HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 46850 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4685
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO
GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 10.4 ACRES INTO 21 LOTS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS I1
CASE NO.: CT 99-08/SDP 99-04/SUP 99-04/HDP 99-07
WHEREAS, Landis Industries, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a veril
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Horace and Dolph
Felkins Trust, “Owner”, described as
That certain portion of Lot J, Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to partition Map thereof, No. 823 on file in the Office
of the County Recorder of said County, and described in Deed
to Wayne Willard Connor, recorded June 21, 1957 as
Document No. 92974 in Book 6632, page 183 of official records
of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring 2
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of December, 19
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testiml
1 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fac
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Repori
Program.
0 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plann
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit IT
dated October 12, 1999, and “PII” dated September 27, 1999, attached he1
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findines:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental imp2
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior
APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califor
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmer
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evideI
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions
1. The developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Spyglass
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
~ ...
I
...
...
11 PC RES0 NO. 4685 -2-
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plam
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December 1999, by
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1 - COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~ Mq
Planning Director
23 II
24
25
26
27
28
1) PC RES0 NO. 4685 -3-
0 0
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Southeast comer of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Parcel is also know as APN: 167-090-69.
Project Description: A 21 lot, 19 unit residential subdivision with 10,000 square foot lot
size minimums on 10.4 acres. The project includes grading for the
development, public street system and street, and utility improve-
ments to serve the 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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: OCTOBER 12,1999
CASE NO: CT 99-08/SDP 99-04/SUP 99-04MDP 99-07
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS I1 .
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 12,1999
MICHAEL J.~~LZMLLER
Planning Director
n \’ ..
2d’ijEs Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 i6-
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 99-08/SDP 99-04/SUP 99-04/HDP 99-07
DATE: September 27, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Suvglass I1
2. APPLICANT: Landis Industries
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2821 1 Driza, Mission Vieio, CA 92692.
(949) 454-2203
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 11,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 21 lot. 19 unit residential subdivision with 10,000 square foot lot
size minimums on 10.4 acre parcel located on the southeast comer of El Camino Real and
Carlsbad Village Drive. The uroiect includes grading for the development, Dublic street svstem
and street. and utilitv improvements to serve the development.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing m Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
[xi Air Quality N Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
..
1 Rev. 03128196
0 e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
17 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Ix] 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 NEGATIVE .
DECLARATION will be prepared.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
- u 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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
&L f0-cc-44
PlaZer dgnature Date
*
\M-&d&&,&&- 16) 6 55 Plinning Director s Swature Date
2 Rev. 03128196
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment, The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the fchwing
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies,
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon ’
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 ’ When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this .
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
*
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
f, Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
5.1-15, # 2)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
cl
0
0
*
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
OH
0 OH
0 0 [XI,
0 om
0 om
0
0
o lxl
Olxl
El OH
0 OH 0 OW 0 nBl
0 zl
0 05 0 ON
0 UKI 0 OH 0 OH
0
0
OKI
0 'W olxl
Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, # 2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, # 2)
11, #2)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11, # 2)
0
I71
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
ixl
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 0
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.2.2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f, Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or a& traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
ixl
0
17
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, X 3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
6
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
c3
El
0
17
0
0
17
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
UIXI
OD
OH
OIXI
UIXI
OH
on
OH
OH
ON
nu
UBI
OH
OM
OBI
OH
OH
OH
UH
Rev. 03128196
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 0
3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3) 0
- 5.4-24) 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
proposal:
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 0
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 0
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated !XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
17
0
El o
0
0
17
17
0
0
No Impact
IXI
[x1
IXI
IxI
Ixi
IXI
El
El
Ixi
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 0 CIEl
1 - 5.9-15, # 5) [x1 00
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 cl nIxI 0.17 OEl 0 El om C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 17 LIB
5.12.8-7) 0 17 UIxI
7 Rev. 03128196
0 * Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS, Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
.XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 4)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #4)
10)
10, # 4)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 4)
XV. RECREATIONAL. wouid the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife 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
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 OH
0 0 05 0 0 0 1x1'.
0 0 OH 0 0 om 0 0 OB 0 0 01x1
0 0 01x1
0 0 BO
0 0 0.5
0 5 on
0 0 OH
0 0 OH 0 0 am
om
0 0 01x1
0 OISI
0 0 om
8 Rev. 03128196
0 *
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
om I Incorporated
ON
-9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined fi-om the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
r. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of subdividing a 10.4 acres of undeveloped land located at the southeast
comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real into 19 residential lots with a minimum of
10,000 square feet in area. The future extension of Appian Road is proposed to continue from
the south side of the property to its northern terminus at the intersection of Carlsbad Village
Drive and Avenida De Anita. Additional interior site access will be provided by a cul-de-sac
extending from Appian Road towards the east. Much of the project site has been disturbed by
prior grading activity and has been mowed or cleared for fire suppression purposes.
The site is triangular in shape and generally slopes downward moderately to steeply to the west
with two east-to-west trending rounded hills. An existing slope inclined at approximately 1 : 1
along portions of El Camino Real and an existing slope inclined at approximately 2: 1 exists
along portions of Carlsbad Village Drive. Previous site grading include the cutting of a
relatively flat pad at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real and graded
slopes along the eastem portion of the site to accommodate the existing residential development.
The maximum cuts and fills are in the order of 25 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are proposed.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. Land Use and Planning
The project site is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM), 0-4 units per acre, in the General
Plan and is Zoned Residential Agricultural with a 10,000 square foot lot size minimum. The
proposed 19 unit subdivision would result in a project density of 3.2 units per acre which would
be consistent with the General Plan designation. The adjacent development to the east is a
single-family detached residential development. The 10,000 lot size would be compatible with
the adjacent development. The site is has not been used for agricultural purposes and the
development would not impact agricultural uses as none are adjacent.
11. Population and Housing
The project’s density does not exceed the density allowed for the site by the General Plan. As an
in-fill development of vacant land with existing improvements adjacent to the property, the
project will not induce growth nor displace existing housing.
IV. Water
The project site is not located within a floodway as identified on the FEMA maps.
V. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment, basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for air
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway se,ments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby guaranteeing
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
13 Rev. 03128196
0 0
VII. Biological Resources
The project site was field surveyed for sensitive and endangered biological species and natural
habitat communities. The resources were mapped by Pacific Southwest Biological Services in
January of 1999. The project would result in the impact of the following biological resources:
a) .16 acres Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
b) .16 acres Chamise Chaparral
c) 5.15 acres of Perennial (Native) Grassland
d) .65 acres Non-Native Grassland
e) 4.28 acres Disturbed Habitat
..
,Impacts to the Perennial Grassland is considered a significant impact and requires mitigation to
reduce the impact to less than significant. Impact to the Perennial Grassland would be mitigated
at a ratio of 2: 1 by either of the following:
a) Acquisition and preservation of land within the City of Carlsbad containing native
grasslands, or
b) Restoration and enhancement of a disturbed area within the City of Carlsbad to native
grassland.
In either case, the mitigation site shall be in or contiguous to Habitat Management Plan preserve
areas and shall provide long-term benefits for grassland species.
The impact to the Coastal Sage Scrub is not significant since the area is less than one acre in size
and is considered a deminimus impact. The project is conditioned to secure the appropriate
permits from other responsible agencies prior to final map or grading permit.
X. Noise
Based on the findings of the project’s acoustical report, portions of the project will have
significant adverse noise impacts from the adjacent El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive
roadways. To mitigate the noise impacts to a level of 60 dB CNEL at the exterior of the units,
Lot 1 will require a 5-foot wall at the top of slope, Lot 2 will require a 6-foot wall facing
Carlsbad Village Drive, Lot 6 will require a 3-fOOt side yard wall at the top of slope,. and Lots 9,
10, 11, and 12 will require a 3-foot wall at the top of slope. The project will be conditioned to
provide an acoustical analysis, prior to building permit issuance, to ensure that the interior CNEL
will not exceed 45 dB. Mitigation measures may require air conditioning/mechanical ventilation
andor dual-paned windows.
XI. Public Services
C) Schools. The project is conditioned to pay the statutory school impact fees which has been
determined to adequately mitigate any impacts to school facilities.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The site has been mapped as having a geologic strata defined as Pleistocene marine, marine
terrace deposits, and Tertiary marine which have the potential to contain significant fossils.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
There is a high potential for the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction
activities. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during future grading of the
site to reduce potentially significant impacts on the region’s paleontological resources to an
acceptable level:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
A cultural resource survey was completed for the project by Brian Smith and Associates, dated
October 30, 1989. The survey of the property did not result in the identification of any cultural
resources within the property and no further studies or investigations were considered necessary.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Update Geotechnical Investigation, Spyglass. Carlsbad for Landis Industries, Inc, Anaheim
CA, Geocon Inc., dated April 1999.
3. Report of a biological survev of the Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real Property,
Carlsbad, California for Landis Industries Inc., Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.,
dated January 28,1999.
4. An Archaeological survey of the Spyglass Subdivision uroiect, Brian Smith and Associates,
dated October 30, 1989.
5. Noise Analysis Uudate, Spyelass Residential Develoument, Giroux and Associates, dated
May 10,1999
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may
be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Comdor, in a form
meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file
in the Planning Department).
2. Prior to the occupancy of individual units on Lots 1, 2, 6, and 9 through 12, the developer
shall construct sound attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top of the
slope and street side yard of these lots, in accordance with the recommendations of the
project’s noise study prepared by Giroux and Associates, dated May 10, 1999.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, an acoustical analysis and subsequent mitigation shall be
required for Lots 1-6, Lots 9-12, and Lots 17-1 9 to ensure that the interior CNEL does not
exceed 45 dB. The project’s building plans shall include a note on the plan stating the
required interior noise mitigation requirements for Lots 1-6, Lots 9-12, and Lots 17-19 per
the recommendation of the subsequent noise study.
4. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino
Reall Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The
amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including
but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone
Mello-Roos taxing district.
2 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a
5. Prior to final map or grading permit, the developer shall acquire 10.3 acres of land containing
native grasslands within the City of Carlsbad for preservation or the developer may locate
10.3 acres of land withm the City of Carlsbad for the restoration and enhancement of a
disturbed area to native grassland. If the restoration option is selected, the developer shall
devise a revegetation Concept Plan which will include: 1) the location of the project, 2)
developer responsibilities, 3) revegetation contractor responsibilities, 4) ownership status
and, 5) present and proposed uses of the mitigation area. The developer shall also devise an
Implementation Plan which will include: 1) timing of revegetation effort, 2) revegetation
materials, 3) site preparation, and 4) planting plan. A Maintenance Plan shall also be devised
by the developer and shall be subject to a five year monitoring period and performance
criteria as dictated in the revegetation plan with a provision for a shorter maintenance period
for early establishment of the mitigation area. In either case, the mitigation site shall be in or
contiguous to the Habitat Management Plan preserve areas and shall be reviewed and
approved by local resource agencies including the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
6. Prior to final map or grading permit, developer shall secure a deminimus permit from the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the impact to the Coastal Sage Scrub.
7. Paleontology:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
16 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See attached.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
J‘ ,@L??cc- :&17+* r hvvtc, $4,
Date kq /&LLfl- /P j flq! 0
18 Rev. 03/28/96
I-
Q) m
?
a n
?
a
$
m m
3 cn
d
m m
\
c?
a n
4
mw
.. m6
2
Gn cl,, c) Dfz
. an fP z6 wg
W
Jk ii2
- - cn cn
c3
cn
4
2
Wk lij
~a 40 21 1-6 E6 $E IX~ na
$%2?
.P' E
0 $6 '0 0
mc-Q
.- +ma, €3 g
& .L - ' p:
.r k$ F
g Es g & '5
m-; 2 .g a, r .- E LEF p c '5
9:F
22 .E
agg
m2 € 5"m
'E -0 -> n a, .22 c KO 0 .E e, 0 mr
~SJ 6 m=
om% zs+ .- a, F uEm
& "$2
3a
+
Q'F; m
+
0 -
01
Q' L-
u-Y c 000
2 EU
e6 c xE c gs .- "SE" & g .- 3*EZri
m.Emq 2 zc-?
mu- 30
E $2 c
'Eaoa, 0 Eo
m "0 .- ms 'E-" mu ' =a
om0
i nrnu
ZQmm 5.E rU a, €5 2 3 I2
Kc3 gam;
5 E :r
a, g E.2
0.5: e5 c !=.Q zj '3 a,%& - 9 u .E)O o.!?''Co
r e,.v,E kZ5a
3 .- c a3
mo F a-ocu
,S ng
cc
bg E;;; a,
0 0
2
E
v)
m
2
t 0 .- c) ;s
%a) .- c
Z€ >u
E -
c
CK om 5:
0
az
't E C " .- Ka a p
K K m
ET, t
K C m a
.- ,Or
O E pb
h c.5
.- .- cm.-a,
=Q~K RW
CK -
u) C x .-
.- c) kga Fz Q m $.F=
0 K
EE = ;a) 8 an
+ % m +- a, i-
3 .-
V
ma
ZE 3a)
~ ~~~
0 -D .I! Q- .- v)'L. K
-v)LC 0%
Qg a,
egzgsq v)" = g o+u "em0
g- *g m .E? .s cu' +zz 'j L
m?EQgc\r~;y,ox.jn m$*E5 1-0 Lc 51 g E 5.g
pg=, g $ €5 e 0 a, a, -0 a, a,N g v) a, m 0.5 a, 0 0 saz +tY.ZU .E 5 p .ju++ "'5-v) mz E K c.En & ?j & a, v)zn+ Q) E.2 m 0 uas v) E 21 v) m a,u m m3-2
- Ob-= mc
E $2 3.ks 0% E g
m.Esnz 2 3 v)*z C LO 8 gap% e L
c "+ 0 h m 0 L. Qr.5 a, z .kO'J= v)" L 0 v) 3 go K a,u mm% K r Q 2 &
0 +- 0, ,u$8gs.i, m[J5 e6
0 .Pb + xs~E~9e~x,un,v)~ndv)'y~ .- .c,
3 m man c my$ a, a,G- g- r a, Q$g -2 m2.G g
a,- U+a,CQ
a, a, -5 .s*z .E (u i+-3 , (u 2 2 E m* v) s z%zE .E a K+ ms scv 3 07 mz L.z 0 8 m.2"'c
L v) s2 &= .-e.E n7 K no am gE1xa, OU s .o 0 a, 0 t 3.Cg-o 0.2 a, +n a,-0 Is: cE b E."z CE a, 0 " 3 m a, m ccDE a, m p.gp 0>mLU3"+m It: v) -2 g~-,--.y C g x g 0 a, 011 (21 .-L.
$.Ez pE.t.E+z a, Q*a 0 mgs.-(u n -gLU.E?S P5-o ;SA v)*bJ v)a,ov) a, 05 ;"a",,, *uu c0 a, QO L Ow t: Z c L.k 05 mlJ- L L 0 0 Q) a, a-eyzm gy-5 a, E nz E2.E.g (TJ -J[J5 v) ~~a~~.rbAoaco^v)n~5anm~~0Q~-O
- OFt .- -+ + a, .-
a,a "
2 K I- z a,m -5 :$.?E 2: eLl v) 5 ozs 2 g
m m Lv) .EO z "rnq+Oa - Wu.=ckmCl)+~~a)~~[J5Qac~ ma
m
.E U -v)a,Ca,o.5 4-7 u 0 €3 a, .-m,oo,roa,,-a,8x7.2.0~~.~-v) -5 en X95
0 0- mZ)t K, 3 L ru 0
QQ)U E 4-uL'F;
gz a,z.saLl 02"g pg$gz > Q~ Qg mQQ)
0 0 ~5.~
L W
0 5
d L
c WP E8
- ig
.- Ea$ =E e,
25
$F
Lo '= mm = .P
a, '8 3p
E+ o,
CW5 gx, mu 0 .Fu u)
~ SUZ
sn II .- ti
,m3L
.E - &g
2% m 5 15 .E
82 L9 0-8 .- -= s cp c 55 $2 gS$ E pp -.E L
"E >B &
- z
%
3 0 .-
a m
Dl 8 .- 8 .= K E b c - a,
u) 8 0 Q u)
n
!?? s; 0 K al g2
z5 iriZ$Plj
=.E E% z6m=
m gn z $gl'S
0 5 $g .o '2 mz
c %a a
- 01 .E f 11 0
E20
;-E - m-
LC -& 0
w ma.= E
ut-2
0 0
v, E E 2
L a,
0 5
d L - w.2 58
c 0 Eg-
c eFJ =s .a, c %a) =E
a€ >cu
E
1-
-
._
a, 0) ' =' 'p 0 v)= mm Jz .P -
SYj- :2
g .E gE In
0 c =a,:
3a ZE .g 5 g
# CUZ z+ m 3 :e .E
II .- 5 c: (0 0-g
SSL
Ed m
cum 0 .- mu v) c
Kg
FZ
.- pb
a a 2:
([I gs 6
c E Br
== 0) 0)
.- c 8gEm
Eg-&e E.=
2 .:zi zE
.-
L E
c
.- 8 .& Edc $5 gg
izg5
&E
.- - =8a ,-t E,," g
c
>K
0)
0-
LULL 62
m9uk= v) m0 m-+ != t am .Q).=xmzQ)m a r 0 e$ Q) 'C c .- m ai g Q) v) .v, -- .- 0.z 5 -c, .- ms .s +ma0 0
mQ) 4-l -ss gc 2 .- +v)u-px(cIo -0 =+.ea c, - &
.spm 3agg 0) rd mgs E =0go2€ - 2 Q) 0-2
azQ)+mF m L v)ZQ)E ULO g!?? mo 'i c v) 5t;zE a a x, Q)zc, o
c mm b .s z "4-l Q) Qo a, nf 0 g+=EQ)rY- 0 0 0)- m=s maoi. 0 .- v) 0 -0 2 =s v) Q)
=g Q)Q)-a u c Gg g v) -0 & 9 8 : % .E a, Q) >,WE as a, @ a00 Fog0) as L, (cI .Q) E" go a, 5"Q)-2& Q) or c -,Q)Q) aL - L, Q) 2 as%+ L, a q - 2 -as 0- = -+; 8 .o = 3 c 00 c m- a,
=) .e rJJ 0.r > 0 2mGF"O;o rn .r 1.D
V) E:$ a7i L cu x0.g a, E m t "CJ e* v)c
QL Y- .G 5 a, -- - as &.g L, -0 0 g goal 0200 0 E@&$ -cv) ggg 0.0)- - 0 z mum &E 2 x0 "a+ Sc," 0 .- c) .G 'E (rJ 0%~ Q)zaa 8 u Q) QZ EF04 (I3 a, Q)s g 00(cIk - Q)v = .L ,o 80 a, .EJ U Fun m-(Q oO;mn E-Q)Lg aQ-5 nQ),'EF;i -LL-OLi g "0 $$ is Lcn d SFE.222 o&- 3a,"gv)aEG m u *- .-v) gQqz v) v) m;
0 =x 3 L 0 $ > Q3T"- E5
-E = v, cU a 'rS s! 1.2 x >t: - cr5g: 2:Eiz i; E E~SS 2 gn c1 a 2 ong E m5 v)n = kU Q) Q) a a i.iEg g$G?g) l":;c 'Fm wnz zpg E" cn d cj * sang 9 2zs 5 -0 g.pcnE $~Xk2
tu - - .- 3 0 ._ -0 5
4-1 R m
C
Q Z9""o c,
._
m 5 "4 .- .-
Y- L
u >us=&
am 0Q)m EQa2Q)
.- - .- - P
v)
.2 P .- R In c, s!
>; F-5 3 5 v) = -C a)omQ)m= as6 +a,
gu C
- C m DL 0 C .- m 0 3QQ)SL - c,-+
Q€.% 5
E
;:E@ Ogk 2 a, % g.E E ".:e Q)% >,E zz c sQ) 0 = 023 g Q)Q)QCO-- -
-
mn.E E .- La,a,Orn 5
Z?O wz - II 5
amnon wl-z
0 e
z v,
2 z
K 0 .- x" =E
8.- a, $E >a,
E
c
-
f om 52 2E
(I)
cnz .- KC) .E 8E 5
2z
a S .- 8% ?e sc z
(urn m rig .- 523
3m$ $5 EZ
.G a) 2 .- 25% 0 5 €I
aJ .to-
=I 52
2 E.t-2
I P5z = ?EO' .o c, S$rn m g & .a, n
E a)*
3 K?
L
u) m
Ul
c, r .-
i 6L-m 0s .-
=LC
ama, ==e g.o.25s z$5 .- &$LrnSa,a,S
su a L su+ 2 za i
sa 0x5 ,a E.>% a) a, m,m?G35 a, - a) mYJ a)u.G (no gm?p s=-E OE f=- a," m a, a, a, a5 0 a)o 0 Pszop L. v)o
52p; 2" LSgu c.g 0)
L m.u, t
.to, &Z mp-+ m a,G Oh U.Pm
+=: Qm*€az L 0 na, u] mu a m m:o "2v) a, L.- c > a, o!=J= L.E 0 g2U.g E Fmv)sU
.I-- 0 m cn a,=* a 2 m
C v)v)gg .- bg5 > 0 0
= o ga z m ue o m.u, a, h" a,
&s QF,n".G a,o- E $
0 E a)y mog5 a, 5 a,=
%a,S f= €- 3 b5 e=
f= m9" m.g t.- s p=c
q= uu+" me & osm3J=cn sms i?u 5s 0 ai L=v)Q)S v)5 .G m 2 82u g > a V) mno m mu
0 an
0 D""
LC-
m- m
v) 4 =On C 3 Cn.05 c
LC L LLC c L a,
I.
&- & z- --z m
..E Q) 9 g Fz a> v) a,En 5 .-
0-g !=*E .o 3
1% 0
0 v)-- S .a, " a,g 6 5&
T sn 0 yjj
malo 6 2s
- 3Ln 0v) .G E
.-
0,
Y- c
nmE
-LL '=a0 3 Qz 0 e- 2
Lao 3u 0
.o $ 2
s sz$) a,u
(U prim
;-.E€ ag -E 5 'i3 2- -
Q c.s
422 E g 5 r5
$h=mna
3% 335 D
u = g.5:
a, cfl Qc L -O > g E*? m QS 0 a3-_ns
m a,.g a, m- +Dscm z+E.g o= g a,p=m
a, €025
hL a, >gfl rn m.E E na
.- om .-os v)cm
ma--* s L.
.G s
CI
a, r + o '%a0 &S $
0 m- a,
v) - .- ._ - +s h
g a, can
FU p%"~ cegg
L a,mm Qiza, Qt
uca, g .g g
-amrn 0'; 6
g ; $j
.E a, L
&.E 0
E:%
2s &
g:*
,-i m+
cJ)L E
05 a, -- -r .cI
L- m,m m Q)o
" mm= 0 'is: .o
a,*g
g g -5
z$ Q
:E a, g$
,L =o m't = e cum
v) QQ
ioma, E -> m.GL 0 L
sa,-Q .g11 5 g
DE E-2 =c g)m EC"mu 23m3 + - w2.g os > F.o% E 0%- a, E 9% f
-E E r zi ma,a Gs5z
&ajOv)
a0 E
L gv &)koa, r=2 % .% .g g
& &E n+ 0 L1
L su
m-
Ca,
L.=r=
v)
a, m
L v)- m mm
.-
I- ll I' I, I I1
5 b
d L
d a.2 S8
0
- E g.
.- ea
0) =E BE
$2 2 .E
u) .= mm c .P
Eu m .z x +
SWS
'E - 2 .$
0
mu 0 .- m-0 ul
tu%
ze II .- b s: fn 0-+j
f%L a, se K
;zz-o Eg >B
gg.E
zz=
E E 2.n a, L' - gi: 2
e, L .G
z
- $%
5
3 0 .-
m [1
C
z, K
m
6 .-
E L e
0 a,
0) t
-
B u) 2 x 0 t
Q) 58
- x 0- iF %Z$$
5.G :a 20imx
2 $0 f = s 'I. c
0 g E'=
:.FOE sang
g 2%0 II 5
.- L
r -0
mn.G E -
W+Z
a, 'E
0
$
2
v)
E
C 0 x-" .- +
.- K !=a &€ >u
E -
C
om $G zii
(I)
DE
'r E
.- 3r C cm
KQ) S m
S m
.-
- s: a
m .- c Q 6%
b
e
2
am 5c 2 .& .e
(09 E -
K.5 & iima
(u .- E Q) 0.g Q) €50) 5555 L" c 5 "l- "l
o o 'E
0
m rn E rnzz n-Lr 0 rnY-+**g ma €Ea * 3 0 v) LO a 5 " o*=z 035 0 0 rn.z a, cn E oz nt.=.g
-0 3 9 m.E-p a, 3 .r Q)p Q) COSY- a=
3 .- - m.0 o-5- K 0
0, mE "3 LJ=gcrnrn ?=E- = .23 Q) -usg * so Lmt v)Q)
g Dm 0Eg:ptO
FLL 5 Dg m arn Q)
gz :g=a.." nz
2) 5 Fa5 2: z E=- - E aEJ L € Or=& 8r - 0 g 5 g La u- ah€
>a, s rs= m c g-r
0 k Y-
m -
a, L
K *L .-
E- 3 zLov).gK~ g&j
.- -
KarnXFZLL my -- K5 g -.ern+, KTI 0 y- ar
5 .oQQ3 Q)." U
3' m.t QQ)'" 2 0 c >."
osrn xn
nn -cv)ag2Q)za L(UQ)Q)OG,CO
n.Zn nnEan
0 3 > anal 0 Q
0
L a,
0 r
d L * as 58 - 5g
.- E2 =E P) Bg
gE
u) 'J mm r: .E
-0)
0
CaK
mo 0 .EU u)
8 .E
Eu u)
.B T;j 2
'E - &g
2 g .s
! :& $5 ;$ p;: E
1
K'Z as u)
EO II .- b
O-$ KZ u) ._ -=
,zy"$
&E
In
E
>!Y
(u k .-
L - m
3 u
m
m
u) c
e
a
.-
+ 8 .- f 2
L P
P - a
u) K 0 a u) 2 s u c a gz L
z bjzgs
5.G p) m %g:
g = %n E
E20 -a%
can, .g m 5 .o 0 a% j -K .B o E 'I. c
.- -0 m-
L
c) E;.; E
WkT