HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-29; Planning Commission; Resolution 3237c- 'C
< e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RFSOLUTION NO. 3237
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/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/SPECIAL
USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 35 DWELLING UNIT SINGLE
FAMILY PROJECT.
CASE NAME: RANCHO REAL
CASE NO: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 29th day of May, 1991,
8
9
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 10
11
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 13
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning 12
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
"ND", dated April 25,1991, and "PII", dated October 31,1990, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
22
23
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 24 project.
25
26
27
impacted by this project.
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
28
I; 0 *
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
28
I
~
Conditions:
1. After the preparation of kal grading plans and pad elevations, noise calculations
shall be repeated to verify or modify preliminary noise calculations. Prior to the
issuance of certificates of occupancy or equivalent releases, the project must
comply with A ' ' ' - tive Policy #17 for interior and exterior noise levels. Prior
to issuance of certificates of occupancy or equivalent releases, deed restrictions
must be filed on affected lots (those subject to noise impacts from Palomar Airport
flight activities) requiringwritten notification to purchasers of noise impacts to the
Property.
2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, developer must submit to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer proof that construction activities shall be carried on in such
a manner as to prevent the flow of sediment into any wetland habitat or into the
100-foot buffer, and that the development of the project will not result in any peak
increase in runoff rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected
from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10-year frequency storm (in
accordance with Mello I1 Coastal Zone requirements).
3. Prior to recordation of a final map, developer must place a permanent opm space
easement over the 1Oo-foot wetlands buffer area to restrict the area for open
space/wildlife uses only.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the 100-foot buffer area must be
revegetated with upland native vegetation.
5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a directed survey for least Bell's vireo
must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist on the project site and on the
contiguous off-site riparian habitat during the spring breeding season (March 15-
August 30) to detennine presence/absence and/or abundance. The survey shall
involve at least three visits during the breeding season and shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for review. If least Bell's vireo are found to be present
on the project site or on the contiguous offsite riparian habitat during the survey,
the developer must cease all activities immediately and contact the City of Carkbad
and the Interior Department of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
developer will be required to devise a mitigation plan acceptable to both the City
of carlsbad and the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the issuance of grading permits.
6. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a detailed tree preservation plan showing
which existing eucalyptus trees along the eastern boundary of the property will be
preserved must be submitted, and approved by the Planning Director. ...
PC RES0 NO. 3237 -2-
I
5,
1. a e
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the plannine
2
4
3
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of May, 1991, bg
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schram, 5 Savary, Erwin, Noble & Hall.
6
7
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
8 ABSTAIN: None. 9
10
11
12 ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
I.3 ll
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PLANNING DIRECTOR
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3237 -3-
28
4,
NEGATlVE DECLARATlON
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and
Hidden Valley Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single Family Residential developed under the standards of a
Planned Unit Development
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471.
'. 4h-A . .e '7
DATED: APRIL 25, 1991 J -
MICHAEL J. H~LZ&~,ER CASE NO: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/ Planning Director
PUD 9O-16/SUP 90-7
APPLICANT: GREEN VALLEY PARTNERSHIP
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 25,1991
EB:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (61 9) 438-1 161
m W
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7
DATE: October 31, 1990
ICKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Rancho Real
2. APPLICANT: Green Vallev Partnership
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1298 Prospect Street, Suite 2-K
La Jolla. CA 92037
4. DATE ETA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 23,1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Sinnle Family Residential developed under the standards of a Planned Unit
DeveloDment.
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
nvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
he Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
ientifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
rovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
npact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project 01
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO* will be checkec
to indicate this determination.
An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of thc
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negativt Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemec
insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and YES-insig'
respectively.
i discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde:
IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussin)
nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
<, e
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.o.
.1.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
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?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
e
YES YES
(sig) (insig)
X
X
- X
-
- -
-
- -
X
NO
-
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
w w
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: as E21 NO
L. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
3. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
1. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
5, 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
NILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
x - -
X -
X
X -
X
pis E21 NO
X
X
-3-
L. V
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
IILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
9. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
0. Increase existing noise levels?
1. Produce new light or glare?
2. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
3. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
4. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
5. Generate substantial additional traffic?
,6. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
7. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
:8. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
19. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
10. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
$1. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
12. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
e
E? YE.S (mg) NO
X
X
-
X -
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W W MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
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,
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.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
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.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
gs YES (Inslg) NO
- x
- - X
- - X
- - X
-5-
x. W e
)ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Iroject Description
'he proposed project is a 35-unit single family residential development on a 16.85 acre site located on the vest side of El Camino Real, The site is north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon wetlands boundary. The site
ontains other constraints including areas of 25% - 40% and 40% or greater slopes, a cultural resource area,
nd a power transmission easement. The southern tip of the property is also located within the 100-year ioodplain. The proposed project includes a 100-foot wetlands buffer area as required by the Agua Hedionda
,and Use Plan. No construction will occur in the cultural resource area nor within the 100-year floodplain
rea.
lhvsical Environment
1. A soil and geologic investigation of the site was conducted by Geocon, Inc. in March of 1990. The
study reports a surficial landslide in an area proposed to receive fill. Proper soil treatment prior to the
placement of fill soils will be required as part of the standard engineering conditions imposed on the
development.
2. The proposed project will change the topography of the site, however, the site does not contain any
unique physical features. The project involves grading volumes of approximately 8,180 cy/acre. Cut
and fill volumes on the site will be balanced. There will be no import or export. The maximum slope
height created will be 30 feet. The rather large grading volumes involved are the result of the constraints of the site.
3. The development of the site will be subject to conditions resulting from the soil and geologic
investigation. Erosion control measures will be required during and after construction to reduce tht
amount of siltation into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
4. The project will not change the deposition of beach sands nor modify any channel or ocean bed or othel
water body. There are no beach sands, channels, or other water bodies on the site.
5. The proposed single family development will not result in substantial adverse effects on ambient ail:
quality. The project will generate 350 trips per day.
6. The project will not cause substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture or temperature. It is
a single family residential project with a minimum lot size of approximately 5,000 square feet and 2
maximum height of approximately 26 feet.
7. The project will not affect the come or flow of any waters. There are no water bodies on the site.
8. There will be no impacts on the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public wate~
supply. Water will be supplied by Carisbad Municipal Water District. Dust and erosion contro:
measures will be implemented to prevent any adverse effects during construction. A temporaq
desiltation basin will be needed during construction. This basin will not be allowed within the 100-fool
buffer. The Mello I1 Coastal Program requires that the proposed project not result in a net increase 0.
run-off on the site. Verification that this requirement is being met will be required before gradinl
activities can begin.
-6-
w W
)ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
2. The project will not substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources. The site
does not contain any natural resources.
0. The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. It is a single family development with
no single major energy user.
1. A cultural resource survey conducted in January ,1990, indicates the presence of Indian artifacts on the
southeastern portion of the site. The survey recommends that the project not encroach into the
resource area. Avoidance of the area will serve as mitigation of this potentially significant impact.
'ioloaical Environment
2. The proposed project will not significantly affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any
species of plants. A biological study of the site conducted in February, 1990, indicated that there were
no federally listed rare or endangered plant species on the site. The southern portion of the site as
proposed includes a 100-foot buffer area for protection of the wetlands area of the nearby Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. This buffer area is disturbed and currently contains trash. The proposed projecl
includes cleaning up the buffer area and hydroseeding it with plant species native to the area.
3. The proposed project will not introduce new species of plants to the area. The vegetation native to the
site has been mostly eliminated as the site has been used for agricultural purposes (tomatoes) for 2
number of years.
4. The site is currently used for agricultural activities. The site is not, however, included in the are; designated a Sigmficant Agricultural Area by the California Coastal Commission.
.5. The project will not significantly affect the diversity of species, habitat, or numbers of any species 0:
animals. The biological study of the site indicated that no threatened or endangered wildlife specie:
were found on the site. There is the potential for several sensitive bird species to be indirectly impactec
by development of the site. Although very little habitat exists on the site, it is adjacent to a largc
riparian area containing habitat for sensitive bird species. Measures are required to mitigate thc
potential impacts. Mitigation measures are detailed in the attached Mitigation Plan. They includc
provision of a 100-foot buffer area, preservation of some existing vegetation, revegetation of disturbec
areas, and noise tests and protection for least Bell's vireo during breeding season.
.6. The project will not introduce new species of animals into the area, nor result in a barrier to thc
movement of animals.
luman Environment
17. The proposal is for residential uses in an area zoned for residential and agricultural uses. The Genera
Plan designates the area for low to medium density residential uses. Thus, the proposal does not alte
the planned land use of the area.
18. The project will not substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency, or other publil
services. Public services will be provided through the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan.
-7-
0 a I. .
ITSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d
19. Any resulting need for sewers, drains or other waste systems will be provided on site and will not
significantly impact existing systems.
.,O. The project, when completed, will not increase noise levels. Short-term insignificant noise may result
from construction activities. These potential impacts will be mitigated through the noma1 conditions
on construction activities (e.g., hours of work activities, etc.) Because of proximity to El Cadno Real
and the airport, some residential structures on the site might be subject to noise impacts from the street
and from airplane flyovers. The project has been designed to incorporate the noise impact reduction
measures recommended in the noise study prepared for the site. Additional mitigation is being
proposed to ensure compliance with Administrative Policy #17 concerning noise impacts on residential
uses.
1. The proposed project will not result in significant new light. Street lighting provided will not create
a nuisance for surrounding properties.
2. The type of project proposed (residential) typically does not involve a significant risk of explosion or
the release of hazardous substances.
3. The net density of the proposed project is 3.19 dwelling units per acre. This is within the density range
(0-4 units per acre) allowed by the General Plan and just below the Growth Control Point (3.2 units
per acre).
4. The project will provide 35 additional housing units to meet current demand. These units are allowed
under Growth Management regulations for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1.
3. The 350 additional trips per day generated by the project will not have a significant impact on the
street system.
5. All parking demand generated by the project will be satisfied on site. Each single family home will have
a two-car garage. Guest parking will be on-street.
7. The project will not significantly impact existing transportation systems nor alter circulation patterns
or movement of people and/or goods.
3. The project is not in the vicinity of a rail line or a water body having boat traffic. The project is also
outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
?. The project will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project’s
circulation system includes public streets and access roads designed to comply with City regulations and
policies. Sidewalks will be provided throughout the project.
1. The project design proposes links to the existing circulation system for the larger area which will not
interfere with emergency response plans. The circulation within the project is also designed to
accommodate the necessary emergency access.
-8-
6 w
ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d
1. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista nor create an aesthetically offensive public view.
2. The project will create a demand for recreational opportunities which will be satisfied on site. The project includes a recreation play area with a volley ball court and a hiking trail.
-9-
'. . 0 e
LNALYSIS OF WNLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) No phasing of development of the project has been proposed. The project is a small (35 unit)
residential development. Phasing of the development would provide no environmental or other
benefit over non-phasing.
b) Alternate site designs have been proposed and reviewed by the Planning and Engineering staffs.
The currently proposed site design is the one preferred by staff. The site has numerous constraints,
making it difficult to develop.' The presently proposed design provides a number of environmental
benefits. It leaves the cultural resource area undisturbed and provides a large wetlands buffer area
which will be revegetated with native plants. It also mitigates potential noise impacts to the site
from the nearby major street.
c) Several site designs have been considered. The project as currently proposed is of a lesser scale
than previous proposals (from 39 units originally proposed to the currently proposed 35 units - a
reduction of 4 units). The currently proposed scale is adequate to provide environmental
mitigation. A smaller scale of development would not provide any greater environmental benefits.
d) The General Plan map designates the site for low to medium density residential uses, and the site
is zoned for residential and agricultural uses. The proposed use is an appropriate use for the site.
e) Delaying the development of the site until some future time would provide no environmental or
other benefit, The sire is currently used for agriculture. The proposed project will provide
mitigation for potential impacts as discussed above.
f) Use of this site for the proposed residential project does not preclude similar development on other
sites, It also would not provide any environmental benefits for this site since it is currently in
agricultural cultivation.
g) Since the proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designation of the
site, the no project alternative would provide no environmental or other benefit. With the no
project alternative, the site would continue in agricultural use.
-10-
e w
ETERMINATION (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 NEGATlVE
L I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 ENVIRONMENTAI
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I 1;; //)/ , '7 '/& /Ly L .Jp i! ;\
L Date Signature
,I '\, i '\ / .:f I. /; 1,' /Lj 1 -4tL&\ \ i c, . ,,*~4\Lcccc- -
Ddte Planning Director >
EB:rvo:km
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-11-
m e
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. c /&j/+ bzgd I
\ A' d
Signature
/ / ,
-12-
-. NPENUM P
EMRON~~ mG*moN MONITORING As Page 1 of 5
t?
!3
& VJ 3
3
0 T;'
8
8
6
Ei 3
m ..
3 z w =! L
-3
4 B
d
d
2 ..
z
U b
0 e
cr; a
!i
G
2
..
a
z
z
F: Ei
0
z 8 cr: 0
w E
..
< CI
0 >
e
2
E
% g2 3 -2 9 8 :2& 22 fig 2? md $3 PI 'd * 3 3 2 a
0 -3
32?E am$ 842 .fi -2 0
.$& g 5
t4 ma
-au V&
Q g
4 g$i k'd 5 42%
g-g !3
P+ 0, 2 8 -3
a!i Cn- .s 3 -8 g 4 -g
JZ E 8s
.ri w u s -; .M
8 a.fj EZ - &z El
0 "3 -3 g w aJvs @<a"
5g8 gge 2 -u E
0 .!j % -g% (d
'.l@5$ 4 g '5 d s a aJd aJ s ;?nN
SYEg 0 ; 8-g -9 "82 8-8 aJ 0, .f g 2 $
0 $2 g
2.i $j
T;;3 .d Y
&E
"He
ccrw
%us
WGQJ
2 q
c -;
4- a wo a3
-pa
=I &k 2023
m
3 2 z
+4
4 -s 1
W
2 U
W a
W 5
W aj42 kEa 2 a'd $2 :E!
E 52 .$ 2 7 .g
.g:z iEJ g
4 8s aJa v 2932
de
-2 .$ 3 0
'E 0
pI 82 a gw-&
az 8 &
-2 &I 8 Ode E2 8 E
2G t+ as g
aJ 0 2-s
2032
0% gj &
2 'd FJ .s em v
E&4 530g 8 aJ a- .? E-3 s:
E aJ:d 3 .fi
bG5 c 2 3;" 0%
boII uo 3-2 & gG 11 3- "-2 E 8 *E& 3 2 2 E We,E II
&e2 OwA ""$% g-g 0 'C E
boo 0 L"e% ," 8 aJ-
uu
3 $ aJ:d &bo
% 'd
-2 2 k 0 .s G-g d 3 9
2Eq&
4u-m aJm scm&bo
an
~"EcnScr: daJW
g5 $5
E
rl 0
v
a -3 8 2 p: a cr:
APPENDIX P
E-oNkh -GATION MONITORING An Page z of 4
i
L 2 IJ 9 5
3 3 4 -.
-4
2 I ..
5w :n ?g ;z
bz z!
jE
:z :8 ;s i3
u'
0
n
l
I
E 6
..
2
2 >
$
m
-E
2! W
LC
rcl
* -5 1
w
a 8
"tl
a (d
RJ d
a qj+2 3 3.m
v) (d P g z .s :Be",
.d"P g g -3 3 3 0 za QJa2 V"
.@QZ
fQ ga"
RJ3 g &
4 .m 2 g- $6 Q3 -2 +2 $
*I=G E,m % E
g $"" g P $228
g 3 3 -3
630% EGba
2E-g: $! & e-g 3 -45 0 .s d ;
rlfdRJQJ =I G.bo4 bo E ".+.!j
bQ4 e cn
2 11 11 2 2
-d 2 9 -2 0a
'dm
4
0
a $2
boo 0 "E
- as g ztz
QJ 0 2-2
la- a bo
F: $22 QJ aJ (dcc
Q%g
*gng.22 ak
IIE$QJ& a3
+"PI2 E g .gn - .+ 4 g boa a
QJ-2 oq 2
r+EcA>d go" aJ 0)
04i aJ
ua(dQJ
R .s 8 3 I'
$23 $2 5
E 0
u
a x a 8 $ 2
2
3
34 2 n 6 7
1 2 z
s g
g
8
3 e
i 3
3 ..
5 !2 3 z u
CL d
1
B
d 8
d
!!
..
z
U b
E 2 a
% 83
m;t c! bo&
Q)a 3 .m g
-g 3 m 063
0-E 2.4 % Ow2 4 -5 0 %e- $2 g q g .. 2 E:$
cj ; -2 '5
z @(d.3
z OBE g "I E -3 3 .E
2; %vs 8 uuo g 2 '2
9: Q)za
O d $ah 0 -4
z Y 54
e2 E!
3 g 3 B" z- a
3 'd P
312 0
-3s a - WP blw
U
w n G-2.
2 ,"7s
gbl $3 a+ 2 Q)
cub0
i+ ufna cd -5 q
a% V)
0 a2
0-
wg- Ed $@
E:- 0 .fi 3 -%% (d
P d 6 g is g a;
g;2 0:8 .. -3 E4 F; g.Ei g
4-
0 -a
5
g a-3 3
4s n b03W
ij! 18;
0 so2
2 e5E
twrmvum r
ENVIRON &AI., MITIGATION MONlTORING &sT Page 3 of 4
!3 Ei ba
E
s"
OaJ q P
.f c c1
cd a 2;
c1 V
-7 a
a i2
3 -a E2
&E -@ g
*g E d
oE$J ggaJ
(d (d.2
-4 Z& E:
tqj
865 22s
aao
gwa y.gg
2 P -d
Bmc1
=Ira
0 ?a
-g ? OOP
.! k CI
cd PC 88
2
? 0
0
a 3 (d "u w g
3 2.a d4- z
245
E gs d .$ z 2 .g
-2:a 2 g -g 3 7 0
4 3s 43 v
"E q@
$i%8
bbg 2 g 4 WA g -03 4-4 a2 2 2.c (d pze, AgE
k PCP g $ g 2.2 z g 2143
207g 0%2m 8.: g .g
$9.0 g
3s-g: 9 bl c*g 3 g Z"2 g : g 9:2g 8
V 4ii\&
Q)W
a'iij
as 5%
Ab0
kE:M
Q) 3 a, d
m qyQ) fi [v2:a 5.gng.24 mc ah x
g-82 E 3 oand24
sa-a 0-2 Gg II
Gll$l ubl * Q)-2 gq 2
bZCA>ci go& Q) Q,
7. * * Emoau mG*moN MO-mG as Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX P
9 0
3"
3
n
v)
0 T
3
2
%$ a
gz
E2 d
.. E 12s
3:: 2d
z5
..
$2
wz
wo 4
3 2
B Q
d
$E ..
22 v$
0% F
3%
z g;?" 3 -: 9 g :jy& 3 gg
% .- ;;;
'2 2 m 053
82iE
SSP .Ei -5 0
.g 2 $j
-2 g
8.2 5 ; -3 $ 8.2 8 kE a+ a a (d -2 * 4aJg v)+ 088
g 2 -2 U"2 qg
.Ei a u ,o 'Q .I4
el a5 ;g g
0 az! -3 6 w aJvg 8 =4 a"
342 gzg zag a@ i 'W -2
0 .fi 2 -g% (d "@GG 3 g '5 d # (dzz
aJ g ;?aw 8 g g.2
Wc& -3 agm 8-g aJ Q) .p g g 6 &;
W
-34 3
u -3
-8maJ
-aJ- Vk
Elsa
3 g+
GCl bo -2 4 -6 Z"0
aGaJ
a- v)
d- cg
-sa
,,Oq3 aJ-3 Q s: E822
4
crl I
g d a$
El
LboU
*ii! Egg 08 -i g*a g
8 *ib 5
'd
+I
g
bPI
&8-g 8
Ea Enwn aaJGaJ
E *- 2 aJ
a
a (d vu$
bo -5 m e2
*f3 (d 0) na" il $E v) n: -2Zb g aJ
3 *dug$ s Q) 0-+ et?$ z
d v ZZ% m-5 -8 (d m3 c=.p"a
ow P%
'E1 zz 2 E h
*3- -4 P 8 g-2 aJ 02 $9 @
GZW
GaJU
% .; z ; aboa .; ; i a -[ 1 sjj.=o (d
ag%g !$ UP)
aa 3 aJ ptp
?
4 *2 2 s W
3 1: -g a * 4" A4
-E! [ a
d
Wk
a el a m
a
(d tz
4-52 .-
2 el .g
2 =: :El 2 22
-p f g '2 -2 =$ 0
d %2$3 2728
Zgz-8
-2 v) 3 pi
.r" g a 9 2 +i?i $
OGIz EioE
8 a2 g
392 8% D bo
&l .3 i .g
&g F; bo 8 2-2 g $8 :$%
kGg2 O-3 G 2
w :a 5 .z
pII$ '84 %dm -0 %
111 3 2 k
8222
-g O-22 -2 g$$
v)m
.s 3 2 .$ m(d
-E! 0
(63 E+ boo aJ8 "E
* G v)"'d
d QO(d(d e s c:d &:bo
dm aJ Gbo
II 22
n332 boa a GA 11
ti
pow m>d