The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-06-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 28481 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 I 13 I I 14 I 0 e 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2848 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGA DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLll DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIP ROAD AND EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE CASE NO.: CT 84-32(A) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of and on the 7th day of June, 1989 hold a duly noticed public I prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tk Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated i I Decl arat i on. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Con f 01 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public he Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative C according to Exhibits- "ND" dated August 10, 1988, Exhi dated August 8, 1988 and Exhi bit "PII", dated Januar; attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings: Findinqs: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant unmitigated impact on the er Through condition of approval of Minor Subdivision No. 785 College Boulevard has been relinquished thus eliminating anJ traffic problem. 2. The site has been previously disturbed by agricultural an operations. 3, College Avenue and the surrounding street system will be adequ, to handle any traffic that would be generated by the site. ~ I ~ 0 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. All potential adverse environmental impacts have been reduced of insignificance because mitigation as noted on the attached program (Exhibit "X") has been incorporated into the project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tk Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th da 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schl Erwin, McFadden, Marcus & Holmes. NOES : None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING co ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOmILLEa) PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2848 2 I1 0 Exhibit "ND 0 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 @itQ df (!.hrh3bafi PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Palomar Airp across the street from existing College Boulevard inters PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Realignment of College Boule1 Palomar Airport Road south to future extension of E Lane. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental revi above described project pursuant to the Guide1 Implementation of the California Environmental Qualit1 the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (de that the project will not have a significant impac environment) is hereby issued for the subject Justification for this action is on file in the Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive doc on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palma invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. Carlsbad, California 92009, Comments from the pu .\%bJ$<W@&& .. .: DATED: August 10, 1988 I 3+$ MICHAEL J. HO~ZMILLE~ CASE NO: EIA 88-2 Planning Director APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: August 10, 1988 1 .I Mail to: State Clearinghouse, .,-nth Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, &bs- -- 916/445-0613 -e - NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUHENr FORM r --- -- I see I SCH I 1. Project Title College Boulevard Realignment 2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person; Nancy Ro\ \man 3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive 3b. City: Carl sbad 3c. County: San Diego 3d. Zip: 92024 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: 4a. City/Community: Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. --- 4c. Section: --- Tup. --- Range For Rural, Sa. Cross Streets: Palomar Airport/ColLeqe Bl. 5b. Nearest Community: "- 6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Huy No. 1-5 b. Airports Palomar c. Wateruays p 7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE CEQA 01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units - 01 - NOP 02 - Neu Element 02 - Office: Sq. Ft. 02 - Early Cons 03 - General Plan Amendment Acres Employee 03 X Neg Dec 04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Commerciel: Sq. 05 - Supplement/ 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft. __ (if so, prior SCH # 07 - Redevelopment Acres Employees 04 - Draft EIR 05 - Annexation Acres Employees - Subsequent ElR ) 08 - Rezone 05 - Seuer: MGD - NEPA 09 - Land Division 06 - Uater: WGD (Subdivision, Parcel Map. 06 - Notice of Intent Tract Map, etc.) 07 - Transportation: Type - 07 - Envir. Assessment/ 10 - Use Permit 08 - Mineral Extraction: Mine 08 - Draft EIS 11 _. Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Wattag OTHER 12 - Other Type: 09 - Information only 10 X Other: Road realignmer '0 I F i na l Document 9 TOTAL ACRES: n/ a 11 - Other: FONSI 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 X Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 - Seuer Capacity 22 - 02 - Agricultural Land 09.- Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - 03 X Air Ouality 10 - Minerals '7 - Sol id Waste 24 - 04 X Archeeologicel/Historical/ 11 X Noise '8 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 - 05 X Coastal 13 - Schools 20 & Vegetation 27 - 06 - F i re Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater duality 28 - 07 - Flooding/Dreinege 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal S State S Total S 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Undeveloped area - low density, residential zoning 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Realignment of College Blvd. from south of Palomar Airport Rd. to futc realignment is proposed approximately 900 feet to the vest of the alignment that was approved i subdivision map (ET 84-32/PUD-73). The realignment follous a canyon, instead of crossing a car less grading. From an engineering standard, the realignment uould reduce the number of curves and uould altov improved intersection spacing. The realignment also provides for the intersecl Alga at Poinsettia, which previously uas offset 500 feet. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: YhC LA c p?s lt\6 " Date: $ A 7 I\ V " . , . """. ... " C' :- -. 0 Memorandum 0 " The Reso'u TO : From : Subject : 1. Projects Coordinator Resources Agency 2. City of -Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92024 Department of Fish and Game Conditional Negative Declaration: San Diego County - SCH 88081005 Coll - .." *I" ege Boulevard Realignme We have reviewed the Conditional Negative Declaration for the realignment of College Boulevard from Palomar Airport Road to future extension of Poinsettia Lane in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed alignment crosses a narrow drainage course.runnin parallel to and south of Palomar Airport Road (page 8, Discuss of Environmental Evaluation) and the floodplain of Encinitas Creek. The drainage course contains wetlands. It is the Department of Fish and Game's policy to oppose projects which result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habi values. We recommend against certification of the Negative Declaration until impacts to wetlands are quantified and until wetland compensation plan is formulated. This wetland compensation plan should be designed to create wetland by conversion of non-sensitive uplands in such a manner as to eliminate any net loss of wetland acreage and any net loss of wetland habitat values. Department personnel are available to assist the City of Carlsbad in formulating an acceptable compensation plan. Di-Jersion or obstruction of the natural-flow or changes in the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will requir notification to the Department'as called for in the Fish and Gz Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent agreemer must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. Notification should be made after the project is approved by th lead agency. In summary, the project would result in a net loss of wetland acreage and wetland habitat .values. We consider these impacts be significant adverse impacts associated with project implementation. Consequently we find that the use of a Negativ Declaration of project impact is contrary to the reqcirements u the California Environmental Quality Act regarding proper environmental documentation. Given quantlflcatlon of wetland impacts, and incorporation of a wetland compensation plan as previously described, the Department would remove its objection the use of a Negative Declaration. , .I I ' C .b '0 e -2- Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on 1 project. If- YOU have any questions, please contact Frec Reglonal Manager of Region 5, at 330 Golden Shore, Suitt Beach, CA 90802 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. P?e@ Pete Bontadelli Directpr AsSESSmm FORM - PART (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. EIA 88-2 DATE : January 29, 198€ I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT : City of Carlsbad - Enqineerinq DeDartment 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive ’ Carlsbad, California 92009 1619) 438-1161 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: July 11, 1988 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 1. Earth - Will the proposal have signif-icant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? - YES MAY BE 1 - b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? - c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? - - - f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? - -0 0 2. 4ir - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not oxygen or turbidity? limited to, temperature, dissolved f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES - MAY: 5_ - w YES 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in! a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the: diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Licrht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- MAY BE X X - - - - - - . .. e e - YES MAy 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? - b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? - 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances ( including, but not 1 imited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? - 11. Powlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? - 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? - 13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? - b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? - c. Impact upon existing transportation - systems? - d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? - e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? - f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? - -4- 0 m - YES 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of hazard (excluding mental health)? any health hazard or potential health -5- MAY BE 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 . YES . "" MAY 18, Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? "-- 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontolo4ical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the Drogosed rsroiect such a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site d c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for e) development at some future time rather than now, f) al. nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternativl a) Future construction will be phased. b) Three alignments were studied; the preferred proposal ha least amount of grading and higher engineering standards. c) Not applicable. d) Not applicable. e) Not applicable. f) see ttBrr above. , 9) The presently approved alignment is not environmen sensitive and does not allow for better engineering stan to be met. The roadway is a necessary component of the C overall circulation system- -6- e 0 YES MAY BE 22. Mandatorv findinqs of siqnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) - - d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The numbered items below refer to the initial study checklist. 1. Earth - A preliminary grading plan for the realignment shows reduced grading when compared to the earlier approved alignment. The approved grading required 791,500 cubic yards of earthwork. The proposed grading would entail 388,500 cubic yards. Instead of crossing a canyon, the realignment would follow a canyon. In terms of the impact in and of itself, without the comparison, the road is a circulation element road and the amount of earthwork involved is not significant for a mile-long segment of major arterial roadway. The entire road will not be constructed now, but will be phasc as development projects in the vicinity are approved. Therefore as each phase of development occurs, detailed soils reports wil be required to ensure that no unstable geologic condition exist when grading begins. -7- .< '. . .- .' EISCUSSION OF ENVIRON., a TAL EVALUATION (Continued) 0 2. && - The realignment will not cause significant impacts quality. The number of vehicl? trips from this arterial roadway has been included in regional traffic Since there would be less grading involved, the ~hc construction impacts would be reduced. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Water - The proposed alignment crosses a narrow drainage running parallel to and about 450 feet south of Palomar Road will include drainage improvements that will beneficial effect on local stream flow. Plant Life - Impacts by the construction of realigned Boulevard would occur to one-half acre of good coast scrub, one and one-half acres of disturbed coastal sage and less than 0.1 acre of willow scrub. These habitat as patches surrounded by disturbed weedy areas and cul fields. The impacts are not considered significant. Th I1 Local Coastal Program (Policy 4 - 3B) which covers th exempts circulation element roads from mitigation. A report is on file with the Planning Department. Animal Life - No sensitive species would be directly in although foraging area for raptors would be lost. This considered a significant impact because the foraging a no nesting habitat in it, and there are other ope] nearby. Noise - The proposal to realign the road will not impac levels. When construction begins, there will be shc construction impacts; however, the road improvements made generally in concert with or before resj development occurs in the vicinity. There will be LC unavoidable noise impacts related to increased arterial volumes. However, since no residential developme occurred yet as mitigation of potential future noise j future projects will be conditioned to do project-$ noise studies to determine appropriate- setbacks so tha impacts will be avoided. Lisht and Glare - street lighting will be a part of construction phases of the road. The street lighting safety purposes and will not produce adverse glare. Land Use - The proposed realignment divides several prc and creates small slivers of land with separate owners mitigate potential impacts. Land swaps or condemnati occur as a condition of this negative declaration so t City is not obligated to provide access for a small par( a major arterial roadway, in conflict with intersection requirements. -8- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO *TAL EVALUATION (Continue@ 9, 20. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The planned land use of the area is primarily residential, wit' some office. Since the area is not yet built, the realignmen can be coordinated into future development projects wit appropriate landscaping, buffers, setbacks, etc. Natural Resources - - Not applicable. Risk of Upset --Not applicable. Powlation with plann facilities - The realignment will allow developers to procee ing more specific projects. . However, a loca plan, per the City's Growth Management Ordinance must be approved prior to any building occurring in this area Since at lease three development proposals have been submitte before the alignment was changed, this proposal is no considered significant to population growth. Housinq - See number 11 above. Transportation/Circulation - The realignment of thi Circulation Element Road would have a positive effect on futur traffic circulation. Engineering standards would be better me with the realignment, in that it would reduce the number 0 curves and vertical grades, and would improve intersectio spacing. The realignment also provides for the intersection o College and Alga at Poinsettia, which previously was offset 50 feet. Existing.transportation will not be affected because th road is not constructed yet. Future construction of Colleg Boulevard and subsequent vehicular use will improve thl Citywide circulation system because traffic will be divertel off of Palomar Airport Road, onto College and Poinsettia parking will not be allowed on the future road; sidewalks an bike lanes will be provided. Public Sewices - Road maintenance will be required after th roadway is constructed. This is not considered a significan impact on city services. Enerqv - Future construction of College Boulevard Will no require substantial amounts of energy, i.e., fuel, and will no by itself create-a significant demand on energy sources, Utilities - New standard utilities will be installed within th roadway, as is appropriate and necessary. Human Health - The realignment would ultimately be beneficia to future drivers. 18. Aesthetics - The realignment of College will basically keep th roadway in or following a canyon, rather than crossing one The result is less graded slopes and a less obtrusive roadway The proposal will not create an aesthetically offensive publi view since the alignment will follow the topography. -9- e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 19. Recreation - New bike lanes will be provided when Boulevard is constructed. 20. Archaeolosical/Historical - An archaeological survey t on the realignment, covering 200 feet on both sides center line of College -- no historic or prehistoric resources will be impacted by construction of the realignment. 21. Mandatory Findinss of Sianificance - A. The realignment of College Boulevard will improve quality of the environment by ensuring a safer, bel engineered roadway. Be The project implements one of the City's General E long-term goals of providing a safe and effici circulation system. C. The project would improve the design of a Circulat Element Road and would reduce future impacts on grad and standards. D. The project should have both direct and indir positive effects on humans by achieving part of City's long-term circulation goals. -10- IV. DETERMINATION (-I Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet. have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I fin.d the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 7- 3 -5H lLL/lL&~ 5? b4- /I Date ~i$-fiature @&63 Dgte 4uLJJ Plannind Dire or V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) 1. To avoid creating small, landlocked parcels that could obligate the City to provide direct access onto College Boulevard, land swaps and/or condemnation shall be undertaken and completed by the property owners and/or the City before any construction beyins on College Boulevard. 2. Detailed soils reports shall be prepared for each phase of College Boulevard per the new alignment, to be approved by the City Engineer. Any mitigation identified in the soils report shall be incorporated into the roadway design. 3. Future development projects along the proposed realignment shall prepare detailed noise studies which address appropriate setback for the development from College Boulevard. -11- e 0 VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATIN( AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION 0 p d& bf5 Date -12- m =r g Y Z 0 - 0 VI aJ Y 0 c., x c., - 32 S X w I- - 4 u M b I L3 3 a .. -". Y 2; N Yi a2 +2 ux 0 H .* b v)H aca mo wz u fLz 0 w 1p: WH LIw W u Q -I -I > Q - W CA W Z 0 t- v, W J m rn 0 W .. 2 .. ;c s w 3 0 a a w 2 a s n' W a a 4 ' IKUNMLNIHL MI IIW-iI IUI4 NUN1 lUKl LHtCKLISI doc C-lO h4.J M 0@ ro 0) a4 '0 4 4 0- 4 4 hXh PO4 fn=h Plg ;:: 0- i 5;; Q) az m3g gc@N OQC %r4p'z! g% 24y s2:g 0" 2s 520, s$G= a$< ,% ta% 322% 24 fiG E$ :4 $2 g: 5mCh 8355 g;;! +Q cr a= a4 -l 40 a$E* '0)": g Qj +, *a 4 d *QO 0) c@Qb "do= Q o 6m i!! 34 i;; QJm ,A,$ S45$ caw$ Qk 5 d* w-4 OD 4 +J E3 = "@a 9 09 A Od c4 E0)¶* "0) 0) Q c4 bod 4 boo cc 4-4 a4 3 9 ME C ;;p -0.4 E hd0, +et i8:e; ex:: LPy cQc,,S ;By L-(h o am 0) s A 23 2: cc 0 OCJ 2d m b s" p: Q1 " C -i 0 c, x3 28 4c h0) Q)4 =.a e H 2- (0 -: 5; EL $j .c c CLU a> .- P 4 -- 00 E " M C 4 $4 i8 I: " w " t z 3 E C " 0 e, Q 4 e, L 4 -" -" -" "- -a- rNfi*VIuY h h k 8 z a P) 0 la m a a! 1-l IP) n !3 IC v tc VI aJ I 3 VI m aJ E C 0 m .- U m E .- w .- re 0 C 0 .- .u .w m .- v - - re 3 L 0 rc TI aJ .- VI aJ v) L aJ > aJ L aJ aJ m .. Y @.I 0 C 0 U 0 U -x a 3 a a U C a Q) .aJ 'U bud QCIQ gQ4 C u4 OQOO : 9 .: cc d ZUPZ 3:; 0 8% 8 4 c, &44 az 83 m4j8 MA duo Q 4-l 44 a 0 Qd gnu$ 0 hd2k $='E ;"i QOIQ~ZI 42G C"l3~ 8- 2:2x b) Yll8 P 02.;: rocc LC@O AC -4 "st: 503M nL: Q c m 1p 04 4 c - eo hO 0 0 h4c( C J4JO alas Ed% *tam boa g4 q3 q.4 D : pfs. co dk c, 0 c e3 ecf&3d $2 ro F$ om .r( c ;:P:S$Z mom 4 -4 c lee, -hr( k e, II 4 aco g '0 ;i;a; 464 4 kc 0 Man e, &4CO I4 IdOQPD dY SCkk d e:xza r2 FE"%a" $:**** a M a s 2 P a 0 U >- - h aJ - II m u Q Q .- - a 2 Y v1 w IYI 3 v1 W a I W Z I- - W a1 Fl i 3g $e Q m ma -a r ucr m>, u U P u alu .L 2 02 aQ 25 >u 0 LU QsY om, -sg :3 '3 GJO aaa 5: g Q) 3= ;a0 .- 0s v 25: 5 gg. La " c 0% 0 0s mm 5! .E ;cc v '3 n m ms3 uv 5 0 L. u "; kLS Q? 8 p >. YCS umm ocna 5 QL s 'pro - mga m D..' sz 2' m ln EEG 'a t;;>L as: am m F? 5 b ;z .- m .- 0Q)cy) > 0L ms a I-w 0 05 f 51 : 5 50 a +m CL a0 .cr sO ELa .El u --c m .- 5: C, Q,; 5: bc QE z? m >" 2 *c 3m :z ~~ a+ OS a.- . ou - - ug v- e- 02 L. ii5 m 1- r " Q.5 .- c- um gg L *E +>. 0 UC 1 m aa ?b Q. Q!i L =P s>,* cn u *; L q g5 f >,a ",e aJ *- "w - r0.z s 0 cr >- mu a3 .= -0 m ULa 0 .= Q + Q, Qr SmO aa; n s .- N .s U r s .- a v1 U 3 VI a VI 2: 0 .- + .- - B .- m 0) U cr _- a€ pk -0 us - iE Qon ki Q> a r Q)U -a r S 0.r m- mY S& t;," .% Q zs Q* *a EL G a .- o".n 2% Urn ,L aQ LW wm 3L *u ZU Lm a, I' mz F: Q2 3 =o ma .Ea *0 SU qj S I, so - m Q5 Q, 3 m N Z 0 t 0 w 3 .- - z Q, CY v a: e E LL C u, t t m .- - a 2 a r .Q u3v, + $8 %: OL L- Q a- =>, 3; .k cr z5 SE 0 'E wm :E 5J .- QI, Eo 0 u0 t u *z =S mm an +- 3, - mt " Q, mu $; a .f n m= mcy) -m &cy) a2 Et y m- SQ .- .- L 0 .- k$ + U -a bL zii m