HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 3004. .. Sf ll (q e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
~
I
~
25 ~
I
26
27
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CREATE
17 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 10,000
SQUARE FEET AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS TOTALING 3.6 ACRES ON
A 10.4 ACRE SITE.
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
CASE NO.: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, I
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considerer
relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Co
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
March 22, 1990, "PII", dated January 2, 1990, and Appendix "P" attached here
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a significant in
environment; however, there will not be a significant impact in this case
mitigation measures descriied in the initial study have been added to the p
2. Approximately forty percent of the site has been previously graded and the 1
the site does not possess any significant environmental resources. I
~ 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposec
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be
impacted by this project provided that mitigating conditions of approval i
with ! 28
‘I I1 m m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Conditions:
This project if approved is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Resolutions Nos. 3005, 3006, and 3007 plus compliance with the followin
condkions:
1. a) Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial confc
the Conceptual Landscape PladHillside Mitigation Plan for the Plann:
approval is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall deposit 2
institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a
deposit or letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such (
which is acceptable to the City. This document shall be for at le’
estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. If 1
mitigation and landscaping is not installed in a timely manner, in acc
the approved plans, the Planning Director may authorize the utiliza
funds to do the necessary remedial work. Any funds remaini
completion of this work shall be returned to the applicant.
c) In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping : systems shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall
prior to the occupancy of any unit within this project.
2. The proposed noise mitigation measures recommended in the Acoustical Assel
of the Spyglass Project prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated SI
1989, and depicted on the tentative map shall be completed prior to the OCCI
unit within this project. The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
First Floor
Recommended
Measures
Second Floor
Recommended
Measures
1 5’ Barrier Not Applicable
(includes 3’ berm height
shown in tentative map)
2 7’ Barrier
(includes 3’ berm height
shown in tentative map)
Not Applicable
10 4’ Barrier Not Required
11 4’ Barrier Same as First Flol
12 5’ Barrier Same as First Flol
PC RES0 NO. 3004 -2-
28
ll e e
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of 1
2
3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April,
4 /I following vote, to wit:
5
6
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Hall, McFaddc
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Holmes.
7
8
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3004 ,3 -
.. q
City
0
of Carlsbz
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southeast comer of the intersection of El Camino Real a
Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A subdivision to create seventeen (17) residential lots with a mi
lot area of 10,000 square feet and two open space lots totaling 3.6 acres on a 10.4 acre
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality 1
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said re
Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this actio
file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments frl
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within t
one (21) days of date of issuance.
DATED: March 22, 1990
CASE NO: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9 Planning Director
APPLICANT: The March Group (Spyglass)
PUBLISH DATE: March 22, 1990
DN:h
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 43E
w W'
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
DATE : JANUARY 2, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
2. APPLICANT: THE MARCH GROUP
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2979 STATE STREET, Ste. C
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(6191 729-1121
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 30, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 10.4 acres into 17 reside lots with a minimum area of 10,000 square
and two open space lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may h( significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Asses!
appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check1
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impactc
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the 1
for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Neg; Declaration.
-i; A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substal evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant e3 on the environment. On the checklist, llNO1l will be checked to indicate determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substar evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effect or environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration howevei adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dc insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the heac
l1YES-siglt and llYES-insigll respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures apy at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Partic
attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which b
otherwise be determined significant.
.. q m
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) YES (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters) ?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
m rn
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants) ?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
-3-
'E,SSig1
YES (insig)
X
NO
X
x
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
'1 0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(sig) YES (insig)
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the human 3opulation of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
w w
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sig) YE Ensig) NO
33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory. X
34. 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.) X
35. Does the project have the possible
dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (#*Cumulatively con- siderable'# means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
environmental effects which are in-
X
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
-5-
., il 0
- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1, The Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance prepared the project by GEOCON INCORPORATED, dated July 1989, concl that no active faults or indications of active faults were ma on the site during the field investigation. In additior landslides or indications of landslides were noted and potential for landsliding is low. All slopes are propose( inclinations of 2:l (horizontal to vertical) to provide stabil
2. The project proposes grading of 95 percent of the site tota
112,000 cubic yards resulting in a balanced grading operat The site has been disturbed by previous grading activit Slopes ranging in height from 40 feet to over 70 feet were cre by the city's construction of Elm Avenue. There are existing to one slope along El Camino Real also created by the Cit.
construct that major thoroughfare. These one to one slope not meet current City slope standards and require regrading minimum 2: 1. The corner at Elm Avenue and El Camino Real
graded previously to a level even with the adjacent streets
total, approximately 40 percent of the site has been disturbe previous grading. To mitigate the impacts of the proposed gra
operation and the creation of slopes over 30 feet in heig:
Conceptual Landscape Plan and Hillside Mitigation Plan has
prepared. Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Pla substantial conformance with the conceptual Lands Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan forthe Planning Director's appr is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. applicant is also required to deposit a Certificate of Deposi Letter of Credit for at least twice the cost of the prop mitigation and landscaping. In addition to erosion con measures the required landscaping and irrigation systems shal completed prior to occupancy of any unit within this projecl
is 70+/- feet lower than the original topography on site.
3. Grading of the site will not create erosion problems as 1:l sl will be eliminated, extensive landscaping of slopes provided,
required drainage improvements constructed.
4. As a result of the proposed finished grades, drai
improvements, and the site's location, the project will not im
or change the bed of any water body.
5. The project will only generate 170 Average Daily Trips which
contribute incrementally to air contaminants.
6. The proposed grading concept results in the site terracing
from south to north with the properties to the south remai approximately 20 to 40 feet higher in elevation than adjacent
elevations of the proposed project. That in addition to
proposed placement of units will maintain air movement.
-6-
W lp
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (CONTINUED):
7. Due to the projects location and required erosion control/drainage
improvements identified on the tentative tract map no substantial change to the course or flow of water is anticipated.
8. The site design and drainage improvements shown on the tentative
tract map will prevent the project from significantly affecting the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public
water supply.
9. The site is bounded on the north and west by two major Circulation
element roads. Properties to the north, south, east, and west have been developed. Approximately 40 percent of the site has
been disturbed by previous grading. Natural resources on the property consist primarily of sage brush which because of adjacent developments is not of high value as wildlife habitat.
10. As a result of the project Is relatively small size and close proximity to commercial services it is not anticipated to use
substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
11. Since several archaeological sites had been previously discovered
in the general vicinity an archaeological survey of the Spyglass Project was required. The survey was conducted by Brian F. Smith
and Associates and a report prepared which is dated October 30,
1989. The entire project area was surveyed. The survey of the project did not result in the identification of any cultural
resources within the property. Based on the lack of archaeological sites, no further studies or investigations are considered necessary.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12. Approximately 40 percent of the project site has been disturbed by previous grading. Areas of sage brush, chaparral, and grasses exist on the site. Because the project site is surrounded on all
sides by developed properties, it does not have a significant
value as habitat.
13. There is no evidence that rare or endangered species exist on the project site.
14. The project site is not used for agricultural purposes. Because
of its location as well as the residential general plan and zoning designations for the property, it is not viable for agricultural use.
15. As a result of the adjacent development on all sides of the property and the amount of existing site disturbance, the site is not of significant value as wildlife habitat.
16. The project site bordered on all sides by developments is not used by animals for migration.
-7-
A 'e 0
. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED):
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The proposal is consistent with the RLM General Plan Designat
and R-A-10,000 zoning designation for the site.
18. The project is in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 and ~h comply with all public facility requirements of that zone.
19. The proposal will not create a need for new sewer systems ot than sewer lines shown on the Tentative Map to serve the propc dwelling units.
20. Existing noise levels will not be increased significantly by
project. The site is impacted by noise generated along El Can
Spyglass Project was prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.
Real and Elm Avenue. An Acoustical Assessment Report of
is dated September 29, 1989. The report concluded that Lots
2, 10, 11, and 12 would exceed the City's noise limits and wc result in a significant noise impact if not mitigated. proposed mitigation measures are depicted on the tentative n The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
First Floor Recommended Measures
1 5 t Barrier
(includes 3' berm height
shown in tentative map)
Second Flc Recommendt Measures
Not Applic
2 7 ' Barrier Not Applic
(includes 3' berm height shown in tentative map)
10 4 I Barrier Not Requii
11 4 I Barrier Same As F:
12 5 1 Barrier Same As F:
21. The project will not produce new light or glare that T
negatively impact adjacent properties. Public Street lights 1
be installed at locations shown on the tentative map.
22. A significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazarc
substances will not be created by this project as it propc residential uses.
-8-
w w1,
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (CONTINUED):
23, The density of the human population of the area will not be alterec
as the project is within the density range designated for the site
by the General Plan Land Use Map.
24. The project will provide additional housing opportunities.
25. The proposal will generate 170 Average Daily Trips with a Peak
between 4:OO to 6:OO p.m. totaling 17 trips. The amount of traffic generated by the project is not significantly high.
26. The project will provide all required parking in attached garages.
27. The project will improve the existing circulation system by completing the connection of an existing dead end street through
to Elm Avenue.
28. No alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic will occur as a
result of this project which is outside the airport influence area and not located in the immediate vicinity of a rail line or
body of water.
29. The proposed circulation system meets City engineering standards and sidewalks will be provided so as to not increase traffic
hazards to motor vehicles and pedestrians.
30. This residential project will not interfere with emergency response plans as it will provide an additional point of access
to an adjacent development.
31. The project will not obstruct a scenic vista and will reduce the
height and steepness of several existing slopes. Proposed slopes will be extensively landscaped according to the landscape
mitigation plan proposed.
32. Due to the relatively small scale of the project there Will be no significant affect on recreational opportunities.
-9-
-. m m
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desi c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternati\
a) Because the entire site must be graded at one time to imple the project proposal as a result of the existing terrain and relatively small scale of the project phased development is
feasible nor provide environmental advantages.
b) Alternate site designs would not be substantially differen provide environmental advantages as the alignment of the prop
extension of Appian Road is established by existing roads.
c) The project is proposing less than the maximum number of u
allowed by the density established for the site by the Gen
Plan.
d) The proposal complies with the use designated for the site by
General Plan and zoning for single family residences.
e) Development at some future time is not consistent with the use designations for the site which is surrounded on all side developed properties.
f) There are alternate sites for the proposal; however, this i
infill project consistent with the density designated for
property.
g) The no project alternative would maintain the partially distu
site in its existing condition with no significant environme
advantage.
-10-
m m
DETERMINATION (To 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 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
r\ /- q- 90
Date
/ - 17- 9d
Date
-11-
.A 0 0
. LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. a) Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan substantial conformance with the Conceptual Landsc Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Directo approval is required prior to the issuance of a grad
permit.
b) Prior to issuance of 3 grading permit, the applicant sh deposit at a financial institution subject to regulatior
the state or federal government, a certificate of deposit
letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or E
other security which is acceptable to the City. 1
document shall be for at least twice the estimated cost the proposed mitigation and landscaping. If the propc
mitigation and landscaping is not installed in a tin
manner, in accordance with the approved plans, the planr
director may authorize the utilization of these funds tc the necessary remedial work. Any funds remaining after completion of this work shall be returned to the applicz
c) In addition to erosion control measures the requj landscaping and irrigation systems shown on the apprc Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be completed prior the occupancy of any unit within this project.
2. The proposed noise mitigation measures recommended in
Acoustical Assessment Report of the Spyglass Project preparec Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated September 29, 1989, depicted on the tentative map shall be completed prior to
occupancy of any unit within this project. The requ: mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
First Floor Recommended Measures
Second Flc
Recommendc Measures
1 5 I Barrier Not Applic
(includes 3' berm height
shown in tentative map)
2 7 I Barrier Not Applic
(includes 3' berm height
shown in tentative map)
10 4 1 Barrier Not Requii
11 4 I Barrier Same As F:
12 5 I Barrier Same As F.
-12-
w w
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
I
i. 17- 70 I&" .
Date
DN: lh
-13-
.. 1 .e. w i8 Hrr'LiYULh r
?
Q, co
CL 3 v) \ h
m co
p. 0 I
LD cu I
P
%
L
v) cr: W
r => z
W J
LL
..
m
I
v) v) 4 a > 0 v)
.. W r U z
I-
W V
7 0 U p.
..
V W a
c3 Y
2 L
d U z
a z 0 V
Qc 0
cr:
W w
W + ..
s
3 s
J
eL Q 4
*r 0 -E CLa
c, %er
vc, v) a v)- '3 .C c
L-scb
0 r 'F
nu-
CnLC" - a2
*r u
GU!= W m,
-E -2
LC 0 0;z ce 0- d v)pJ
>caz
L WZ aU aWz: U$.Sv)
= us v) .?es Q)
.c 32 zahz
0 g.2 v)
2.Y €
4: g.2
? mu E
om=
ce-
0 2;;
VrO 0
c, - a- Q) a=
7 s&cn
E.5; QCL -- =n-
u-- WO
a=
;:=z ma
e; zz
LW 0- L-
E- p
0 EZ p.2 g
m 2.- E 8" 0 - Wtj E$= x cc, *
OEco =bf
2 245
Ev.:z 5.2- Q, rr.f B
EEgs 273 v) a
ZFZ
E~EZI --
W v)c'v) 3c, m v) me
I., E*
m ? .-
.F cs
m.- v) *- ">a3
--am* c, E4
c .F L WG a'-
e? a
a m E"
m.F .F 0 mo L -- .r m -r c4c,c,
3 E mg
-r m L
:OS€ c u .-
0 Em ceL - a= 2,
L L rn" WU uc,
c e au
2 v)
L m E 6, a
E
u a-
0 -- m Wc,
ccc,
.C c LO, W€ >a
n E
v
I
v) 5
F n
c 0
E g x v)
m c
L
c,+ 0. .- p Ea
r
.r
on
a
1 I-
W
3 L
v) m
Q) r
E 0
4 m U
'F c,
.F
-r
I
ce 0
ac, U -r SF ;$L
.r
OF 4; Lm
*- m OL
om L
v)
> Q)
m E
e E m
n
-r
c
7
(0 .F I turn
08 E a"-- c, nu E
Q)c, El- E mu*=
nv) o- m mn u.-- us IQ
v) v) a\ u =:EL EE:omo *
A CCL m m*F Fhl-
F m*F Q) m 0 cc, E>
Ea mncL m- 3 n- L
au a L'E"v)E<
m- m C-r L 0 EU 0
c, E mr 0
--m0 mu c, (0 LA mc,
E--ce"r Q)
J L 0 7"" nLEmoL
v)- u~ra
AU an
cc* 00 a *E
EL 2j2i
(A ..
.P g v)
35
LL om .C L -m
z 0
m E
E E m
n
.r
7
&& *- v)
v) mu OWW
Q) 0. oc, am moc ce L .C
ace Q) 0 om
c, cv) mc,c,73 v e- e
w- Q) 0- V-mce m -- L c,uc,u L v)c
uou Q)cc 0 m
*Lao E
Q, c .r
*- c, m c,c,c,c,
maam OA U-r
W L 3.-
a- v)
o L nn
n .F c,
a oc, E
n m
3, s SF 35 $5 .
5 C'3
.o, a .: 8:s
o+J Q).- Q) ov
OL 30 * ha LE
v)
Q) >
m c
E E m
.C
c n
€2 om 0 &
08s 2, ml- u
.C (0 m EF E
mw3 uu v)v)u
a6
nt n
ZEO mu 0 - v)c, 2, UWL 00
e- 0 L L E"
uc,
Q) mu L ma
3.r a
*- c,
x L- QLaa +.- n
n u
2, g .: 45 8 '5 J
3.- Q)
c, 2"
.o, a .2 &%5
ov * c '3 30 OL
L
v)
Q) *
0, E
\e- mL .- Q) Cal
EE E *-
-E mm
CLW
I cc,u 2, 0EQ)E
.F WO m &O Q) m Fw-
-r mQ) c Po
ESQ),S .- u u +c, 0 *
a nn
*- Q)7 v WU 7
oc,- u cum0
0 cLv) Q)
-F t
Q)Q) c
om
OQ) c, LLQ)
mu nc,
av) E o - nJ w L c, Q, m c, *F .- -r v).r OU
IC E& cL3 ExamLC
t
N
v)
c
.C 2
X a
ce
.r
I" c, /
W
W L 3
v) tu a E
E 0
4 m d
.C
'c 4 .c E
L m
F a
+ .c U
k a
m
U c
L
c: C
E c E
L C re
.r
-r
a r z
V c C s V
L
.C
a
> k 0 'C a*
*- L >
c,c m
IC EE =a uE
-L C
mn
a- a cc
oc m E II 0
7
c,c a+
WC
oc
0 .r LC
II c L
+ W -r
UP
'3
%: kS