Loading...
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