Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-102 - Final EIR 155 Fletcher Jones Motorcars ProjectRESOLUTION NO. 95 -102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 155 FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the Fletcher Jones • Motorcars project, which includes the following discretionary actions: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 95 -1 (D) 2. Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 39 3. Amendment No. 823 4. Use Permit No. 3565 5. Traffic Study No. 108 6. Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 7. Approval of Development Agreement No. 9 WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations Sec. 15000 et seq.), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 155 has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and WHEREAS, Final EIR No. 155 contains written responses to such comments as required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding. • FINDING 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment • where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires, where an EIR has been prepared for a project for which mitigation measures are adopted, that a mitigation monitoring or reporting program be adopted for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has reviewed and considered Final Environmental Impact Report No. 155 for the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project and does hereby certify that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it addresses all known environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR No. 155 is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR No. 155 and Technical Appendices 2. Comments received on the DEIR and Responses to those Comments 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports • 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Planning Commission Findings and Recommended Conditions for Approval 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program E All of the above information is on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768, (714) 644 -3225. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Final EIR contains a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even when those • alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that could result if the proposed project is constructed, all feasible mitigation measures that could eliminate or substantially reduce those adverse effects have been included in the proposed project as described in the Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds and determines that the proposed project should be approved. In making this determination, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its environmental risks, as required by CEQA. Those alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the project are rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Final EIR. The facts listed in support of each Finding with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR are true and are based upon substantial evidence in the record. The unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced by the imposition of conditions and mitigation measures. The City Council further finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B), incorporated herein by reference. The information contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is true and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building, grading and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A Mitigation • Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Final EIR No.155, the Statement of Findings and Facts, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all of the information contained therein accurately reflect the independent judgement of the City Council. • ADOPTED THIS 11thday of, September, 1995. -- M - I Lei I WA Lei J Attachments: MAYOR Exhibit A: Statement of Findings and Facts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • 4 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS FLETCHERJONES MOTORCARS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS • PROJECT LOCATED ON JAMBOREE ROAD AT BAYVIEW WAY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA") at Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: "(No) public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environmental that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which are subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." In making the findings required by Section 21081, the public agency must base its findings on substantial evidence in the record. Final EIR No. 155, for the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project and related discretionary actions, identified significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation that may occur as a result of the project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these findings as part of its action to certify Final EIR No. 155 and approve the Fletcher Jones Motorcars Project. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program was developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and is contained in a separate document (Exhibit C). • Findings regarding significant adverse environmental impacts are included below and addressed in more detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL Consistent with the intent of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and of relevant judicial interpretations of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Fletcher Jones Motorcars EIR is defined to include development of 114,000 square feet of the dealership on an 8.7 acre site, including showrooms, offices, indoor storage, and automotive repair areas, as well as outdoor display areas, parking lots, and landscaping. The proposed dealership would be a multi -level structure cascading down the side of the hill from the Route 73 freeway towards Bayview Way. The project also includes paving the extension of Bayview Way for a distance of 700 feet, east of Jamboree Road along the project frontage, where the roadway would terminate, at least on an interim basis. Discretionary actions include a General Plan Amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning amendment, use permit, development agreement amendment and traffic study. • III. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROTECT A. LAND USE 1. IMPACT • Loss of Open Space: The project will contribute to cumulative loss of open space in the region. • FINDING: Regional efforts are under way to preserve open space in the vicinity of the project. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: The significant cumula- tive impact that will result from the loss of open space is partially mitigated through ongoing programs to preserve open space in the vicinity of the project. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the University of California at Irvine, have developed open space preservation programs. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agre- ement, which preserves open space in the City. The City of Irvine has adopted the conservation and open space amendments to its General Plan (GPA -16), which call for the preservation of open spaces within its jurisdiction. The Long Range Development Plan for the University of California at Irvine also calls for the preservation of portions of the campus as an open space reserve. Notwithstanding the above, the development allowed under adopted General Plans of the City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine and the University of California at Irvine will result in a cumulative loss of open space in the areas surrounding the project site. The significant cumulative environmental effect has been substantially reduced by virtue of the measures described above. The identified impact may not be reduced to a level that is not significant, however. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and/or project alternatives described in Chapter 5 of the EIR, in that: (a) The existing General Plan of the City of Newport Beach envisions development of the project site and consequent loss of open space. (The impact is not a new impact.) (b) Development of the project site, albeit with different land • uses, was envisioned in the CIOSA agreement. (c) According to Chapter G of the EIR, no feasible alternative sites have been identified within the City of Newport Beach. (d) Development of the project on an alternative site outside the City of Newport Beach would result in economic harm 2 to the City, i.e., the loss of an estimated $500,000 in annual revenue to the City. The remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are considered acceptable when compared to and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. EARTH RESOURCES • 1. IMPACT • Export of Material: Project site grading will require the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of material. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to export of material identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading contractor shall identify a spoils site for deposition of exported material. Such spoils site shall have obtained CEQA clearance in accordance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. 2. IMPACT • Compressible Soils: The project site contains compressible soils. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compressible soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) As specified in the geotechnical report prepared for the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., May 1995), all loose, compressible natural soils and /or loose, compressible on- site fill soils should be removed from fill areas where exposed at final grade and replaced with compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. All grading should be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with the recom- mendations contained in the project geotechnical report, the current grading ordinance of the City of Newport • Beach and earthwork specifications contained in Appendix F of the geotechnical report. The site preparation recommendations outlined in section 5.3 of the geotechnical report shall be followed. 3. IMPACT • Ground Motion: Project structures are likely to be subject to ground motion during the life of the project. 3 • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to ground motion identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 4. IMPACT • Extent of Grading: The preliminary grading plan requires grading that could potentially result in unstable slopes. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig. nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to grading identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and specifications and supporting data consisting of soils engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports if required by the building official. 5• IMPACT • Grading: Project grading and operation may result in the production of silt, debris, and other water pollutants. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to grading identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: • 1) The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 2) The grading plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. M 3) An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4) The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. • 5) Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001 -7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. 6) The erosion control measures shall be completed on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as approved by the Building Department. 6. IMPACT • Emission of Fugitive Dust: Project grading may result in the emission of fugitive dust. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emission of fugitive dust identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil on site until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 7. IMPACT • Compatibility of Proposed Foundations With On -Site Soils: Building foundations must be compatible with on -site soils. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compatibility of proposed foundations with on- site soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as • contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Department. 8. IMPACT • Liquefaction: The preliminary soils report indicates potential for liquefaction. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and • detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to liquefaction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant to verify the low potential for liquefaction. The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other appropriate means of analysis for liquefaction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures that could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill surcharging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consultant's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grading and building plans shall re- flect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 9. IMPACT • Erosive Flow: Project construction could result in erosive flows. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosive flow identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment • devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas that have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. 6 10. IMPACT • Fill Slopes: The project will require the construction of fill slopes. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and • detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to fill slopes identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the Building Department prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 11. IMPACT • Brow Ditches: The project may require the construction of brow ditches. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to brow ditches identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Department. water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditches shall be approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 12. IMPACT • Erosion in Landscaped Areas: Erosion could occur in landscaped areas prior to establishment of landscaping. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or • incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 7 • • 1) Prior to the Issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial substances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the Building Department for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon com- pletion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the Building Department. 13. IMPACT • Compressible/Collapsible Soils: Compressible /collapsible soils may be located on the site. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compressible/collapsible soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, written recom- mendations for the mitigation of compressible /collapsible soil potential for the project site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be incorporat- ed as conditions of approval for the site specific tentative tract maps and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compressible /collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design that utilizes deep piles, or other recommended measures. The geo- technical consultant's site specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department 14. IMPACT • Foundation Design: Soil conditions may affect foundation design. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to foundation design identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corrosive soil potential for each site shall be provided by the project corrosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and /or Civil Engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis, and shall be incorporated M into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. 15. IMPACT • Groundwater: Preliminary conclusions regarding groundwater • need to be confirmed in the final geotechnical study. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to groundwater identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The project geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer shall prepare written, site specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding near surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future devel- opment, and the effects groundwater may have on bluffs, slopes and structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the site and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. C. WATER RESOURCES 1. IMPACT • Erosion. Siltation and Dust: The project may result in erosion, siltation and dust during construction. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion, siltation and dust identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: • 1) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted, and shall be subject to the approval of the Building Depart- ment. 2. IMPACT • Erosion in Downstream Channels: The project may result in increased erosion potential in downstream channels. 9 • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to increased erosion potential in downstream channels identified above can be reduced to a level that is not • significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall verify that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner so that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department. 3• IMPACT • Erosion of Graded Slopes: Graded slopes may be subject to erosion. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig. nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion of graded slopes identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Erosion control measures contained in the erosion siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the Building Department. 4. IMPACT • On -Site Drainage: The project will require improvements to on- site drainage. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to on -site drainage identified above can be • reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any existing on -site drainage facilities shall be improved as required, or updated concurrent with grading and development, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10 5. IMPACT • Haul Roads: Project grading may require haul roads. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig. nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to haul roads identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: • 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant (or applicant's grading contractor) shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include a description of haul routes, access points to the sites, and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize Impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Department. 6. IMPACT • Erosion During Construction /Operation: The project may result in erosion during construction and operation. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion during construction/operation identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by the regular sprinkling of exposed soils and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. An approved material such as riprap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoils in areas of concentrated runoff. 7. IMPACT • Exposed Slopes During Construction: The project may result in exposed slopes subject to erosion during construction. 11 • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to exposed slopes during construction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right -of -way diversions (i.e., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right -of -ways. The plan will be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments, and implemented during grading and construction activities. 8. IMPACT • Unpaved Construction Entrances: Unpaved construction entrances may result in dust and erosion. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unpaved construction entrances identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehicles or runoff onto public rights -of -way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. 2) The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved device for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right -of -ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and is Building Departments. 9• IMPACT • Sediment During Construction: Erosion during construction may result in the production of sediment. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- 12 nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to sediment during construction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) During grading and construction, the applicant shall • provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its failure would lead to loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 10. IMPACT • Stormwater Runoff: Project grading will trigger requirements under the General Construction Activity Stormwater Runoff Permit. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to stormwater runoff identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Notice of Intent: Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30 days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. The NOI shall include information about the project such as construction activities, material building/ management practices, site characteristics, and receiving water information. As required by the General Construction Permit, the project shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollu- tion Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), including inspection of stormwater controls structures and pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall be implemented concurrent with the beginning of the construction activities, and the plan shall be kept on site. 11. IMPACT • Downstream Water Quality: Project operation could result in • the degradation of downstream water quality. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. 13 • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to downstream water quality identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Structural BMP Controls: Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the project proponent shall ensure that the project includes implementation of appropriate structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the • extent of pollutants in stormwater flows from the site. Said structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The following structural BMPs will be incorporated at the project site: • All automotive maintenance areas will be covered with a roof and will drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • All trash enclosures will be covered. • Car wash areas will be covered and drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • Parking lot and display area catch basins will be provided with grease and oil filters. Maintenance of the selected structural BMPs will be required throughout the life of the project to ensure proper operation. 2) Non - Structural BMP Controls: Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall submit an operations plan that ensures that the project operation shall include non - structural BMPs, including the following: • Periodic cleaning (i.e., street sweeping) • Routinely cleaning on -site storm drain manholes and catch basins • Source control surveys of all on -site industrial facilities • Controlling washdown of non - stormwater discharges from project development facilities • Providing information to employees on disposal of waste oil, grease, and pesticide containers • Carefully controlling pesticide and fertilizer usage • Providing covered areas for trash receptacles, or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation • Efficient landscaping irrigation • Common area litter control • Housekeeping of loading docks. All non - structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. 3) Water Quality Management Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) prepared by the County of Or- ange for compliance with their municipal storm water • NPDES permit requirement, the project proponent shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Said WQMP shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall indicate the proposed structural and non - structural, permanent stormwater quality control measure to be utilized for the project, shall identify the potential pollutant source on the project, and shall describe how the project implements the objectives outlined in the DAMP. 14 12. IMPACT • Construction of Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Facilities: The project will require construction of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to construction of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. IMPACT • Jamboree Road/Bristol Street Intersection: The project will contribute to General Plan level deficiencies at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to the Jamboree Road/Bristol Street intersection identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of building permits, the project will contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvement at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. Said contributions shall meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. E. AIR QUALITY 1. IMPACT • Emission of Dust: Project construction will result in the emission of dust. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emission of dust identified above can be 15 reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Standard dust control practices dictated by SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be followed. 2. IMPACT • VOC Emissions from Asphalt: Project paving may result in VOC • emissions from asphalt. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig. nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to VOC emissions from asphalt identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The applicant shall specify the use of concrete, emulsified asphalt, or asphaltic cement, none of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. 3• IMPACT • NOx Emissions: Construction export operations may result in NOx emissions that exceed SCAG's threshold of significance. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being imple- mented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potential significant impacts related to NOx emissions from construction export operations identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) To avoid exceedance of SCAG's threshold of significance for NOx emissions, construction export operations are limited to a maximum of ten hours per day, including one hour of down time. F. NOISE 1. IMPACT • Mechanical Noise: Rooftop mechanical equipment may result in noise that could be annoying to adjacent uses. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being • implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig. nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to mechanical noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 16 1) Any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 2. IMPACT • Mechanical Noise: Mechanical equipment may result in noise in excess of City standards. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to mechanical noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 3. IMPACT • Construction Noise: Construction noise may adversely affect adjacent land uses. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to construction noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the Planning Department. G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. IMPACT • • Wetlands: The project could adversely affect adjacent wetlands. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. 17 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to wetlands identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Final project design will include measures to buffer the project from adjacent wetland areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site and the existing wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project. The final buffer design • shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. While a combination of landscaping and the presence of the Bay - view extension may be considered adequate to buffer the project from the SJHTC mitigation site, additional measures will likely be required for the nearer existing wetland site. Design measures to be considered include a five foot high concrete block wall or equivalent barrier that will preclude human access from the project site and reduce the effects of human activity. 2. IMPACT Non - Native Invasive Plants: Non - native, invasive land scape plants could invade adjacent wetland areas. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to non - native invasive plants identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Impacts resulting from the use of non - native, invasive plant species will be mitigated by developing a landscape plan that avoids the use of non - native invasive plants. A landscape plan prepared with consideration of the following information must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits: Prohibited Species All non - native plants that are potentially invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly difficult to control once escaped, will be prohibited from all parts of the project. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following: • Tree -of- heaven (Ailanthus spp.) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.) • Brooms (Cytisus spp.) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes- caprae) • Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) • Tamarisk ( Tamarsx spp.). Permitted Species Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed situations. Such species may be used in 0 project landscaping if a City approved biologist approves the species and proposed use. For example, areas that are separated from existing wetland areas by a substantial area of paving could be planted with hybrid bermuda grass. Non - native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the fol- lowing: • Hottentot -fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) • Myoporum (Myoporum laetum) • Pepper trees (Scbinus spp.) • Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis)t • Periwinkle (Vinca spp.). 3. IMPACT • Site Lighting: Site lighting could adversely affect adjacent wetland areas. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to site lighting identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The effects of night lighting on adjacent natural areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site, will be reduced by the design of lighting that is either low intensity or highly directional. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be approved by the City, demonstrating that appropriate lighting will be installed for the display area, parking lots and areas adjacent to wetlands to minimize spillage into the habitat areas. The plan will include, but not be limited to, lighting directed onto the project site, and the use of soft light intensity fixtures. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall provide evidence, meeting the approval of the City, that the installed lighting meets the objectives of the plan. If necessary, shields on the back of lights or other screening shall be placed to cut off light beyond project area. 4. IMPACT • Removal of Coastal Scrub Habitat: The project will require the removal of approximately two acres of coastal scrub habitat. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or • incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to removal of coastal scrub habitat identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 19 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a detailed Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan ( IHLMP), incorporating Mitigation Measures 7 -5 and 7 -6, shall be prepared by the City and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for approval. The purpose of these measures is to increase the amount and quality of scrub habitat that can be utilized by the California gnatcatcher and other species that require this habitat. • This will both compensate for the project induced loss of potential breeding habitat and increase the potential for wildlife movement by increasing the size of important populations. The specific habitat replacement and exotic weed removal measures to be incorporated into the detailed IHLMP, including the actual acreage, may be modified with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The detailed IHLMP will include the following elements: • Overview /Objective • Plant Palettes and Planting Densities • Planting Methods and Timing • Site Preparation • Exotic Weed Removal • Irrigation • Maintenance • Performance Standards • Monitoring • Remedial Measures. The implementation of these measures will occur at the first feasible opportunity, with consideration of site preparation and plant propagule collection requirements. 2) Prior to final design, the limit of the wetland area adjacent to the project will be staked in the field by a qualified person, and this limit will be surveyed and placed on the base map used to prepare the final plans. Prior to initiation of clearing and/or other construction activity, this limit will be clearly marked in the field with staking and ribbon, rope or fencing, and the contractor(s) will be advised by the City inspector that this area is not to be disturbed for any reason. This area will be monitored by the City during regular inspections to ensure that there is no encroachment. 3) An approximately 3.5 acre portion of the City owned property in the Big Canyon area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay shall be restored /converted to coastal sage scrub habitat. The goal of the additional habitat creation is to increase the California gnatcatcher population by at least one pair. 4) As part of the Big Canyon restoration effort, the City will implement a three year program for the removal of • pampas grass and myoporum from City property in the mouth of Big Canyon (Figure 4.7.2). The first year will concentrate on initial removal at an appropriate time of year, i.e., prior to seed formation. The following two years will consist of spot removal of new seedlings or root sprouts. 20 H. CULTURAUSCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 1. IMPACT • Unknown Archaeological Resources: The project may result in impacts to unknown archaeological resources. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being • implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unknown archaeological resources identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) City Council Policy K -5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following specific measures are recommended, in conformance with Policy K -5: A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pre -grade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the ar- chaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. C. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 2) Any sites uncovered shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K -5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City approved, qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A written report summarizing the findings of • the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the com- pleted data recovery program. 3) The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory 21 analysis and a report have been completed. The appropri- ate local institution shall be approved by the Planning De- partment based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. 2. IMPACT • Unknown Paleontological Resources: The project may result in impacts to unknown paleontological resources. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, of the EIR. I. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unknown paleontological resources identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) A pre -grade reconnaissance of the area shall be made by a qualified paleontologist to assess whether any significant fossils currently are exposed. Any fossils observed and deemed significant shall be salvaged. 2) A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains. 3) The paleontologist shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow the evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. 4) Monitoring shall be on a full -time basis during grading in geologic units of high paleontologic sensitivity. 5) Spot - checking of low sensitivity sediments shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. Should significant fossils be observed during grading in these units, full -time monitoring may be required. 6) All collected fossils shall be donated to a museum approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 7) A final report summarizing findings, including an itemized inventory and contextual stratigraphic data, shall accompany the fossils to the designated repository; an additional copy shall be sent to the appropriate Lead Agency. 1. IMPACT • Views from Bicycle Trail: The project may affect the views from • the bicycle trail on the north edge of the property. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.9, of the EIR. 22 • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to views from the bicycle trail identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) A landscape screen and /or equivalent barrier shall be constructed along the northeastern project boundary to screen service areas from view from the Jamboree Road southbound on -ramp and from the bicycle trail that will • parallel the on -ramp. J. HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MATERIALS 1. IMPACT • Existing Trash and Spills: Trash and minor spills are located on the site. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.11, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to existing trash and spills identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of a grading permit, grading spec- ifications for the project shall require the following to the satisfaction of the Building Department: a) All trash on the site shall be disposed of properly. b) Hazardous materials residue in the vicinity of the five gallon solvent can and the tar residue identified on the wood debris and soils shall be removed and disposed of properly. After removal of the debris, soils in the vicinity of the contaminated sites shall be tested to ensure proper cleanup, per the recommendations of the environ- mental remediation engineer. C) Creosote treated power poles shall be removed and properly disposed of properly upon relocation, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. d) Any abandoned septic tanks systems encountered during grading shall be disposed of properly, per City of Newport Beach requirements. IC UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. IMPACT • Wastewater Disposal: The project will require wastewater disposal. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.13, of the EIR. 23 • 0 • • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to wastewater disposal identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent shall determine the appropriate method of wastewater disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2) If disposal through a septic tank system is selected, the project proponent shall construct the system in compliance with "On -Site Sewage Absorption System Guidelines" prepared by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Consistency with said guidelines shall be deter- mined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit for any septic tank facilities. The septic tank shall be operated in a manner to avoid pollu- tion of local groundwater supplies. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus upon alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance..." The EIR, therefore, considers two classes of alternatives: 1. Alternative uses on the proposed project site. 2. Alternative locations for the proposed project. The analysis contained within the DEIR concludes that, after mitigation, the project will contribute to one cumulative impact in the area: a cumulative loss of open space. This loss is not considered significant at the project level but is considered significant when combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. This impact (the cumulative loss of open space) has been previously acknowledged in the approvals of General Plans of the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, and The Long Range Development Plan of the University of California at Irvine. Even though this impact had been previously acknowledged, the City has considered alternatives to potentially reduce such impacts. The following describes the alternatives considered and their impacts, as compared to the proposed project. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE PROTECT SITE A. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE (Alternative A) Under the No Build Alternative, the project would not be built at the San Diego Creek North site nor at another location within the City of Newport Beach. In addition, no other land uses besides the existing open space, habitat preservation and transportation uses would be allowed at the San Diego Creek North site. 1. SUMMARY OF MATOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS • The loss of open space associated with the project would not occur nor would the project's contribution to the cumulative loss of open space. • Landform modification associated with the project would not occur nor would the export of cut material. 24 • Potential water quality impacts would not occur. • Traffic volumes accessing the site would not increase. • Air quality emissions associated with construction of the site and operations on the site would not occur. • Impacts to biological resources would be eliminated. • Potential impacts to unidentified cultural resources would also not occur. • Aesthetic impacts would be eliminated. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES Alternative A conflicts with the basic objective of the project to maintain the dealership within city, and would likely result in the probable relo- cation of the dealership outside of the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach and in the consequent loss of sales tax revenues to the City. It should be noted that if the dealership were to choose to locate on other sites outside the city limits, many of the impacts identified at the present site would also occur with alternative sites in the surrounding cities; in particular, land use, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts would occur at potentially different levels at sites outside the City of Newport Beach. 3. FEASIBILITY Implementation of this Alternative A is feasible. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This Alternative is considered envi- ronmentally superior to the proposed project. 5. FINDINGS • The No Project Alternative would not meet the basic project objective of identifying a feasible alternative relocation site for the dealership within the City of Newport Beach, and would result in consequent adverse economic effects on the City (loss of sales tax revenue). • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE (Alternative B) Under this alternative, the project site would be developed according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the local Coastal Plan, i.e., 112,000 square feet of commercial office space. • 1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS • Loss of open space and open space impacts would remain the same as the proposed project. • Impacts to earth resources and water resources would be similar to the proposed project. 25 • Peak hour traffic generation would increase as compared to the Preferred Alternative, while total trip generation on a daily basis would decrease. • Noise and air quality impacts would be similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative. • Impacts to biological resources would remain the same. • Impacts to cultural resources and aesthetics would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative. 2. PROTECT OBTECTIVES Alternative B is inconsistent with a primary objective of the City with respect to the project, i.e., identification of an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. Selection of this alternative would likely result in relocation of the dealership outside of the City with consequent adverse economic impacts to the City. 3. FEASIBILITY Implementation of Alternative B would require a zone change, an amend- ment to the CIOSA Agreement and a Coastal Development Permit. This alternative is compatible with the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. This alternative may not be currently feasible, in that there is substantial undeveloped land zoned for office buildings in the immediately adjacent area, i.e., Irvine Business Complex, where office buildings are entitled and could be constructed. However, such construction has not occurred due to apparent lack of current demand. Therefore, this alternative would likely result in the deferral of any development on the site. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS This alternative has the same basic environmental impacts as the proposed project, generates more peak hour traffic, and does not reduce the cumulative loss of open space. Its only advantage is compatibility with the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. The proposed project is, therefore, considered environmentally superior to Alterna- tive B. 5. FINDINGS • Alternative B, the Existing General Plan Alternative, would neither meet the objectives of the City nor result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE (Alternative 0 • Under this alternative, the San Diego Creek North site would be developed consistent with the existing zoning, with public facilities on the portion of the site designated for development under CIOSA. For purposes of this analysis, it would be assumed that a 2.5 acre fire station and a 250 space park and ride would be developed on the site. 26 1. SUMMARY OF MAIOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS As compared to the Preferred Alternative, this alternative has the following impacts: • Land use impacts would be the same as with the Preferred Alter- native because the site would be developed with urban uses. • Landform modification would likely be similar. • Impacts to water resources would be reduced, due to the less intensive development of the site. • Peak hour traffic generation of the site would be similar to the Preferred Alternative due to the high peak hour demand asso- ciated with park and ride facilities. • Air quality and noise impacts resulting from increased traffic volumes would also be reduced. • Impacts to biological resources would be the same as with the proposed project. • Cultural resources impacts would be similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative, depending upon the extent of grading of the site. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative is fundamentally inconsistent with the objective of the City in selecting the Preferred Alternative, i.e., to identify an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. This alternative would likely result in adverse economic impacts to the City resulting from potential relocation of the dealership outside of the City, with consequent adverse economic impacts. 3- FEASIBILITY This alternative is considered feasible from a planning perspective. However, the City has not identified sufficient funding to construct either the fire station or a park and ride lot. The anticipated loss of revenue that would occur should the dealership relocate outside the City would make funding a fire station and park and ride even more problematic. This alternative is compatible with the existing Zoning and CIOSA. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Alternative C has many of the same basic environmental impacts as the proposed project and does not reduce the cumulative loss of open space. Its only advantage is compatibility with the existing Zoning and the CIOSA Agreement. The proposed project is considered environmentally equivalent to Alternative C. 5. FINDINGS • Alternative C, the Existing Zoning Alternative, would neither meet • the objectives of the City nor result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 27 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS The following discusses alternatives that would relocate the dealership to other sites within the City of Newport Beach rather than to the proposed San Diego Creek North site. Each of these alternatives was determined to be infeasible for the reasons stated. Therefore, the environmental impacts are not described for these alternatives. D. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH (Alternative D) • The San Diego Creek South site is located across San Diego Creek from the proposed project site, and consists of 18.6 acres currently designated in the City's General Plan for 300 dwelling units. The project owner, The Irvine Company, has proceeded to obtain full entitlement for development of the site. The entitlement is protected under CIOSA. 1. This alternative is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: • A change of zoning to provide for an automobile dealership on the site is not be feasible at this time without the approval of the property owner, which has stated its intention to build the site under the present entitlement. • The site is located across the street from existing residential uses, and development of the site as an automobile dealership would create land use incompatibilities with existing uses. 2. PROTECT OBTECTIVES Alternative D would meet the City s project objectives with respect to the dealership, but would not meet the City's objectives with respect to the development of housing on the San Diego Creek South site, and would not meet the objectives and entitlements of the property owner of the San Diego Creek South site. 3• COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. It would, however, result in the introduction of potentially incompatible land uses within a residential area. 4. FINDINGS • Alternative D, the San Diego Creek South Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon existing entitlements. • Alternative D would create additional environmental impacts as compared to the preferred alternative, i.e., the creation of potentially incompatible land uses. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the • Statement of Overriding Considerations. E. BLOCK 800 OF NEWPORT CENTER (Alternative E) This 6.4 acre site is located in Block 800 of Newport Center and is currently proposed for 245 residential dwelling units. The Irvine Company is proceeding to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA entitlement. /W 1. FEASIBILITY This location is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: • At 6.4 acres, the site is considered smaller than desirable for the proposed project and does not meet the project objective of an approximately 8.0 acre site. • The site is not located adjacent to existing or planned freeways and freeway access points, and is considered remote from the John Wayne Airport area. • The property owner has existing entitlement to proceed with development of the site and proposes to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA. 2. PROTECT OBTECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. The site is too small and is remote from the freeway network and John Wayne Airport. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is too small for the proposed land use, and is too remote from the freeway network and John Wayne Airport. 4. FINDINGS • Alternative E, the Block 800 Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the size of the site, location of the site, and existing entitlements. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. F. NEWPORTER NORTH (Alternative F) This 30 acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, and is currently zoned for 212 residential dwelling units. The property is owned by The Irvine Company, which is proceeding to develop the site under its current entitlement. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration by the City of Newport Beach for the following reasons: • The site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the deal - ership adjacent to major freeways and near John Wayne Airport. • Assuming that eight acres of the site were developed as an automobile dealership and the balance of the site were developed as residential, there is the potential for land use incompatibilities between residential and automobile dealership uses. • The current property owner has stated its intent to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA designation of residential uses. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. The site's location is remote from the • freeway network and the airport. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the alternative site location is not considered viable for the proposed land use. 4. FINDINGS • Alternative F, the Newporter North Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the location of the site and existing entitlements. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. G. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST (Alternative G) This nine acre site is located near the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. Its current General Plan designation provides for 94,000 square feet of office space. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration by the Lead Agency for the following reasons: • Development at this site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the project near a freeway access point and near John Wayne Airport. • The landowner has indicated its intent to develop the site under the present zoning and CIOSA Agreement. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. Given the site's remote location from the freeway network and the airport, the dealership does not consider the site to be economically viable. 3• COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is considered infea- sible because its location is remote from the freeway network and the airport. M • 4. FINDINGS • Alternative G, the Corporate Plaza West Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon location of the site and existing entitlements. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. H. FORMER NEWPORT IMPORTS SITE (Alternative H) This site is located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard (Route 55), and is the four acre site of a former automobile dealership. This alternative was chosen for consideration because of its former use as an automobile dealership. 1. This alternative is no longer under current consideration for the following reasons: • The site is considered too small for the proposed project (seven to eight acre minimum size) and, therefore, does not meet the project objectives. • The site is not located near an existing freeway access point or near John Wayne Airport and, therefore, does not meet the project objectives. 2. PROTECT OBIECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City s project objectives with respect to the dealership. Given the site's small size and remote location from the freeway network, the dealership does not consider the site to be economically viable. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is considered infea- sible because its size and because its location is remote from the freeway network. 4. FINDINGS • Alternative H, the Newport Imports Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the size of the site and the location of the site. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the EIR have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts are cumulative and have been acknowledged 31 is • by the approval of the existing City General Plan, any such significant effects are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR or are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 32 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. • The proposed project consists of the development of a 114,000 square foot automotive dealership on a 8.7 acre site located on Jamboree Road at Bayview Way in the City of Newport Beach. Analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that the proposed project, when combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity, will contribute to one significant, cumulative impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. This impact is cumulative loss of open space as compared to the existing condition. Impacts, in all other cases, have been mitigated below a level of significance. All significant adverse impacts are identified in the EIR and are addressed in Findings and Statements of Fact that accompany this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the one residual adverse cumulative impact of the proposed project remaining after mitigation is acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the project. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered: 1. The residual, unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project has already been acknowledged in the adoption of the General Plans of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the University of California at Irvine Long -Range Development Plan. 2. Existing policy entitlements on the project site permit the development of facilities that would generate equivalent environmental effects as the proposed project, including the loss of open space. 3• The proposed project represents a logical extension of existing development patterns in an established urban area where adequate infrastructure, facilities, and services are available, or will be provided with project implementation. 4. Through the Circulation Improvements and Open Space Agreement, the City has adopted an extensive open space preservation program. 5. The project will have a net positive cost/revenue ratio for the City. In addition to the estimated $500,000/year in sales tax revenue, the project will result in development fees and property tax revenues that will benefit the City, Newport Mesa Unified School District and the County of Orange. 7- EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 155 FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS 1. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code • Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation mea- sures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construc- tion and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring during, and reporting after, construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below: A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discre- tionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field Inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordi- nances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and condi- tions of.approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspec. tions will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting during and /or after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation moni- toring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring re- ports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. z aoo {fi{ir� F d Z z a W M aN a M N CI N S C C s C C Ih P4 W c n.. a a0� e gay y n. aO mq [] u OC u o A� 0 A H o V z ° L of v v eon o =�v A�v n s a C t a C7 V V V z F z ti 9 ZOC .0 O o C o a o m n E E W .o s E e z o c t U `0 v o b a c 9 W J n W A u o wt - E °' rc o o c 09 y e t a o C O •V-' E �. O L O 'Cy p E C E ,•�• .v. t `N, ep 7 y y L W °'EEu�vL�zoA x � � a z��� r o �° o L E A e � •`c � E c tr o CL O C N L O_ L -_ E L U 6= O t m o eo 0 '� GW O N E •� u O C 'ypa 0 0 •= �°a " � E K 9 t � u L rL J A V c •� � Q `0 'c � e E� u a °u D � W E � �°, z EA �� a 41 oCo�o a�a�c0�+�ouo,`ut &ar o N ,r1 u a z� {a� Q W 4 O �0 a �O �z a 5oU W V Q Q M M C 2 A m N^ u u JCC. u u L u u J. • • tC CS u L O k v C L C C c kc!! C C" N C L. C �' C C �' C c �' C L C e i c o= a c °n= a n= °n ��A 5pA m as a8w'8 21 AOU a wc$ aim uzaSz °' 8 8 a o �c � c M ma me •- o o A fi o m fi o m fi a c a a `o a i o a a o a a c a z o A o a a a a e± W eo C Y eo S YVV eo C Y ee C Y o0 C Y U U u u u 0u 0u C9V u c c c c c c c c c c Z m0 a .�c dii ii i ii •� p .� L O 9 i C E:: Lw. g cppw _ C v. '^ C v.0. E L yLQ a u 9 C C u C A cm �.L�e d)y �L L O Y7 '09 .L+L A m C 0 A L CO. U 'G L A Ml O O9 C A R h •E u a s t E c o m c v m a c o `1 a� � � Cuug 00 1 c a m oo'u9us u •0 cl A o oua m c'a �� n �9�"� € �o o c v u u � m y� E w C u y u 9❑ u c� R L 6 0 � 9 '^ G � v..'y E co O L E eo u E u y c Z u ° m 0 .-Cu u '� a ;IZ9p�a{9d.y�� u Q �m�.. of a `° 9 m� Ed �yLNy �.. U> A C L€ L Yt r0 C= O R o m ou o Q u A c o o c u a h c c c a o a $ "= m m o a O A m° t °E a c' ac cc 9�' 'U8 bv9m aA� toiu at�c E u.0 & m E ° y 3 m u o° .°°° 9 0 C. p, 'C ', u C 0 `� 12 Q_ N z L 6 o 8� t o L A E o C E$° a "v, L d0 u E a. � oD �i u o "° U v�� a `° a c R a s `� u a :: m g. la- a a z ar' 2 • in z 4ao�y �i 0 a w i, N M c�7 d IV vWi ya� q41 �� ° 4$ a e aq� .—°_ qmy aLl�q ° 9$! a 4n�. 9 $ 9 a P4 Md ❑m°g �❑ a❑m0 m0 z eoc 21 Z ry y L L T—/ lC L L z L v p� w a a •- a r c o p oc ec oc oc A o c m L u y L u t y v oU U' V U' w �U Nei z to w z 0 'CO ,a 'C ,0 '2 ,00 C v Z L vUU � 0� _' 2 UO C y L GS t O 7qq itl n a o C C N E a a= L Q •O co l u L w- „' Z�- o q0. u L7 y�� Z Va. GO .v. v R L t O' •�2 lJ. ukk C Q Pe Q .L, C u O G P � �r� o� � pp �•�om � E cZ m � � `•° a s u r L n a _ �i L '�i T� � C � O L 9 •p > z L q L R y =a• O ro u $, 6 •oq •C C L V 0= 6 OC IV • Ow N z OA D\ Oar, qCM X00 0 1 � U Q A dzf LA < u iJ.' i..q-q �, !CC' �J��J••i W O rt C O rt C 0 u w or �y 4 = O L6 z o o C g a° o :i 5.1 ii L C� y0ry o u y �u u t o m o v o y 0 t�Cc C p u O O E O L L C O C A C L C� y Q. u 2 0 L v u u u Z L 0• Y>=S d Q E c Q 6 u v� 0= Yi ec �Q= pr C O s) E c" C y C L' 0 y oc 'o L C 9 C 0 Q = L L a y L ao a o u v WU ro o c E u ti cE7 E so E ;p $. V L' 'C R tWUC 7 ., L L u L fC 9 W .u". u y 7 y C [i7 C •E C y 'g C m .: 0 9 L u 0 0 .V, L 0 p A •� Q v 9 7 u .ci fal 41 = •7 t C€ �0 E u �, O i u $ && � L$° y o ° J L u E a E .may 0 f, o P] u u 0 u v; L u= u o= m 0 v =ta9� goo °pA 0 , =LV; "L Eu����._� �� n h O •� O �' =a F L U 0 9� tau •€ p �$ W iL L k p�j G .��vCC33. W US C u= t C u r= 'C c E 'CC Y UC u 0 0 >. u a o d0 0.0 =' u yol L 0 m :� L, .�. 7 y 0 ��i, �— r V L 7 m 0 R L' L U C C A L A fy d U C E A u �' > CO E :r p a L 0' C v p�j -�' ea u C u L✓+ u > 'Ti �' 9 u a z Q E.c O C= i7W L y^ L u u °E9ma�c�P Q u E L C k C V R �c?�°A W O v� uo ==oQn L y C o ��$0 C L w L w ui i 9 u =v L 9 uQ tl R S a E �- L L C u Ly V Y. 0 0 L 0 C A 0 d Z 0 C u w v Y P> C U ff u u Q D. L v q _ a �'t�Sc �-5 F= E a`3a= LA a Ux °z aUM C4 O �0 .. d Viz° z a 5oU W L7 M Q Q� M a M a v u E E = = = & �� mg mA mA u u ?�y (J z O Q v O e9 v O v 0 € o A o A z 2 u ti u ti = u a a u_ q d c= c= V mA 0 �A.0 aA.� C u 9 a u C a 8 u ti� a {y u y V= U y US u a C y DVS U' V' z w w bo C o bbS°S ? o 0 °y� y 0 � � 04 E u r 00a a u e� 2 a A S a = o'� t C 9 y C_ L yV u 0 t E A w A V t 7 °i 7 = R C_ O. L C O 7 A nyf � R E 7 y Oi. O Q Z 0 UE nu a> t N i. O N= UO >yy V u W yp ?_ C n i L LLP7 C q u m Q 9 V L n Cj n= 9 L B a= L u m m w C L OL =• O n O C E u E q u u m •o 0 a c 9 E u E Cp O $� u 9 yy C O �, C m O > 00 C v V oC C O L O a t9 w E y C GF u : C u 6= A w y L u 0 u W 00 G. E L Z 'C" EM 'G O t C C 'CC 6a. y4 o LC C _u 0. F GO 7 C 7 u u CL L�cL� L u �t_J a O 0 C u ? i-1 y u Z E L L Oy 6. 7 pp O E _ _ u C O u po E C 6 y 0. u A � t h u u m C h C C.9 3� R C e, E Q R E C a WO C3 u y w 0 0 e9 O n Z �u day€ NHL °uoE °pna. occc °-_� � 5� au M m„ 3 E S d u a • a ^' a FA iai DdM z� zW a� W A �w ^y N u u C C W =G to4p++ ttt�CCC C� m❑ -Cc w G m A Z O a 9 w C 0 O 0 y� Obi O C4 0 CC 0. 0 6 z we0 ° o 0 !! =ii u Q VS c = wpq R 0 t w � {y 9 V L O O Uy � C7 C C C C C o C •a o .a v= cc O _ .� •C L v O E 'Q c c v u °' 1° v S a A S .� ago UO c u uo u aE ;E =am=t h O M a a •E .0 •$EzLt V u jf v o -a m Eu �c ao cr •`' t o o +� E.—° u m E v E o o mo u � h E o no.. Gd = d E E•v `o u w w i t o o 0 B v Y3 v ayov�s e_i.Hcc00 aTa'M a'D s L E' ES O g w A �' 0 0 ° ° L, y o C. C E�f C E o va �: r o -" u O° 9= L C o j w aca L •E ,o t C '� C u0 u .N '3 O 0 O O 2 Q, C== r�i O u t E v c 'g u u °' u t v v_ 0 �' O L °i m ob v 7 y A ,s ?: A C L Lp L ',�. C R t t o = u y 9 i. L .� v, y d L E R V'i+ vvi •D 7 V Oq C-0 rt 0 C A L y Q V y ��i, m a O c Q p u u p v g p E �f cu o m a E o e$ •� m •mav?SE' r vm= E s�•mu� L C L O O a C w v V ,$ A __�'E- "''ct D -Ek p Yj �n C C �0j> rt -�vgt$ L is A D oE��+ E�mva c.0 =vbu�E =ovaEvaeYt oc> � „ E a o � 'CyW E? L° ,�' •q o Q 6q Ou Q .0 L O C � m d O A •� 0 y Cy u8u, W�W d O V f] m n a ., umx UM � d z xQ d O N a iiiCJJJ � d M W W p r. Q Q a ., a .. y W 3 T p O Cc p A C a o a 0 m x rao9 ° VTR �bG t � u U V' U V' U cn ao L se .U. -- e a v v vo cco � u0 R � gyp. n KKC 9n C? E C7 C 3 •v 0 4 CA N y C R-C C C 7" v Yt C N O ap p op v R L 8 � tC R� `� �� u m 0 � C •oq `v' C C C 0 0. N N B sl C a d 9 C.2 C v a Z a S e c ro u c v m o .y C C. 0 v. ,avoa�o�o w u�8 v °c.a�A2 vES.cuE 0 �Ov y W�� $ N? a L � Op E e v C 0 y ou m v 0 8 Ta y r v m y D a N E • a M � N z W M 0 � �zd �W a �V W C7 W Q Q 0 c v a QU o v v v o v ooE ooE ooE ooE E goo E3 E Oz„ R A c C A R.0 R o. Z y c a y a aka a�m� mo u mcac u u= aCr°aGao L 04 u L 0 C �.4� R R C R C a �•+ L C Z C 09 0 9 O A Cy L v O A C O A y 4 0 C. A $ 9 m �' y 4 0 6 0. 0 6 a R 0 9 b a 0 C C C •� C �++ C �+. � 4 C � 0 y M a op C Y C10 C C 09 C yi u M R •0 C u W v L p > 0 V Q v°, •w 0 V E C7 V c c c c C c e c a 0 'c 0 '0 a ° Q 'E 0 'C ° o '0 .a ° 0 0 t 0 AL ° 0 L a 44 L S4 9 t v Fc R E g E E R C Q °' a C E �C v v o `C E E E y E °° C — t a $ z s Roo c CL c� g hrt 0.E av - aoa� `o v O v t o -� u R —tpp E Q c ro ri y CL ° B, .d. d1E Q C_ C CZ �'OCD H� •- .°-: ,,, O 'u C E L O Q t 6L L' .a yL U y v, R 7 C, L C C R o M c v L u 0. L t C o C o, 4. 0 R$ T R L c v p m v ao 0 C C 1 p00 E C 0 O�p U c C t u r u C E 9 L L v C O L L p a. p R y> R O L R a1 L 0 C CO ° O i 6 C S �' ° v E w W 0 v 0 .�.nn '' L U .•. u C C C C m �Cp1 U L 0. R p 4 Lj ? v° R 4 DA C C f¢ H E A L O. g t ° 9 0? .°, t e�4 C� 4 V C a CL 0 °�++ c u y tCO A R E 9�+ 4 L t y Q O L 7 0 O •: E 0 L 7 u z L L Ei v v c m9 R Cl Tt T p ? �. 0 �.t R y C y y wu ESaEOhA �- »AO d�'cmA aAmt�E�C� b N cIi `c V� 0 • iSl � x U � pdp,, o �d no z a Z U W C7 Q Q� M c7 d 0 50 E 0 ay F c a � t s a a a `�a ' c u m mcdc Z 0 O m r 4 O C i z a 0 ° ant 9 �°° o? y� a u Cl 2u� � °' CL > C7 V � V V' z 0 C .moo O C 00 i W a o ° L° •c z a A C C y v A OF O v 'J, v '� 'C t p •� p ,3^ v o u° o '�� a o r �'� m v z c °pp d u v E U o b NO m o` S 3 bt c a A o v Ey E `oEo_ °`c cE8+ t° 9 p L p R -.y E° ac o u 4nw u fl 'ZO E m L Q N C-0 R M r N° a v Oq C C N A u° v v a° °' �' 2 N a`0 g E& �"� y u n° "Oz g c° 3 on O L C u t L = u a �qq y L E' C 9 qq 6 O pep w CC °u 7 d ii �N C .aU. ° .� 6 a O 6 C C e"9 0 U '� O �'� r m p u"' v =P 0 °i E v y t 0 q p a p o a > a ,�C y b r 0 :7 N N N z aQ Wei PL M i 7 ri M auu 0 E uov E �uE 4L b �q�d C 9 6d C a q z 0 7 c c c u C c w t w p e9 �qN, rp �rN, R P i qv O R C a o O A C a o a 0 nt a o a z o u a u a u en R aµ ao m o ea t° o yy0� yCN 8 U U CUa c�u °v y�, U d. V S u S a V o > C7 0 c a 'o c a c c 0 .4 DOE .a 'o o 'o t 0 t c N n u ° EL u u E u •ac 3 o E�y d 2 U 'n u N C Fc N U N �r uc N O '0 u 0 '^ U o a OV u .. u C C 7 O L C nt a U u 0 c o " 0 m ye CO. �q W c E L L U a u mo t: N cZ v 'p .. U C C F. m m u c A u o p E a v Fc E .- a n O O, A C 8 D p L w .r0, 0 00 y� E C v 8 2 5 O O U3+ u e v C O p N F W eZ u �+ O .� N O a S C a y c o c ro oO CO U 9 Lvi! 9! w 0 L i EJ a p O u a h'0 Q C v - 6 u C a oc a u y Z• a Rm iE g O. u c_ 2 Pj c C 9 O E U Q�Op G�tl ! y vi G' C U "" 0O L d oO M L O C C L N p p 9 es 2 2 h nt C O C u aev9 C u i'y u Ov v v Q C U C T d 2 9 U D 9 u � F� A O 2 a p C u ro ? !0 C gj y o u� 8 11— = C R U N Q C C 7 O 0 O �j', O Id LN i� C 0 a nR 9 �' Q C ''^ 0 p d c a Ly L °" ro" M u Q n E q Nq C n p E it 8 oc• b •J 0 C 0 C C�C C y n Oa N C u 0 2� C= u vD•� S Lg Q o a S.ugO !N• {Opera a N o R O. O E '^ a a N c 0 g C 2 L y� v 'y C •"• E N C O n z ro r " o .�' u R o E_ a Q v a c (�'J Co L v u d o (py U c Q N p' 'c 0n C N boauoR� Fcna�oEo£doa�m' Da`o$a9no� ae a 0 r§ �§ k ao ) §[ § §/ §§/ 2�\ o§ k° w§ 2\ § � 2/ J§ ■§ %i k C` C. �§ o -u ( (� f/ § §j i �■ ) %E a B\ § @| - ))k }{ \| ` }/{ §§ ; e% ,a § \( \�\� as ,i,E 2c�j �` -(% 2; \ u _-C t } !EE §77 2)i } §} )B(!s} \!,E) u.., ;! (.!# !o =e., \k\) ;\j /) k'\k\0 ;`�� ;t, u / §)c /)� \r ¥§)7! -cc.z ) ;E)){i §lE�a Af!| 0CL - (u)` § -t% 0 !!��{ /�• \ }EQ {i }\ / {i § !� ! §)!t|# - � % �!, ■!f! ;)E/ ! §| &$) 2 ;Ew & «)2! #§ 4&aa |!k k : ■ - � &� /§& k] §)§ \ \\ z \� w\ 2\ 2 �#- �/ fk \( § ƒ! ®- � \z 2§ \ \{ § §\ d` �,\ ■§ ;. e � §m /a 2° }) ■§ k! 0 `.% ft� ; fj)i /{ !) 9E \ / }k§ ] .kk) 1I|!; z2 §a »!(&; |! �{ §_�!! } |{} § / \! §!E/ )9 !()) |! /) /) /2 %o .U(® "222 `\ ;/2 §i! «| )kaukik\ H ® !g)e,§ ` ®` �� ,- /� / \)Bk! k))��{22 -5k4 luc a |/( (){ . | uM ))u - 8 &/ § o!£!§ k e . q Ll a z 0 c °: a a�aCM a A z� v g°6 V a o. Z u ` c a 0 v O n c7 ., 0 8 b ° A �a o m C v a o a Z o ` ° 0 �O V m � a ouv S z c � z o c y L 0 C y U- L CL 4 tea U? :6 C �y ai °3cc c °Ccc or U Q N� u 9 g a� 9 c z b a ° u °` ? 3 o ° z ti o u u L � y a c u 0. :y o u •� o 0 L r c g t. o oz o9 6 2?E W, c a Ou v . u p Py B u c m'j a •pqp O m O 7 C C a CO C �_. •� y w t nm a L y W r 0 c O ._ bt a� a � �+ L G 8S09c L Kati U c gua L u u i1 Oq u. C p •o u a MC 'D C ma a m = u ?• C V rn m y C 9 U 3QC u _ 5 W C 10 u g •a y L S U b a_ u u C u E c C O .d o>> pa V L Za O V i C aC RNd9 as uc atQ V Bo O N � tN� v 7 U 0 u � 7 P i� z u h aS a �x z aA 04 OVA d o °+ a D � C M y U' �zwW ZQa U W �7 Q o C C C� OCO e C rpLv p�� pLv x� O A L C y L C a a a 0 c o a o a c W O ° ° A v m u W Q tei °r = E — a 0 auQ =x u �c ZO c e 'C c -C c e 'C O o 3 0 C ';3 •0 O .E E z E 0 4 O Z CM 7 O "c L Leh m 0�°Hn,1Y �P:uE _u c of Cco- �pcp� =L• ho CU w C V po ��aa O L U p, R tm L R p t .k' t 7 c € C O a o 0 3 L d a .� E u o d E w ro a E c ao Q u x y O L d L N Q U h L v' $ E U0 .0 U° u' c-0 at t Q $r o r u C s E y F 0 °ca a y y ���+ $'�EL'u�ya =Q= c �c M.tEiS, 9L'L��° E Q ia=� E t` u i u G' Q Q e :: u.B ao ^Q C•rE O Q P.0 e c o „_ w $� .' jj 0 u u V u V Lu, 0 L 0 V C .� L C k N U E �. 10 y u w$ v m = Q u u V m E 0° �y _� aEauoL��QQmt?� °u.0 °�v0'�E w °a�z�° z � m Qi Q a 4 U s L y99 t y TI L •Ly_i e U L C d d 3 A A Z 0 i o ? P w 6L G 5 �' t oo A L C Q E 1 �•yy 6 • a z� o� O � N a �dcn z;D 0 w U wU' A Q 4 ' J S ON u U Wg W u U W E en u u W E W E u U U E en u u W E W E 4 E S C E C 5 c E C .5 E c C? E E c �c Cl = 0. cly 9 0. � c q6! 9 q01. � c q6q!! = qO1. C gay1.. yn. F5 4 ❑ 07 ❑ ❑ 07 ❑ ❑ 07 ❑ 4 O 07 ❑ 4 ❑ 0] ❑ u u upp y O U 0 y y � M C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 A m o A o c A o c A o u a o °u a . o° u c c O V c c O c c W o JS R y -j 2 c '�a wa a s c o., �_ ova �v z cb u o0 00 0o ao o a 0 °a s a o a o g o xad ii� E ££ £ £ £E u x0.7 O u u O 7 v u; C u U C E = tC y C A u Qu 00 a 9 O 0� o9 •� Av L a oc C O 6 C 'C O C a C u °vat 0.2 o c o ti E o a 0. u c m u ro u-, u� L v U y t u p L t r v u C 'u�+ C .0 'S L C QQ� u N L E y? u 9 'a 'O u u C u -" O C7 b ,� C Q 9 c o U V aa ° u° a E.. ° ° o "W 0 0 L E u t O p u OU •y •� y d k y k kt0 R C R A L u° J t/� yyO 'O L u P 6 C y Ctp N C 7 ra A y u u u O v Yi E m r u o o ` w 7 g u ro E o u > . 0 IZ 5 N v !y+ R 'va I� F E L zi O E GE yc W R R L R❑ E N r W N 4 • �x z aQ pW( � x N d 0� M F y zd NzW YI sV zw C7 Q Q n 5 ® ti o m u tJ c u u, u u ° u y .. E R 'S c � o A o E c o. h W a •� v ' v c v R H n u 0 A v a� 0 w 4❑ 4M 0]❑u V❑ii V V z u0 u u� 0 ` v 0 � gy cbm g ooy SD 0 A L 9 O R 0 R 0. W.0 y Cy 4 0 y Cy 4 F> O C 0 C w 0 o 6 A� 6 q 2 g C 6 C C u C C V D {wy L O c u E L' a TC� 3' yV u u U V V V c c c c c c z 0 O O d i ii i0 u O O k L A U u u L F' a✓ C L W u 0 k h. h 9 d0 L N u Z L k O L L C L 9 O CO 0 E C-0 N A u U Oyu uM� DcouW chU?:'c.. �cnun u= as c�La' L L R L v 4 � o o c 0 C u 7 C � u� C M >° rc °u w v� uc r M.pn.p � c 2 t u m A L 0 m L V, C '� E pW! t� 9 Z D O y?• o C t � v2 O. 5 O.0 C a. a✓ {j n .y .0 yr •Z u E `° C O n C CCy� °c y�oc c ro c o u u t c c`9=EVE•o. ocuEfitiEz D LL�mc'v^�EQ�EL V c E a13' h 0 u D u a.�uEr`o Eg u a4a v Bo80g r u nu zooEYYi0"ou u c =[ynEo `u g E o A u 0 C Q :- o c ro 4 wu A c > m t •v: a E h m m E r K (� N n 0 k � @ ) k § K 2 rml \ § § q 2 K/ §2 ok ■§ §■ of k` ■§ ( §E B§ B ¢ k g ( / ; \ «�!f \ {�m 2�! CIA )7k] \)�k k!9/ !$ «! / § §ef §\)\2 / t\ ) } §_ \ ) ) /)2 {±a± @2 ![{f | {!; §`f!| 2e[2f) {{ )(t ; :�� \�,!)! = , *3 \ \\\ } |\)\k �x z� {0 F4 0 U � .. d O z 0 a� ZVV W V MV Q A h M N N M u A a 0 n. a n v t c 0 Q L 7 L a e 7 C C 4� C n a a L d N > v`g va v o v a � � C C . 0 'QQV^ yC O O C � y G N C A ° u oc O f a c � C o {d L E � o a a 9 N o a E r zr o, O u u Wf"'y o d 7 L 7 y V V a Wi a o d `o v L L O ��Q b LE L Q C n O nor C � u C . yy t O. yuy u C. dO e c c e z O 'C 0 •C t0 p� i' _ cm g y aL y a o a 3 u u u H �yy ��•� ,ro_b�Ti o% a Ac 5 � e Y E Ct C L 0 g O a L O y n lV� E5 a u $ B L u U u C Ice •�+ °o v O o oa oqa, ti v N o o e9 �y �. v •7 V rt �, 9 �+ c Q v •y 4 C R C a v L R 00 .. 00 ao v m�" �. Z °° U a o m w E y e L �, w c c L u E i o or °� A o " a .6 v °° v ° a s �• 'r'� o v o ',orb °� o a L c h u a o M t A 5 v x i 0. o £ u m a V a e� r c o e E eau,' L o oa ammur ° e N9 14 u V u �L 'E t 'c O is O. L 'O a y ° a ° A O U y l�nl a `O . . . . . . S � M u A a 0 n. a n v t c 0 Q L 7 L a e 7 C C 4� C n a a L d N > v`g va v o v a � � C C . 0 'QQV^ yC O O C � y G N C A ° u oc O f a c � C o {d L E � o a a 9 N o a E r zr o, � �k _§ k §�\ k §/ k�\ §§ 2° § /} § §- }) }{z §§ )/o m§ �}! §( f!5! §! �/ )_ §( (i fl,,, @!:E! �) -0u u ;!!% =f,§ / § E\&;|) §!,Uu ;t!()/ cu. §, \!l�•a §u0. °) /\(( } \ }(){ �lwfEa�. §!! �seuu /Cum.0 § /® 9 3 bb k ■ � 0 &k gi 4 /0\ §§# m�) §§ §u m§ 2\ 2 (� ■2 k § § §§ !k §| §d � §§ ) � # 2m9■! E ))I \! �)/ \f§)\ ) f) §�\ §-,lik J_ \ ! 2 m75 !tom ; ) § / *( e&� /f! ��!` § \ {\ \ /%)]! ) C »■ !£2 /!2!! k#! ■ \k{f!� *E E § � | &EE .......... \/t • a �x 0 z� F A OW �i �U M A N^ G v C C m y fi C b E C m E ai G 4❑ 07 ❑ 6 Q 4❑ O G ar q C A C et G A e qob'. q q 0 CO 9 C ro° �� t S p o `o Q� u a tat > eQ� e e axaU a as z 0 w bo Al o ao a� c < $ 0 s0 u v yy= c 8 7 C C y L O !e Epu -v og - 0 vt aE uua� c�, a.W.c L2u 0 c . O O r C 0 C i_ v 0 t M a o - v 0 a V o O L a c n� C va 7L N C U vii 4 y T Q yyy 9 m C ,,, J u L uc L O u 2 0 L L y 0 �p k O u Co L V Ol 0 4H u L p T � O A L L C L '0 C A 5 .� � E E O v 0 r'7 c v v •E:o�t �Y. ro aou ti v o w �r ee � aoE'L `� C n cw *r Q Ji u —GG E u v a E� yy°yy 0 E c a Q2 g Q o L va 5 a C y v R C y A o Z "' a uu w A .. C o' m p ._ Ki ee m A C V 0 E o rt e v 0 �1 •� '2 O R u 0] R U �+ A C izil W (r.7L t L u E L C E T t p U u y �$D�L$ tv emu' y LCmEmO 'CQAao CCmDa °y cE.. u aco L'co CE�r 0 :? y C '� 7 V u �°a a s •o a 3 a s °e ¢r' a z u u � E a E :S „ g' te! ! L v 5 N N • a �x P� N z a A O� O a� W W Q A� M N V C z L 0 0 w F o yzC �v_ tJ o'bu v 0 0 O�hv p C p 0 C G O A C O rt 0 6 a 0 0. c--a L•v9 °=ra ii. °' z 0 0 0 o o 09 -'L' C f% y0 L O fS R S E $ L a c o o 0 m o E o o e v o 0v, c ID ; om a yL 0 a L M. € 0. ou .y L s 0 iA C • 03�A y k L t C u C pp p O 0 Cq u_ L A C a N H su , L C 7 n u. °v °Q E L O L O O - > M CL y 1yJc v ' u 0 p 0 C u O UO 0 a L 14— C C . LO z 0 C y 7 0 o a > o Up OC $ u •cw a y A a E W otij.Z A2 - u u .. v C v, v�' �A 0 y O c $ W.0 -0 e -0 u °V . "� o o• e�+ a z iv '� e� a A u :g L : .0 o v � u r E n -- u a a �, uL o ° L 0 �as r L Or "dw! a E '^ 6 a m n. h° r o W E 0 V L ._ F+ e M N • �x °z p( Q d 0 d M °a A N �pN ^ e E e e E b E y Y y d P4 Md a❑ 4n�. a❑ 4a� a❑ a❑ c ya a❑ 0�..I A A c c n c 4 FI C L v0, 'O vi C O L vOj C n 2 J �° yq y yq y ry �. fiWS L C O R Cy L C p O t0 Cy L C O �tl L C p O N Cyy L C E O N Lyy F+ y d 0 6 4 0 y[y A A ro z wo �+ =C u R u A .� O u O 4 'L u O 4 '= u O U 4 'v u O 4 •u u 0 Sk C U C U C V C V C V iRiWj 9 0 'O �. L t �. u C 'uyy 9 L '� t 'O •� 9 r`rE,�+ V !n ILi � h i4 Ez C c e c e e = a a s �W G zi O O 'C AS O '0 n9 O 'C •ao O 'v °n9 O •C '3 C �Ey�Ey !!C CCC i ccC C CC C W C 0 0 T c C C Z' u 0 0 v U °° 'E O •E •� C E u C C: a E�ou O o ge� ue u6 ugo'na0 _Eu t9 L Y u ��° O 0� 7 000 R L. C L N i. U u E L u C L d C �` 0 0. u 00 C •c ' u O b 00 a E o •c � m 0 V, un u '» C 00 'mom L B N -iq E o YJmfi!: p•�Cc ,Fa g. a A�y.E�E�U 6 nLo, •o �� RAW pup 00 u u 7 n DO EoaE u .0 G t u 0 J A u a >' 0Q u u�9 7 O' W yE8"� V' C L C a�i rOu E� R O° R 0. u O. 9 Ou 00 Z O 0 u C y h > t: > C L= 2 U }� va i O L .u0 }Q kak t. L u a�Ywo nO� �oL�ta�E� �-0 .5 u O. C 9 r 9 E = �+ O YS 00 a w C s t: et T t� U u O v O� C O y 9 A O a O. ' .0 L1 $ n vii p �_ R 7 O U •0 y 00 C L t qJ L .7. C L C A •.�. _ 12 R u le ipi �L C A 7 u IL C C 7J y u O ky .0C C0 y u C $ L 6 C T d O .� �. Q C Q• p0 �! .J A u 0 CT O r' u 'g 7 u 0 E Pi uu �S 0 a u C 0. t a 7 p u P C y yu+ C F+ Q U IC 00 6. 'J F L C L n m 4 .. Q Pu.. C Q R L F 9 R 0 16 N Ll -§ q§ k �s §§ \� k kwo E §d k) §9 2\ \ § ( q rq )u § � \ }/{ m0 me I I m ) \) -(« ()) !#3 §§ )i) ) {\ )/) )/) \c \\ \o /\ §2 \; «k �k _ ! \ )) \ \ \\ \) {{ §� %u /) / E �u i22! ) 2s { ;! - . 2.2{ ,0 ƒk {o kk ` to {;! .o2 . : ) =, ]]!$ �� ®)} ( k z� \� \\)} / \) �!) | =� § !k !!a § \ | %} ,,) « § . rq 0 �k �§ §° � 2\§ §\/ md) §d «) §§ 2\ 2 f( §2 )u §( § a Paz o� § �0\ §§ ) !k §§ \ \M ,■ !)! d ,§ !{ �§ /) !()) \ \�k\ %;u -12 !m )$k� ! §)| 2 u bt {) ;00E ƒ \§ §} }( k \\0 § � /\ }/\ 0 �\\ \ § ] / }� « a 0 &% �Q q k/\ §/§ §§� k° m§ %\ Q § � [[ fk §� §i § {! §2 ƒ \z 2§ \{ ) 0§ \� \ B� {\ )!! §§ / ■z !o 0 %g k - (( •�¢':'. !| E � E0 §_} \ DO-2 k § (*k u 2 \ ); ! { | ; \-; \}ƒ |] j})e `)) \ ! { !• � \( ;;E] ) { }) / / ; k 0k \} \U/ `, !(% § ) &) | | §k§ /])f § !( � 2 Q 0 -B »§ k \ § \\ §§/ §d k) §§ 2\ § � § . §§ )§[ 20 !( ) }0a 0 ) ¢( \\ u ( \ \ ■§ (k k! ! �§: , .■ g k)) � }!) ±! {§e {\; E U0do A § lu = ; =§ {)�Ec!'5 / ©!'!Z -0 \(!/ § \\ \ \ ) �� %) /) 2 (%E) /0 it § k ; §