"i-g-gõ¡~ -O'W ~ ~~~_-¡¡"''''__C =c=o~~ _¡¡Mm C~ Eü=_ Sf! ..c::"~ e "'00)'''' omcu"Cm__m "'C\1)cu_ro ~-cmm ~ - mm~ w-mE Q)~æ....o~~_Q)_~~~ ~j=~[ ~~~~.;~~~~~~~ ~~I~Qt~i~iim~~ "i õ :ê i ~ . w Ë ~-.~ m:rJ:; CD jg ~ ~ § ~ !g, c:: L: .9 C6 ~ ~ 1; ..c:: ~ ~ § ã;ccnrn"C'i:ËUI/')E~2t=o:ëæ -=-_ 0 -"'OC:"E·õ~ -~ = =- ~Q)~C en ~oUJ"C~_=. \1)0 W w"C__- _ro~ OE Q ."_ EU">."~~_-"'O "C~ CD CDX_C >..c::~ - - _V<ØØCD=e-8. U>Q)-~Q) ern ~ Q)~ro 0= m~0..c::o Q)=~õro ro~~ ~ æ ~iS =6 ê .,g 'È ~ ~ ~ g ~-o Iii ~:§ ~ Æ "ð..:2 c::J _. 0)_ as:; gt CD .æ Q)~~Croro Q) CD == _>~c"cncn ~~0850",,~=ª~ ~~mroNErno_-cnmcncnQ)Q)E=~ ern ..c::cn-cnrnCDQ)E-B Q)cn..c::~c~§i~~£~~Dgmã~~-<rocnm~::J~Du~~~ =~"C ~~-cu~ ~E~~~mwuu~cl' _ ~s~~~~~8 m C-mcn "C~ -s~-..c::~ -CDS ~Q)~ro~~-..c::~ = ~&m~~eB~~~~c8E~~~ ']~~3~~~·Q)~E~:~.~ ..c::s..c::Q)::J=Q)-o m~~ cncn~=~~m'I=8~~=0~cncn1 æ=mu"C"'Om~~~ ~mo c C~~~ owC.~ ~omE~~e8~~.¡;¡5w~~~cg~g= ~ E ~>ø Oø _. ~m~ _ -~~ UC~~-~O ð ~0=mc~,,~£~~mc m ~~s_~~~~m-~~~m~o ø- _cm ~--ø-O _~~~~~ O~ ~ ~_~ u-m- ~B~_-o~ = c·a.~ 0 ~ m-'æ~ ê5~ ca ~ ~~~] ~~:e~ ~~.;,~ ~ñi~~"ª ~aJ ~ ~oð~æ~~~~~-c>mE8. um~Eo0~~~>mE8.w, hmm ~~~~~~ê5Eo~~~~~m~- ~m~ooøro~~~~~_ ~æ~o ~~om~S=m~~ -8.~ê~~g~~c~_mmU~xê~~8~~c8 mm_~~0_~~~ ~O_~____moEEm~mo~~___ õ ..¡. '" 0> '" . . å. D: ::!! ::!! '" ¡¡¡ Q c .~ ð s ~ :> G '3 .c U .. ~ G ~ '" ~ « - '" ;j; '" '" ~ ci. a:: :::;: :::;: -g~ïi::§æ d5.9iä~'õ ÕSa'ËCD ~.- c: (t) U 'Ew~eiä..!!i 01"';t)ec:V, U as -_ CD jg ?;>ï5'~5-ë: :;¡¡a.!J!~-æc: .. 15' E-15 0.s 5..CfJ"T:I c: èi5 l:Dc:o œ:g..êgR~ 3: CO-~ ~c: 1ã .s êi .0:>5 ~ 8:Ø=CD== -:2=£ið~ iir¡,¡= e "" Œ:"'C"ê= "'C CD _~ "3: .e æ Sa) ä; :!2g~-ã:i~ ~~je~] '" Iii · .. c .. ë u ... s 8 · OJ :> ¡;j · ~ '3 '" '" ~ u «: , .J