N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
1 9
7 12-2974
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
6 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
22 of
55 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
,
.,
I
I
I
I
•
•
J
I
I
-
-
"
V~
n
-
d
~
~
-
"
-
n-
Z
-
'
-
S
:
'
0 9
-
T
1 7
.
9 1
4 S
-
:
-
3 2
.
7 2
0 S
-
r
-
O
-
'
-
0 4
2 4
-
-
'
-
1 -
.
-
i
s
3 0
-
'
-
-
O
-
'
-
3 7
7 S
-
-
'
-
-
1 .
6 3
'
0 8
-
-
.
-
-
0 -
.
-
3 5
5 4
-
T
-
0 -
.
-
3 4
7 3
-
..
.
.
-'
O
:
-
7 0
2 7
-
,
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
-
--
-
"
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
6. 8
2 9
1 7.
2 5
7 2
'
83 .
4 0
5 3
'
0. 1
2 7
0 '1
,
2 9
8 .
5 6
6 t
0. 0
7 1
2 '1
,
2 9
8 .
6 3
7 '
13 1
.
0 5
3 1
'
0. 0
6 5
4 '
13 1
.
1 1
8 5
To
t
a
l
9. 5
0 0
0 25
.
1 7
1 7
I
11 6
.
1 2
5 7
3. 5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
7 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
7. 6
0 6
1 59
.
0 2
2 9
47 .
1 5
2 0
To
t
a
l
7. 6
0 6
1 59
.
0 2
2 9
47 .
1 5
2 0
I
1 I
:
2 I
0. 1
6 9
4 11
,
2 9
~
.
8 1
9 1
0. 4
4 8
9 11
,
3 0
~
.
2 6
8 1
13 1
.
4 0
8 5
0. 4
1 2
7 13
1 .
8 2
1 1
0. 0
6 5
6 4.
4 4
3 4
4. 4
4 3
4 4.
1 9
0 7
4. 1
9 0
7 0.
0 6
5 6
4. 4
4 3
4 4.
4 4
3 4
4. 1
9 0
7 4
.
1 9
0 7
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
,'
i
C
0 2
e
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
I
,
•
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-:
-
4 ~
i
2 7
~
7 9
8 ~
-
4 ~
i
2 7
~
9 a
~
-
-
o
-
'
-
o
2 8
2 -
"
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
4,
2 2
8 .
3 8
-
9 "
'
I
0 I
a
:
:
3 I
I
I
,
,
"_
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,.
-
_"
-
-
__
I
•
10 ,
3 0
5 .
7 0
I
10 ,
3 0
5 .
7 0
'
0. 6
2 8
5 '1
0 ,
3 1
8 .
9 0
'5
3 '
5 3
'
:3
3 14
,
5 3
3 .
5 0
11 4
,
5 3
3 .
5 0
I
0. 6
5 6
6 33
3 3
16 ,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 '
6,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 '
1. 4
8 4
8 I
2 '
2 :
6,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 1
6 ,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 I
1. 4
8 4
8 2
2 14
,
5 4
7 .
2 9
25 ,
6,
4 3
5 .
3 4
7 :
6 6,
4 3
5 .
3 4
7 6
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
1 9
8 12-2975
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
7 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
23 of
55 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
,
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0. 0
0 0
0 -
-
-
V~
n
-
d
;
;
--
-
·'
-
-
2 ~
3 5
8 1
-
:
-
1 6
.
0 7
6 4
-
:
-
2 9
.
9 8
i
8 -
:
-
-
0 ~
0 4
2 3
-
"
-
-
1 ~
i
s
3 1
-
"
-
-
O
~
3 3
0 7
-
"
-
-
1 ~
5 s
3 8
-
"
-
-
o
~
3 5
5 4
-
:
-
-
o
.
3 0
4 1
-
"
"
-
o
~
5 9
5 -
,
,
.,
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
--
-
-
"
"-
-
-
-
-
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
--
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
6. 1
5 0
3 6.
6 1
1 3
I
75 .
3 0
9 9
'
0. 1
2 6
9 '2
,
1 1
4 .
5 8
8 I
0. 0
6 9
1 '2
,
1 1
4 .
6 5
8 I
21 2
.
6 5
5 4
0. 0
6 3
7 I
21 2
.
7 1
9 1
To
t
a
l
8. 5
0 8
5 22
.
6 8
7 8
I
10 5
.
2 9
8 8
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
I'
1'
7 ~
~
~
~
,
y
';
,
:
i
Of
f
·
Ro
a
d
To
t
a
l
RO
G
'i
;
I
:
:
:
':
NO
~
:
'
i
:;
,
""
I
I
,
'
,I
,
'
.,
1. 3
5 2
3 1.
3 5
2 3
28 .
7 3
5 7
28 .
7 3
5 7
.C
9 !
I,
!'
<
45 .
5 5
7 6
45 .
5 5
7 6
I
9 I
:
0 r
0. 1
6 9
2 '2
,
1 1
~
.
8 4
2 1
0. 3
9 9
8 12
,
1 1
:
.
2 4
1 I
21 3
.
0 1
0 8
80 2
'
,
;
i
I
:,
F
i
J
g
i
t
j
v
~
,
,
:
ii
'
Ex
h
,
,
!
u
s
t
,
-
,
PM
t
O
-
,
PM
,
t
O
;
,
'
PM
1 P
,
;1
:
:
FU
9 .
;
'
.
·
.
~
e
'
"
To
t
a
l
"
,
"P
M
2 .
~
:
Ib
!
~
~
y
0. 0
6 5
6 0.
2 2
9 0
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
0 6
5 6
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
0. 3
6 7
8 EX
h
a
u
s
t
'
:'
,p
M
2 ;
S
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
21 3
.
3 7
8 6
'P
M
2 ~
5 :
To
t
a
l
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
Da
l
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
,
I
I
I
I
-
-
_.
-
-
-:
4 .
1 5
6 :
-
0 6
4 ~
-
4 ~
1 5
6 :
_
0 6
4 ~
-
-
o
~
c
i
2 6
5 -
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
4,
1 5
6 .
6 2
"
0 ·
'
I
0 I
0 I
:
1 I
I
I
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
--
'9
,
8 8
5 .
1 1
1 '
9,
8 8
5 .
1 1
1 1
0. 5
8 1
8 1
19 .
8 9
7 .
3 2
9 1
8 1
8 :
5 14
,
0 4
1 .
1 7
1 1
4 ,
0 4
1 .
1 7
1 0.
6 0
8 3
57 5
7 I,
:B
i
O
-
:
C'
O
i
:1
.
,
~
.
B
.
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
:
'
I
'
T
6 t
a
,
l
,
C0
2 ,
.
..
..
··
'
1 :
,,
'
:
:
"
,
:'
;
,
:
'
:
.
CH
4 "
'
;
'
~
Ib
/
d
,
a
~
0. 0
0 0
0 16
,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 1
6 ,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 1
1. 4
8 4
8 I
2 1
2 1
0. 0
0 0
0 16
,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 1
6 ,
4 0
4 .
1 6
6 1
1. 4
8 4
8 2
2 ,N
2 0
,
,
14 ,
0 5
3 .
9 4
95 "C
:
0 ~
e
'
:,
:
1 6,
4 3
5 .
3 4
7 ,
6 6,
4 3
5 .
3 4
7 6
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
1 9
9 12-2976
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
7 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
24 of
55 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
,
.,
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
t
,
-
-
.
V~
n
-
d
~
~
-
-
-
·'
-
-
2 ~
3 5
8 1
-
T
1 6
.
0 7
6 4
-
T
2 9
.
9 8
8 8
-
T
-
o
~
0 4
2 3
-
"
-
-
1 ~
i
5 3
1 -
"
-
-
O
-
:
-
;
3 0
7 -
"
-
-
1 ~
5 8
3 8
-
"
-
-
O
~
3 5
5 4
-
r
-
O
~
3 0
4 1
-
"
"
-
O
~
6 s
9 5
-
,
.,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
6. 1
5 0
3 6.
6 1
1 3
I
75 .
3 0
9 9
'
0. 1
2 6
9 '1
,
2 9
8 .
5 6
6 '
0. 0
6 9
1 '1
,
2 9
8 .
6 3
5 ,
13 1
.
0 5
3 1
'
0,
0 6
3 7
I
13 1
.
1 1
6 8
To
t
a
l
8. 5
0 8
5 22
.
6 8
7 8
I
10 5
.
2 9
8 8
3. 5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
8 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
.,
6. 5
4 0
3 52
.
2 6
5 5
46 .
1 2
1 4
To
t
a
l
6. 5
4 0
3 52
.
2 6
5 5
46 .
1 2
1 4
I
1:
I
2 I
0. 1
6 9
2 11
,
29 i,
B
1 9
I
0. 3
9 9
8 11
,
3 0
~
.
2 1
9 I
13 1
.
4 0
8 5
0. 3
6 7
8 13
1 .
7 7
6 3
'p
~
~
.
5 .
To
t
a
l
:
0. 0
6 5
6 3.
7 2
4 7
3. 7
2 4
7 3.
5 1
6 8
3 .
5 1
6 8
0. 0
6 5
6 3.
7 2
4 7
3. 7
2 4
7 3.
5 1
6 8
3 .
5 1
6 8
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
I
,
I
I
-
-
-
_"
"
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
'4
,
1 5
6 .
0 6
4 '
4,
1 5
6 .
0 6
4 '
0. 0
2 6
5 '4
,
1 5
6 .
6 2
0 :
0 :
0:
,
:
1 ,
,
,
I
,
-
-
-
-
_"
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
__
_
_
_
_
-,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
-
-
-
-
_"
_
I
'9
,
8 8
5 .
1 1
1 '
9,
8 8
5 .
1 1
1 0.
5 8
1 8
'9
,
8 9
7 .
3 2
9 ,
8 '
8 :
5 14
,
0 4
1 .
1 7
1 1
4 ,
0 4
1 .
1 7
I
0. 6
0 8
3 57
57 I
6,
3 3
8 .
7 3
5 I
6,
3 3
8 .
7 3
5 '
1. 4
5 1
9 :
8 :
8 :
6,
3 3
8 .
7 3
5 1
6 ,
3 3
8 .
7 3
5 I
1. 4
5 1
9 8
8 ,
N2
0 14
,
0 5
3 .
9 4
95 'y
0 2
e
'
,
6,
3 6
9 .
2 2
6 :
0 6,
3 6
9 .
2 2
6 o
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
0 12-2977
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
25 of
55 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
8 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
.,
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
r
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ve
n
d
o
r
or
2. 1
0 0
1 '
14 .
6 2
4 2
•
27 .
7 2
1 9
1 0.
0 4
2 2
1. 2
5 2
5 0.
3 1
0 0
1. 5
6 2
4 0.
3 5
5 2
'
0. 2
8 5
1 0.
6 4
0 2
.,
I
I
,
I
,
.,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
..
-Wo
;
k
~
;
-
-
-
·,
-
-
5 ~
5 5
9 8
-
..
--
6 ~
D
6 4
1 -
~
-
6 8
.
«
1 i
~
-
-
o
~
1 2
6 8
-
~
-
2 ~
;
;
4 1
;
8 8
~
-
-
o
~
0 6
8 0
-
~
-
2 ~
1 1
4 ~
5 6
~
-
2 1
2 ~
5 s
4 .
,
-
-
O
~
0 6
2 9
-
~
2 1
2 .
7 1
8 3
-
To
t
a
l
7. 6
6 0
0 20
,
6 8
8 3
96 .
1 6
3 6
I
9 I
1 9
'
0. 1
6 8
9 12
,
1 1
5 .
8 4
1 3
0. 3
7 8
0 12
,
1 1
6 .
2 1
9 1
21 3
.
0 1
0 5
3 0.
3 4
7 9
21 3
.
3 5
8 5
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
I
R'
?
:
,;
:
:
[
2 )
:
I,
:
:
,
:
::
':
:
,,
:
P
M
1 0
:
':
.P
M
1 ,
O
:
,C
a
t
e
g
O
'
r
Y
Ib
/
d
a
y
,
:
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
1. 3
5 2
3 28
.
7 3
5 7
45 .
5 5
7 6
0. 0
6 5
6 0.
2 2
9 0
To
t
a
l
1. 3
5 2
3 28
.
7 3
5 7
45 .
5 5
7 6
0. 0
6 5
6 0.
2 2
9 0
'P
M
W
I'
:
FU
,
'
,
9 i
t
i
y
~
To
t
a
l
'"
PM
2 :
5 '
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
,
'E
x
h
a
u
s
t
;'
~
M
Z
;
5 ,
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
PM
2 ,
5 ,
To
t
a
l
.
'
,
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
..
.
c9
2e
:
ji
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
,
I
,
,
•
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
..
~
~
-
-
-
14 ,
0 8
1 .
5 6
5 '
4,
0 8
1 .
5 6
5 I
0. 0
2 6
0 '4
,
0 8
2 .
1 1
0 :
2 :
2 :
:
4 I
,
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-:
-
9 ~
5 0
4 ~
3 3
~
-
9 ~
5 0
4 ~
3 3
~
-
-
o
~
5 4
2 8
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
!
"
9,
5 1
5 .
5 3
-
£
:
I
9 I
9 I
:
6 13
,
5 8
5 .
6 9
1 1
3 ,
5 8
5 .
6 9
1 0.
5 6
8 8
90 90
'B
i
o
-
C0
2 :
:
1 NB
i
o
-
~
C
O
f
l
T
o
t
a
l
C0
2 :
,
CH
4 '
.I
Ib
/
d
a
y
0. 0
0 0
0 '
6,
3 3
8 .
7 3
5 I
6,
3 3
8 .
7 3
5 '
1. 4
5 1
9 :
8 :
8 :
,
0. 0
0 0
0 N2
0 :!
'
i
13 ,
5 9
7 .
6 4
30 CO
Z
e
I
6,
3 6
9 .
2 2
6 :
0 ,
6,
3 6
9 .
2 2
6 0
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
1 12-2978
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
8 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
,I
.
,
'
,
P.
M
.
t
O
..
i
.
i
f
o
t
a
l
Pa
g
e
26 of
55 :"
F
~
9 H
:
~
,
,:
1 'E
x
h
a
u
1 >
t
,'
P
M
2 :
5 '
.
PM
2 .
5 i
PM
2 ~
5 ,
"
;:
J
:
o
~
l
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 t
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
:
,
t
I
•
:
,
,
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"
"
n-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
~.
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
'
1 "
"
-
-
-
-
__
I
Ve
n
d
o
r
2. 1
0 0
1 I
14 .
6 2
4 2
I
27 .
7 2
1 9
I
0. 0
4 2
2 1.
2 5
2 5
'
0. 3
1 0
0 1.
5 6
2 4
0. 3
5 5
2 I
0. 2
6 5
1 0.
6 4
0 2
i
14 ,
0 8
1 .
5 6
5 I
4,
0 8
1 .
5 6
5 '
0. 0
2 6
0 '4
,
0 8
2 .
1 1
0 :
;
I
'~
I
2 I
2 '
:
4 .,
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
~
I
,
,
I
,
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
"
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
5. 5
5 9
8 6.
0 6
4 1
'
68 .
4 4
1 7
'
0. 1
2 6
8 '1
,
2 9
8 .
5 6
6 '
0. 0
6 8
0 '1
,
2 9
8 .
6 3
4 '
13 1
.
0 5
3 1
0. 0
6 2
9 13
1 .
1 1
6 0
;
'9
.
5 0
4 .
1 3
3 '
9,
5 0
4 .
1 3
3 '
0. 5
4 2
8 '
9,
5 1
5 .
5 3
2 '1
'
'1
'
~
'9
'
9 '
'6
To
t
a
l
7. 6
6 0
0 20
.
6 8
8 3
96 .
1 6
3 6
3. 5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
9 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
••
5. 7
6 0
4 47
.
4 6
8 1
45 .
4 7
2 1
To
t
a
l
5. 7
6 0
4 47
.
4 6
8 1
4 5
.
4 7
2 1
,
,
'
,
,
0. 1
6 8
9 11
,
2 9
~
.
8 1
8 1
0. 3
7 8
0 11
,
3 0
~
.
1 9
6 I
13 1
.
4 0
8 3
0. 3
4 7
9 13
1 .
7 5
6 2
13 ,
5 8
5 .
6 9
1 1
3 ,
5 8
5 .
6 9
I
0. 5
6 8
8 90
90 0.
0 6
5 6
3. 2
0 1
2 3.
2 0
1 2
3. 0
2 3
2 3.
0 2
3 2
'6
,
2 7
5 .
3 1
2 '
6,
2 7
5 .
3 1
2 '
1. 4
1 9
6 ,
7 :
7 I
0. 0
6 5
6 3.
2 0
1 2
3. 2
0 1
2 3.
0 2
3 2
3. 0
2 3
2 6,
2 7
5 .
3 1
2 1
6 ,
2 7
5 .
3 1
2 I
1. 4
1 9
6 7
7 13
,
5 9
7 .
6 4
30 ,
6,
3 0
5 .
1 2
4 :
2 6,
3 0
5 .
1 2
4 2
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
2 12-2979
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
20 1
9 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
·
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
27 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
"i
'
/,
,
,
,
"'
1 1
RO
G
I
N,
o
x
r
iC
O
;'
T
/
'
,
S
P
2 "
I
'
F
u
git
i
v
"
'
I
'
Ex
h
'
u
~
t
"I
"
,
'
~"
"
0 'I
"u
g
il
i
'.
,
,
I,
I;
,
!
,
.,
:
i
'
;
:
:
'
i
:
II
I
I:
:
j:
!
,
:
:
.
!
,
:
::
:
'
::
:
i
"
U
'
;
:
:
>
:
:
:
i
'
.
::
'
:,
:
:
'
;
::
:
,
~
,
:
:
i
,
t
~
1 '
t
<
:
'P
M
1 '
O
,,
:
:
:
,T
o
t
a
l
'
,
'P
M
2 '
.
5 Ex
h
a
u
S
t
N,
B
i
O
;
c
0 2
I
ro
t
a
t
'C
0 2
I
'
P~
4 "
'f
'
'~
2 q
,
:
'I
"
;C
P
?
~
'
"J
·
i
~
,
f
¥
1 ~
·
5 "
,
"
':
:
'
;
:
:
:
'
f
;
:
'
"
;"
:
-
:
:
:
:,
;
':
,
"
,,
;
:'
:
.,
<
~i
,
:
:'
1 .
1 !.
:
<
'
,
:
:
<
:
,
::
:
::
1 L
G
I
i'
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 D,
D
o
o
a
,
.,
I
I
I
,
l
,
I
I
I
-
..
V~
n
d
~
;
-
-
-
"-
-
1 ~
9 i
2 0
-
:
-
1 3
"
3 8
5 3
-
:
-
2 6
.
1 1
3 8
:
-
-
0 ~
0 4
2 1
-
"
-
-
1 ~
i
5 1
9 -
"
-
-
o
~
i
8 7
9 -
"-
-
1 ~
5 3
9 7
-
"
-
-
O
~
3 s
4 9
-
:
-
-
o
~
i
6 4
7 -
"
'
-
O
~
1 9
i
-
,
,
.,
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
-
__
••
M
__
_
_
_
n
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
__
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
5. 1
0 2
1 5.
6 0
3 6
63 .
2 7
9 1
0. 1
2 6
6 '2
,
1 1
4 .
5 8
8 I
0. 0
6 8
0 '2
,
1 1
4 .
6 5
6 I
21 2
.
6 5
5 4
0. 0
6 3
1 I
21 2
.
7 1
8 4
I
9 I
I
9 I
To
t
a
l
7. 0
2 4
1 18
.
9 8
8 9
I
89 .
3 9
2 9
I
0. 1
6 8
7 1
2,
1 1
~
.
8 4
0 I
0. 3
5 5
9 12
,
1 1
~
.
1 9
6 1
21 3
.
0 1
0 3
1 0.
3 2
7 8
1 21
3 .
3 3
8 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
·
S
i
t
e
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
.,
1. 3
5 2
3 I
28 .
7 3
5 7
I
45 .
5 5
7 6
I
0. 0
6 5
6 ,
To
t
a
l
II
1. 3
5 2
3 I
28 .
7 3
5 7
I
45 .
5 5
7 6
I
0. 0
6 5
6 I
I
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
:
I
..
P.
M
1 0
·
iP
M
1 0
To
t
a
l
'
,
0. 2
2 9
0 ,
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
I
0. 2
2 9
0 , I
0. 2
2 9
0 ,
0. 2
2 9
0 I
0. 2
2 9
0 I
0. 2
2 9
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:-
4 .
0 0
8 ~
0 6
~
-
4 ~
o
0 8
~
o
6 ~
-
-
0 -
:
-
o
2 5
5 -
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
4,
0 0
9 .
2 4
1 -
"
5 :
5 :
:
2 I
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
19 ,
1 4
7 .
9 8
6 I
9,
1 4
7 .
9 8
6 I
0. 5
1 3
0 I
19 ,
1 5
8 .
7 6
0 :
7 :
7:
I
I
4 13
,
1 5
6 .
6 9
1 1
3 ,
1 5
6 .
6 9
1 0.
5 3
8 5
32 3
2 16
,
2 7
5 .
3 1
2 I
6,
2 7
5 .
3 1
2 I
1. 4
1 9
6 :
7 :
7 :
,
,
16 '
2 7
~
.
3 1
2 1
6 '
2 7
~
.
3 1
2 1
1. 4
1 9
6 13
,
1 6
8 .
0 0
16 16
,
3 0
5 .
1 2
4 :
2 i
6,
3 0
~
.
1 2
4 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
3 12-2980
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
28 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
3. 5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 1
9 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ;
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
t
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
j
,
.,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
r
~
I
I
,
,
,
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
1'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
, __
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
.
"
-
-
-
-I
Ve
n
d
o
r
.,
1. 9
2 2
0 '
13 .
3 8
5 3
I
26 .
1 1
3 8
I
0. 0
4 2
1 1.
2 5
1 9
I
0. 2
8 7
9 I
1. 5
3 9
7 0.
3 5
4 9
I
0. 2
6 4
7 0.
6 1
9 7
;
14 ,
0 0
8 .
7 0
6 I
4,
0 0
8 .
7 0
6 I
0. 0
2 5
5 '4
,
0 0
9 .
2 4
1 I
':
I
'i
,
'
5 :
5 :
:
2 .,
I
I
I
I
,
1 I
,
,
~
I
I
I
I
I
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.•
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
_
.
.
.
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
_ -
-
-
-
-,
Wo
r
k
e
r
5. 1
0 2
1 5.
6 0
3 6
1 63
.
2 7
9 1
I
0. 1
2 6
6 '1
,
2 9
8 .
5 6
6 '
0. 0
6 8
0 '1
,
2 9
8 .
6 3
4 I
13 1
.
0 5
3 1
0. 0
6 3
1 13
1 .
1 1
6 2
;
,
9,
1 4
7 .
9 8
6 I
9,
1 4
7 .
9 8
6 '
0. 5
1 3
0 '9
,
1 5
8 .
7 6
0 ,
l'
'1
:
i:
7 :
7 :
:
4 To
t
a
l
7. 0
2 4
1 18
.
9 8
8 9
89 .
3 9
2 9
0. 1
6 8
7 11
,
2 9
~
.
8 1
8 1
0. 3
5 5
9 11
,
3 0
~
.
1 7
3 I
13 1
.
4 0
8 0
0. 3
2 7
8 •
13 1
.
7 3
5 8
13 ,
1 5
6 .
6 9
1 1
3 ,
1 5
6 .
6 9
1 0.
5 3
8 5
32 32
13 ,
1 6
8 .
0 0
16 3,
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 2
0 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
I.
.
~
i
i
i·
:
q
a
~
~
~
.
o
r
Y
:
:
::
;
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
To
t
a
l
~b
G
:'
1 "
·N
.
O
x
ii
i
:
'.
co
'
·
:
'1
'
:
'
S0
2 '
I'
~u
g
i
t
i
i
i
~
,
':
'j
'
;
\
'
.
:-
'
:
:
.P
M
1 0
..
EX
h
a
u
s
t
:
fM
,
1 0
:
Ib
/
d
a
y
'
,,
;
:
,
,
5. 1
6 9
4 43
.
4 0
5 4
44 .
9 9
2 7
0. 0
6 5
6 2.
7 6
7 7
5. 1
6 9
4 43
.
4 0
5 4
44 .
9 9
2 7
0. 0
6 5
6 2.
7 6
7 7
PM
1 0
,I
..
~o
~
1 2.
7 6
7 7
2. 7
6 7
7 Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
PM
2 ·
.
5 :
'E
x
~
a
u
s
t
'P
M
Z
.
5 PM
2 !
S
'
::
T
o
~
a
l
2. 6
1 4
2 2.
6 1
4 2
-
2. 6
1 4
2 2.
6 1
4 2
~B
i
t
c
~
2 1
T
O
~
'
C
0 2
1 CH
4 i
'
N2
0 I
C0
2 .
lb
/
d
a
x
•
6,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 '
6,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 '
1. 3
9 4
2 :
4 :
4 :
,
6,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 1
6 ,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 1
1. 3
9 4
2 4
4 •
6,
2 2
1 .
6 4
4 ,
0 6,
2 2
1 .
6 4
4 o
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
4 12-2981
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
·
20 2
0 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
29 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
F.
u
g
~
i
v
~
,
: PM
,
2 .
S
'
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
•
•
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
~
I
,
,
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
_.
"
.
-n-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-"
_ -
-
-
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
.
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
--
Ve
n
d
o
r
1. 6
4 0
5 I
11 .
4 0
8 5
I
23 .
5 7
3 6
'0
.
0 4
2 0
1. 2
5 1
3 0.
2 5
8 8
'.
5 1
0 1
0. 3
5 4
7 '
0. 2
3 8
1 0.
5 9
2 8
t
13 ,
9 1
3 .
6 2
4 '
3,
9 1
3 .
6 2
4 '
0. 0
2 4
5 13
,
9 1
4 .
1 3
8 I
I
:
I
~
I
9 I
9 :
:
6 .,
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
,
-
-
-
-"
-
--
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
Wo
r
k
e
r
.,
4. 7
4 5
7 5.
2 4
8 9
.
59 .
1 2
3 6
'
0. 1
2 6
6 '2
,
1 1
4 .
5 8
8 '
0. 0
6 8
2 '2
,
1 1
4 .
6 5
7 '
21 2
.
6 5
5 4
0. 0
6 3
2 21
2 .
7 1
8 6
;
'8
,
7 7
7 .
0 8
3 '
8,
7 7
7 .
0 8
3 '
0. 4
8 8
9 '8
,
7 8
7 .
3 5
0 I
9 I
'1
:
A'
8 '
8 :
:
7 To
t
a
l
6. 3
8 6
3 16
.
6 5
7 4
82 .
6 9
7 2
0. 1
6 8
6 I
2,
1 1
~
.
8 4
0 I
0. 3
2 7
0 12
,
1 1
;
.
1 6
7 I
21 3
.
0 1
0 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
"
..
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
1. 3
5 2
3 28
.
7 3
5 7
45 .
5 5
7 6
0. 0
6 5
6 0.
2 2
9 0
0. 2
2 9
0 To
t
a
l
1. 3
5 2
3 28
.
7 3
5 7
45 .
5 5
7 6
0. 0
6 5
6 0.
2 2
9 0
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
3 0
1 3
21 3
.
3 1
1 3
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
0. 2
2 9
0 0.
2 2
9 0
,
,
12 ,
6 9
0 .
7 0
1 1
2 ,
6 9
0 .
7 0
I
0. 5
1 3
4 86
86 0.
0 0
0 0
'6
,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 '
6,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 '
1. 3
9 4
2 ,
4 '
4 '
0. 0
0 0
0 I
6,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 1
6 ,
1 9
2 .
3 6
6 I
1. 3
9 4
2 4
4 12
,
7 0
1 .
4 8
93 ,
6,
2 2
1 .
6 4
4 :
0 6,
2 2
1 .
6 4
4 o
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
5 12-2982
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
5 Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
20 2
0 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
30 of
55 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 D,
D
O
O
O
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
.,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
-
-
-
V~
n
-
d
~
~
-
-
-
"-
1 ~
6 4
C
;
5 -
:
-
1 1
.
4 0
8 5
-
:
-
2 3
.
S
7 ;
6 :
-
-
0 ~
0 4
2 0
-
"
-
-
1 ~
i
5 1
3 -
"
-
-
o
~
i
5 8
8 -
"
-
-
:
'
~
S
;
0 1
-
"
-
-
O
~
;
5 4
7 -
:
-
-
o
.
i
3 8
1 -
"
"
-
O
~
9 2
8 -
,
.,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
.,
4. 7
4 5
7 5.
2 4
8 9
I
59 .
1 2
3 6
I
0. 1
2 6
6 ",
2 9
8 .
5 6
6 '
0. 0
6 8
2 '1
,
2 9
8 .
6 3
4 '
13 1
.
0 5
3 1
I
0. 0
6 3
2 I
13 1
.
1 1
6 3
To
t
a
l
6. 3
8 6
3 16
.
6 5
7 4
82 .
6 9
7 2
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
7 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
I
1 I
:
3 I
0. 1
6 8
6 11
,
2 9
:
.
8 1
7 /
0. 3
2 7
0 /1
,
3 0
:
.
1 4
4 1
13 1
.
4 0
7 8
0. 3
0 1
3 13
1 .
7 0
9 1
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
::
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
.,
1 1
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
"
.
·c
i
f
f
=
R
;
a
d
-
-
-
·,
-
-
0 ~
;
9 6
9 -
.
,
-
-
6 ~
S
5 s
1 -
.
,
-
-
5 ~
6 0
4 2
-
.
,
-
8 .
9 1
0 0
~
:
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
O
~
5 i
o
O
-
.
,
-
-
0 ~
5 2
0 0
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
O
~
5 2
0 0
-
,
.
.
-
O
~
5 2
0 0
-
To
t
a
l
31 3
.
1 1
0 8
6. 5
5 5
1 5.
6 0
4 2
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
·
00 3
0. 5
2 0
0 0.
5 2
0 0
0. 5
2 0
0 0.
5 2
0 0
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
,
I
I
I
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
, __
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
,.
-
-
"
-
-
•
-I
I
3,
9 1
3 .
6 2
4 I
3,
9 1
3 .
6 2
4 I
0,
0 2
4 5
13 ,
9 1
4 .
1 3
8 ,
9 '
9 '
:
6 I
I
I
,
,
..
.
.
.
.
·:
-
8 ~
i
7 7
J
,
8 3
~
-
8 ~
i
7 7
J
,
8 3
~
-
-
O
'
4 8
8 9
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
8,
7 8
7 .
3 5
0 ·
'
,
8 I
8 I
:
7 12
,
6 9
0 .
7 0
1 1
2 ,
6 9
0 .
1 0
I
0. 5
1 3
4 86
86 12
,
7 0
1 .
4 8
93 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
I
I
I
,
".
-"
"
.
"'
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 2
.
,
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 2
~
-
-
O
~
0 8
9 1
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
84 6
.
2 1
"
6 2
-
'
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
0. 0
8 9
1 84
6 .
2 1
6 2
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
6 12-2983
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
31 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
7 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
'~
O
?
:
'
FU
9 i
t
i
v
~
:
.,
"
!P
M
1 !
l
Ex
n
a
u
s
t
-
'
PM
:
1 '
O
'
'
iGp2
,
e
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 .,
I
I
I
I
,
1 I
I
It
,
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
__
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
-I
Ve
n
d
o
r
.,
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 '0
.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
t
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-----
-
-I
Wo
r
k
e
r
4. 3
2 8
9 '
4. 6
5 3
4 '
53 .
0 0
6 6
'
0. 0
8 9
3 '1
.
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 '
0. 0
4 8
6 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 '
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 4
8 14
9 .
7 2
1 5
:
16 ,
9 5
7 .
5 9
7 '
6. 9
5 7
.
5 9
7 '
0. 4
0 9
5 '6
.
9 6
6 .
1 9
7 '2
'
'9
'
~
'9
'
9 '
:3
,
,
To
t
a
l
4. 3
2 8
9 4.
6 5
3 4
53 .
0 0
6 6
0. 0
8 9
3 11
,
4 8
~
.
3 4
5 1
0. 0
4 8
6 /1
,
4 8
:
.
3 9
3 I
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 4
8 14
9 .
7 2
1 5
6,
9 5
7 .
5 9
7 1
6 ,
9 5
7 .
5 9
7 I
0. 4
0 9
5 6,
9 6
6 .
1 9
7 3
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
··
I
I
'
·
~
P
~
I
!,
::
:
;
!
t
ca
t
B
g
~
'
Y
J
'.
'
1 "
'
NO
x
'
•
·"
C
b
S'
0 2
Fu
g
,
i
t
i
l
i
e
PM
1 '
O
'
,
'
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1 Q
:t
b
/
d
~
y
,
PM
~
!
O
'
To
t
a
l
:1
;
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
:
':
1 ,
'
.
,
EX
,
ha
u
s
t
.
PM
2 ;
S
'
"
"
P,
M
2 .
5 '
-
PM
2 ~
5 To
t
a
l
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
::
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
.,
,
,
r
I
,
,
1 ,
,
9 9
·l
B
;
o
-
c
O
~
.
I
N
B
;
o
'
¢
b
:
I
T
o
t
a
i
C
0 2
1 .
c
H
4 N2
0 I¢
0 2
e
l
Ib
/
d
a
y
"
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
•
,
,
,
I
--
..
.
--
-
..
-~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0. 0
0 0
'
0 '
·:
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 1
~
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 1
~
-
-
0 ~
0 8
9 1
-
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
84 6
.
2 1
-
6 2
·
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 1
6 3
4 3.
1 7
9 5
5. 4
9 7
2 8.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
2 7
7 3
3. 1
7 9
5 5.
4 9
7 2
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
0 0
0 84
4 .
3 4
4 1
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
0. 0
8 9
1 84
6 .
2 1
6 2
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
7 12-2984
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.
20 1
7 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
·
S
i
t
e
';
~
P
2 "
,
F;
u
Q
,
i
t
i
"
e
::
P
M
1 ;
c
r
EX
h
a
u
s
'
t
P,
M
1 ,
(
}
Pa
g
e
32 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
::
:
:
:
J
:
:
:
:
:
!
:
:
:
:
I
-
-
-
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
..
-.
-
-
.
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
Ve
n
d
o
r
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
••
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
,
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Wo
r
k
e
r
.,
4. 3
2 8
9 I
4. 6
5 3
4 I
53 .
0 0
6 6
I
0. 0
8 9
3 •
91 3
.
9 9
0 7
I
0. 0
4 8
6 I
91 4
.
0 3
9 4
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
I
0. 0
4 4
8 I
92 .
2 8
6 1
+
16 .
9 5
7 .
5 9
7 I
6,
9 5
7 .
5 9
7 I
0. 4
0 9
5 16
.
9 6
6 .
1 9
7 !
'9
I
9 :
:
3 To
t
a
l
4. 3
2 8
9 4.
6 5
3 4
53 .
0 0
6 6
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.
20 1
8 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
0. 0
8 9
3 91
3 .
9 9
0 7
0. 0
4 8
6 91
4 .
0 3
9 4
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
0. 0
4 4
8 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
92 .
2 8
6 1
0. 0
0 0
0 --
-
..
.
.
--
..
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 8
9 5
9 6.
0 1
7 2
5. 5
6 2
6 B.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 4
5 1
7 0.
4 5
1 7
0. 4
5 1
7 0.
4 5
1 7
To
t
a
l
31 3
.
0 0
9 8
6. 0
1 7
2 5.
5 6
2 6
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 4
5 1
7 0.
4 5
1 7
0. 4
5 1
7 0.
4 5
1 7
,
,
6,
9 5
7 .
59 7
1 6,9
5 7
.
5 9
7 9
9 0.
4 0
9 5
0. 0
0 0
0 I
I
I
,
,
6,
9 6
6 .
1 9
7 3
0. 0
0 0
0 •
-
-
•
-
-
-'
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
5 6
~
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
5 6
~
-
-
0 -
:
-
0 8
0 2
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
84 6
.
0 3
'
0 5
-
84 4
.
3 4
5 6
I
84 4
.
3 4
5 6
0. 0
8 0
2 84
6 .
0 3
0 5
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
8 12-2985
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
8 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
·
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
33 of
55 Fu
g
~
i
v
e
'
: :p
r
v
,
'
?
:
s
~~
~
~
~
t
,
:
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
"C
,
0 2
e
;
"
'
';
'
:
;
.
,
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
i
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
I
.,
•
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
It
'
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~"
"
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
.
-
~
~
-
-
__
I
Ve
n
d
o
r
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
t
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
I
I
1 ,
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
""
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_.
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
__
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
T
-
-
-
-
-
--
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 9
1 3
3 4.
2 6
8 2
'
48 .
1 7
2 4
'
0. 0
8 9
2 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 '
0. 0
4 7
9 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 '
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 4
3 14
9 .
7 2
0 9
~
'6
,
6 8
9 .
4 4
8 '
6,
6 8
9 .
4 4
8 '
0. 3
8 2
0 '6
,
6 9
7 .
4 7
1 ,
2'
:
1 '
:'
1 '
1 '
:
0 To
t
a
l
3. 9
1 3
3 4.
2 6
8 2
48 .
1 7
2 4
0. 0
8 9
2 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
"'
c
q
:
:
'5
:
9 2
;
;
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
1,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 2
0. 0
4 7
9 0.
0 0
0 0
1,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 I
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
1 0.
0 0
0 0
.F
"
i
.
j
g
~
i
v
e
:
j
·P
.
M
2 ;
·
S
;
·
0. 0
4 4
3 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
14 9
.
7 2
0 9
0. 0
0 0
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 1
6 3
4 3.
1 7
9 5
5. 4
9 7
2 8.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
2 7
7 3
3. 1
7 9
5 5.
4 9
7 2
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
I
,
6,
6 8
9 .
44 8
1 6
,6
8 9
.
4 4
8 1
1 0.
3 8
2 0
:C
H
4 ;
.
,N
2 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
6,
6 9
7 .
4 7
1 o
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
,
,
.
,
-0.
0 0
0 0
-
-:-
8 4
4 ;
4 5
6 ~
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
5 6
~
-
-
O
_
:
_
0 8
0 2
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
84 6
.
0 3
"
0 5
-
1 0.
0 0
0 0
84 4
.
3 4
5 6
I
84 4
.
3 4
5 6
0. 0
8 0
2 84
6 .
0 3
0 5
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 0
9 12-2986
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
34 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
8 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
',
:
,
i
'
;
:P
M
1 Q
"
Fl
l
g
i
t
i
\
l
e
.
T~
t
a
l
'
Pt
l
J
]
2 ·
:
5 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
.,
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
i
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 •
•
.,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
:
I
I
I
I
I
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
__
_
_
_
..
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
_"
__
_
_
I
Ve
n
d
o
r
0. 0
0 0
0 o.
o
o
o
a
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
I
o.
o
o
o
a
0. 0
0 0
0 ;
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
3 .,
1 ,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
,
,
I
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
--
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
" ~
" .
-" .,
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 9
1 3
3 4.
2 6
8 2
I
48 .
1 7
2 4
I
0. 0
8 9
2 I
91 3
.
9 9
0 7
I
0. 0
4 7
9 I
91 4
.
0 3
8 6
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
I
0. 0
4 4
3 '
92 .
2 8
5 5
;
,
6,
6 8
9 .
4 4
8 I
6,
6 8
9 .
4 4
8 '
0. 3
8 2
0 '6
,
6 9
7 .
4 7
1 i
:
1 :
1 :
:
0 To
t
a
l
3. 9
1 3
3 4.
2 6
8 2
48 .
1 7
2 4
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
9 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
0. 0
8 9
2 ~~
.
.
.
;
;
J
I
..
.
.
.
I
Re
G
::
1 NO
,
.
"
'
Ce
l
l·
S
0 2
91 3
.
9 9
0 7
';
'
Fl
i
g
i
t
i
v
e
"i
I
?
M
1 ~
"
0. 0
4 7
9 Ex
h
a
u
s
t
,
PM
:
1 '
~
'
91 4
.
0 3
8 6
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
PM
:
!
0 'I
'
Ru
g
i
t
N
e
To
t
a
l
:
FM
2 .
S
'
sa
~
g
o
'
!
'
;
l
'
•.
•
.
•
'I
b
l
d
a
y
:
,:
,I
,
>
::
:
,
:
,
:
:
'
..
,:
,
:
';
:
"
,:
:'
,
,~
:
:i
:
:
:
,
:
:
Ar
c
h
i
l
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
0. 0
4 4
3 Ex
h
a
u
s
t
;
,
,
'P
t
0 2
.
5 ,
92 .
2 8
5 5
6,
6 8
9 .
4 4
8 1
6 ,
6 8
9 .
4 4
8 I
0. 3
8 2
0 1
1 PM
2 .
~
".
1 :B
i
O
-
-
'
.
c
0 2
.
I
.
N
~
i
~
:
?
6 2
.
I
.
T
.
?
ta
.
I
:
C
,
,0
2 '
.
1 CH
4 :
~o
t
a
l
:
::
',
'
,
"
:
:"
""
,
,:
:
,
:
,'
,
'
,
'"
"
"
"
-'
,
:,
'
-
,
I
:'
b
/
d
a
y
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
6,
6 9
7 .
4 7
1 •
N2
0 ":
1 '
:
'
.c
~
2 ~
0. 0
0 0
0 .,
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 7
9 9
3 I
5. 5
0 6
2 1
5. 5
2 4
0 r
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
,
I
0. 3
8 6
3 I
0. 3
8 6
3 I
0. 3
8 6
3 '
0. 3
8 6
3 To
t
a
l
31 2
.
9 1
3 2
5. 5
0 6
2 5.
5 2
4 0
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
"3
0. 3
8 6
3 0.
3 8
6 3
0. 3
8 6
3 0.
3 8
6 3
-
-
-
_.
-
-'
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 2
~
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 2
~
-
-
o
.
o
i
1 3
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
!
'
84 5
.
8 4
-
1 8
-
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
0. 0
7 1
3 84
5 .
8 4
1 8
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
0 12-2987
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
35 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
A
M
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
9 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
::
Fu
g
~
j
V
€
i
.
i
,P
M
~
:
5 ,
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
:
;
::
:
P
¥
~
:
5 "
!p
q
2 e
;
,
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
i
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
or
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
•
I
,
,
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
".
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
__
_
"'
1 __
_
_
_
_
_
,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
Ve
n
d
o
r
.r
0. 0
0 0
0 r
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 J
0. 0
0 0
0 r
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 !
I
0,
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
I
0. 0
0 0
0 .,
,
:
'
I
;
I
•
I
;
E
:
'
:
I
I
.,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 ,
r
,
..
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-"
"
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 5
9 1
1 3.
9 4
4 0
'
44 .
5 3
8 8
'
0. 0
8 9
1 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 '
0. 0
4 7
9 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 '
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 4
4 14
9 .
7 2
1 1
~
'6
,
4 3
8 .
7 7
5 '
6,
4 3
8 .
7 7
5 '
0. 3
6 1
1 '6
,
4 4
6 .
3 5
8 '2
'
'
1 '
~
'3
'
3 '
'3
,
,
'
"
,
To
t
a
l
3. 5
9 1
1 3.
9 4
4 0
44 .
5 3
8 8
0. 0
8 9
1 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
1A
8 8
.
3 4
5 2
0. 0
4 7
9 1,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 I
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
1 0.
0 4
4 4
14 9
.
7 2
1 1
.
PM
2 ~
!
j
"
'
"
.
To
t
a
l
:
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
::
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
.,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
~
-o
"
f
f
~
R
;
a
d
-
-
-
·'
-
-
0 ~
1 6
3 4
-
.
,
-
-
3 .
1 i
9 5
-
.
,
-
-
5 .
4 s
7 2
-
~
-
8 .
9 1
Q
(
i
~
:
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
D
~
0 1
1 9
-
.
,
-
-
0 ~
0 1
1 9
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
D
~
0 1
1 9
-
.
,
.
.
-
O
~
0 1
1 9
-
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
2 7
7 3
3. 1
7 9
5 5.
4 9
7 2
00 3
8. 9
i
0 0
e
-
00 3
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
6,
4 3
8 .
77 5
1 6
,4
3 8
.
7 7
5 3
3 0.
3 6
1 1
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
,
,
,
,
6,
4 4
6 .
3 5
8 3
C0
2 e
,
,
0. 0
0 0
0 -
0. 0
0 0
0 -:
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 1
~
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 1
~
-
-
0 ~
0 7
1 3
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
84 5
.
8 4
1 8
-
0. 0
0 0
0 84
4 .
3 4
4 1
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
0. 0
7 1
3 84
5 .
8 4
1 8
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
1 12-2988
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 1
9 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
36 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
.,
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
f
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
.
,
.,
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
r
I
~
I
,
,
,
,
""
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-.
_.
"
_.
,
Ve
n
d
o
r
0,
0 0
0 0
'0
.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
t
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
.,
I
I
t
I
,
,
I
,
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
--
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
1 '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 5
9 1
1 3.
9 4
4 0
'
44 .
5 3
8 8
I
0. 0
8 9
1 '9
1 3
.
9 9
0 7
'
0. 0
4 7
9 '9
1 4
.
0 3
8 6
'
92 .
2 4
1 2
'
0. 0
4 4
4 '
92 .
2 8
5 6
;
,
6,
4 3
8 .
7 7
5 '
6 ,
4 3
8 .
7 7
5 '
0. 3
6 1
1 '6
,
4 4
6 .
3 5
8 i
:
3 :
3 :
:
3 To
t
a
l
3. 5
9 1
1 3.
9 4
4 0
44 .
5 3
8 8
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
0 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
,
·1
1 Rb
G
r ~o
~
I
co
.
":
:
:
'
.'
:
\
I:
:
:
.
i
·
.
;
·
.
',
'
,
:
':
"
'
::
"
<
:
;
;
;:
0. 0
8 9
1 91
3 .
9 9
0 7
0. 0
4 7
9 91
4 .
0 3
8 6
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
''
8 ,
0 2
"I
:
:
F:
u
g
i
:
t
i
i
i
e
I:
EX
t
l
a
'
u
s
t
'
:1
'
:
P.
M
;
1 :
0 :
il
:
'F
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
:
,
i:
,P
M
~
O
'
::
:
:
PM
1 q
'"
'T
o
t
a
l
':
:
pM
2 .
'
~
:
:I
b
f
d
a
y
,
0. 0
4 4
4 !
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
'!
~
M
i
5 ,
92 .
2 8
5 6
PM
2 .
p
To
t
a
l
·
:
•
6,
4 3
8 .
7 7
5 1
6 ,
4 3
8 .
7 7
5 I
0. 3
6 1
1 3
3 1;
"
B
j
~
"
C
:
~
,
:
I'
N
B
,
i
~
~
!
C
Q
,
2 '
1 ,T
f
t
a
r
T
o
~
J
:
: CH
,4
--
-
-
Ib
/
d
a
y
--
,N
2 0
,
6,
4 4
6 .
3 5
8 3
CQ
2 e
.,
:
ta
!
e
g
o
f
Y
l
'
.
J
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
•
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 7
2 6
5 5.
0 5
1 5
5. 4
9 4
3 B.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 3
3 2
B
0. 3
3 2
8 0.
3 3
2 8
0 .
3 3
2 8
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
8 4
0 4
5. 0
5 1
5 5.
4 9
4 3
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
DD
3 0.
3 3
2 8
0 .
3 3
2 8
0. 3
3 2
8 0.
3 3
2 8
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
,
.
-
-
-
-.
-
-'
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 2
.
.
-
-
8 4
4 ~
3 4
4 2
~
-
-
0 _
:
_
o
6 5
4 -
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
84 5
.
7 1
-
7 0
-
'
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
0. 0
6 5
4 84
5 .
7 1
7 0
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
2 12-2989
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
37 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
0 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
!~
,
u
~
i
t
i
v
e
'R
M
2 .
S
!
,
: ,E
x
h
a
u
s
t
":
P
M
~
.
5 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
f
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
•
•
.,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
~
,
I
I
I
,
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ve
n
d
o
r
.,
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
'0
.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
;
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
'i
.,
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
~
I
I
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
•
,-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
~
-
-
-
-
-
-I
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 3
4 0
3 3
.
6 9
4 4
1 41
.
6 1
3 9
'
0. 0
8 9
1 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 '
0. 0
4 8
0 •
1,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 .
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 4
5 14
9 .
7 2
1 2
;
,
6,
1 7
7 .
7 1
6 '
6 ,
1 7
7 .
7 1
6 '
0. 3
4 4
1 '6
,
1 8
4 .
9 4
3 '2
'
'2
:
i
'6
'
6 '
:0
:
To
t
a
l
3. 3
4 0
3 3.
6 9
4 4
41 .
6 1
3 9
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
0. 0
8 9
1 1,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 2
0. 0
4 8
0 0.
0 0
0 0
1,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 I
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
2 :
:F
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
'
,
.~
~
2 i
5 .
,
0,
0 4
4 5
14 9
.
7 2
1 2
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 +
i
6,
1 7
7 .
71 6
16 ,1
7 7
.
7 1
6 •
•
0. 3
4 4
1 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
~
,
,
,
,
I
6,
1 8
4 .
9 4
3 o
C0
2 e
'
0. 0
0 0
0 -
__
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
T
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
~
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
'
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 1
6 3
4 3.
1 7
9 5
5. 4
9 7
2 a.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
;
0. 0
0 0
0 '8
4 4
.
3 4
4 1
'
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
'
0. 0
6 5
4 '
18 4
5 .
7 1
7 0
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
2 7
7 3
3. 1
7 9
5 5.
4 9
7 2
00 3
i
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
:
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
0 0
0 84
4 .
3 4
4 1
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
0. 0
6 5
4 84
5 .
7 1
7 0
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
3 12-2990
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
0 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
: ~~
t
t
~
~
~
:
,
:
'~
~
~
1 u
~
:
t
:
!P
M
1 Q
,
:J
o
t
a
l
'
Pa
g
e
38 of
55 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
,
.,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-.
-
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
Ve
n
d
o
r
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
••
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
.
"
-
-
-
-
-
n-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
__
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
--
..
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 3
4 0
3 3
.
6 9
4 4
I
41 .
6 1
3 9
I
0,
0 8
9 1
'9
1 3
.
9 9
0 7
I
0. 0
4 8
0 '9
1 4
.
0 3
8 7
92 .
2 4
1 2
I
0. 0
4 4
5 1
92 .
2 8
5 7
To
t
a
l
3. 3
4 0
3 3.
6 9
4 4
41 .
6 1
3 9
0. 0
8 9
1 91
3 .
9 9
0 7
0. 0
4 8
0 91
4 .
0 3
8 7
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
1 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
I"
"
·
:
.C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
.
:
"R
O
G
:
:
,:
..
.
.
i.
N.
0 ..
.
•
'.
:
:
'·
V
·
.
'
:
.
·
.
·
.
:
.
c
o
.
::
.
"
'
!
.
:.
!
;S
.
o
2 ·
:
::
.
'
.
1 :
F:
u
g
·
i
t
i
y
~
I·
'
.
EX
h
a
'
u
s
t
:
P.
M
1 0
.
I·
'
..
.
,
1,
':
'
.
:
,.
'
':
';
i
.:
'
PM
1 :
0 :
.P
M
~
O
·
.
T~
t
a
l
,
':
!
:
:
.
:
;"
.
;.
!
:
,
"!
.
'
:'
,
'.
:
:I
~
/
d
~
y
'"
j
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
il
7 u
g
i
t
i
v
e
'
,
P.
M
2 .
·
~
:
0. 0
4 4
5 92
.
2 8
5 7
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
:1
:
PM
2 ~
~
·
;
'
.
':
P
M
2 ;
S
':
:
'T
o
t
a
l
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
••
1 ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 6
5 6
7 I
4. 5
8 0
5 5.
4 5
2 7
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
0. 2
8 2
3 0.
2 8
2 3
0. 2
8 2
3 0.
2 8
2 3
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
7 7
0 6
4. 5
8 0
5 5.
4 5
2 7
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 2
8 2
3 0.
2 8
2 3
0. 2
8 2
3 0.
2 8
2 3
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
,
.
!
'
,
,
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 9.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
,
I
,
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
--
-
-"
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
1 ,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
--
'6
,
1 7
7 .
7 1
6 '
6,
1 7
7 .
7 1
6 '
0. 3
4 4
1 '6
,
1 8
4 .
9 4
3 ,
6 '
6 '
:
0 6,
1 7
7 .
7 1
6 1
6 ,
1 7
7 .
7 1
6 I
0. 3
4 4
1 •
•
6,
1 8
4 .
9 4
3 o
Bi
Q
.
:
'
C
0 2
'
I
tl
j
B
l
o
-
i
~
b
~
T
T
o
t
a
l
:~
R
,
2 "
..
;.
c
~
~
"
:,
:
:N
2 0
";
~(
)
2 e
"
--
--
I
. .
.
.
Ib
!
d
a
y
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
--
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
'
0. 0
5 7
9 '
84 5
.
5 6
1 0
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
0. 0
5 7
9 84
5 .
5 6
1 0
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
4 12-2991
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
39 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
3. 6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
1 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
.,
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
i
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 .,
I
I
.,
I
,
•
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
_
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
--
,
Ve
n
d
o
r
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
i
.,
r
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
:
,
,
I
,
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
,-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
Wo
r
k
e
r
3,
1 5
3 8
3. 5
0 4
8 '
39 .
6 0
3 7
•
0. 0
8 9
2 '
•
1,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 '
0. 0
4 8
6 ~
1,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 '1
4 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 5
1 14
9 .
7 2
1 7
i
'
6,
0 8
6 .
4 6
6 '
6. 0
8 6
.
4 6
6 '
0. 3
3 4
4 '6
.
0 9
3 .
4 8
8 :
2:
'8
:
~'
1 '
1 '
:
1 ,
To
t
a
l
3. 1
5 3
8 3.
5 0
4 8
39 .
6 0
3 7
0. 0
8 9
2 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
1,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 2
0. 0
4 8
6 FU
9 i
t
i
l
i
~
PM
1 0
'
Ex
~
a
u
s
t
;
:
P;
M
:
1 0
,
Ib
l
9 a
y
1,
4 8
8 .
3 9
3 I
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
8 0.
0 4
5 1
PM
1 0
'
To
t
a
l
·
FU
.
gi
t
r
y
e
.1
:
Ex
h
a
~
s
t
.
PM
2 ;
5 .
,
PM
2 .
5 'I
"
.
14 9
.
7 2
1 7
:P
(
v
1 ,
2 ~
5 :
:
'l
;
i
B
i
o
.
.
C0
2 ,
;
To
t
a
l
6,
0 8
6 .
4 6
6 1
6,0
8 6
.
4 6
6 1
1 0.
3 3
4 4
c~
6,
0 9
3 .
4 8
8 1
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
'
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
f
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
,
i:
.,
L
,
,
L
,
,
~
r
,
~
,
,
,
,
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
"1
__
_
_
--
-
"
1 __
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
__
_
_
_
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
r
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 1
6 3
4 3.
1 7
9 5
5. 4
9 7
2 S.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
~
0. 0
0 0
0 '8
4 4
.
3 4
4 1
'
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
'
0. 0
5 7
9 '
84 5
.
5 6
1 0
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
2 7
7 3
3. 1
7 9
5 5.
4 9
7 2
00 3
!
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
,
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
0 0
0 84
4 .
3 4
4 1
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
0. 0
5 7
9 84
5 .
5 6
1 0
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
5 12-2992
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
40 of
55 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
1 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
I
""
"
'
1 1
'
"
RP
G
'
,
'I
"
N
O
(
'I
'
"
:c
P
"
'
I
"
,
s
o
2 ;
'
I
'
:
F
u
g
j
t
i
~
e
'
'I
'
Ex
h
~
u
~
t
"~
M
1 '
O
"
I
'
Fu
g
~
j
v
e
;
,
:
';
'
:
iP
M
1 0
'
"
.,
:
T
:
ot
a
l
'
':
:
,
'R
'
f
v
1 ?
,
:
5 "
~~
t
e
~
O
"
:
'
I
'
:,
E
x
h
a
~
~
t
:
'
-
I
'
I
:'
:P
M
?
~
5 '
il
;~
i
~
_
,
~
q
~
;
:
PM
2 ~
r
; To
t
a
l
:"
:
:,
;
:
'
:-
:
I
'I
'
'
,
.'
:
::
i
:
:
"
i
:
-,
>
,
,
'
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
.,
I
I
I
I
I
•
,
I
,
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
NB
j
~
C0
2 1
1 ~
~
I
:
C
C
l
~
T
S
H
4 ,
• ,I
:~
2 f
:
•
,I
Cp
2 ~
.1
bfda
Y.
:
·
,
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
V~
n
~
d
~
~
-
-
-
"'
-
-
O
~
O
O
(
)
O
-
"
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
"
-
-
o
.
O
o
o
o
-
"
-
-
o
-
:
-
o
o
o
o
-
"
l
-
-
o
-
:
-
o
O
o
o
-
"
-
-
o
-
:
-
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
-
:
-
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
-
:
-
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
-o
~
o
o
o
o
-
-"
~
-
_"
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
"
~
_"
~_
i
,
.,
,
I
r
,
I
,
,
,
,
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
3. 1
5 3
8 3.
5 0
4 8
39 .
6 0
3 7
0. 0
8 9
2 91
3 .
9 9
0 7
0. 0
4 8
6 91
4 .
0 3
9 3
92 .
2 4
1 2
0. 0
4 5
1 92
.
2 8
6 3
To
t
a
l
3. 1
5 3
8 3.
5 0
4 8
39 .
6 0
3 7
I
0. 0
8 9
2 I
91 3
.
9 9
0 7
I
0. 0
4 8
6 I
91 4
.
0 3
9 3
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
I
0. 0
4 5
1 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
2 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
92 .
2 8
6 3
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
"
~
-
-
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
-.
-
__
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
~
-
~
-
-
~
-I
,
6,
0 8
6 .
4 6
6 '
6,
0 8
6 .
4 6
6 '
0. 3
3 4
4 '
6,
0 9
3 .
4 8
8 :
1 :
1 :
:
1 ,
6,
0 8
6 .
4 6
6 1
6 ,
0 8
6 .
4 6
6 I
0. 3
3 4
4 1
1 6,
0 9
3 .
4 8
8 1
"'
i
'
:,
1 ;.
!
RO
G
,
'
i
I
N
d
X
'
f
C
O
.
""
I
C
~
0 2
1 ~
"
g
j
!
j
v
e
;\
:
'
<
'
;
:
'
:
',
:
;
,
:
:
:
:i
'
:<
::
:
'
,
-
'
:
'
;
,
,
:
"
1 \"
"
::
:
:
"
i
,
,
:
:
:
;
:
~
M
;
~
~
,
,
:
Ei
<
h
a
,
u
~
~
I,
-P
M
:
1 .
!
~
"
:1
:
f~
g
i
t
j
v
e
I :.
E
..
XD
~
u
s
t
II
:'
~
.
M2
.
5 1
Bi
o
-
.
c
e
)
2 "
I
,
.
N
..
Bi
9-:
pt
j
,2
1 .
T
0:t
3 I
'
G
0 2
:
I
CH
4 'P
M
1 0
,
;
::
:
"
}
~
~
~
~
~
L
'
'P
M
2 .
5 j:
~
M
?
~
,
~
:
:
:~
'
O
T
~
~
'
:
'
:'
;
:
"
".
"
\
"
~
~
;
'
;
,
N2
0 : r C0
2 e
I',
: C~
t
~
~
_
~
I'
,
'
"
I,
D
f
d
a
~
'1
.
.
..
.
.
•
.
.
.
•
•
.
•
.
•
t.
.
Ib
/
d
a
y
;
,
-,
-
-
-
'
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
'
,
,
,
,
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 I
,
0. 0
0 0
0 ·r
;
0. 0
0 0
0 .,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
-
-
"O
f
f
:
R
;
a
d
"
-
-
~-
-
0 ~
6 1
3 6
-
~
-
-
4 _
:
_
2 2
5 4
-
~
-
-
s
~
i
4 '
0 8
-
~
-
8 .
9 1
0 0
~
=
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
0 2
4 5
2-
~
-
-
0 _
:
_
2 4
5 2
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
0 ~
2 4
5 2
-
:
-'
0 ;
4 5
2 -
::
:
:
:
00 3
:
:
:
:
:
:
.,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
7 2
7 5
I
4. 2
2 5
4 5.
4 4
0 8
J
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 2
4 5
2 0.
2 4
5 2
0. 2
4 5
2 0.
2 4
5 2
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
,
,
"~
_
.
"
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
.
.
"
-
_"
_.
_
1 84
4 .
3 4
4 2
'
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
'
0. 0
5 5
0 '
,
84 5
.
4 9
8 6
,
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 2
I
0. 0
5 5
0 84
5 .
4 9
8 6
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
6 12-2993
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.
20 2
2 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
·
S
i
t
e
,
,:
"
i'
,
i
'
:
:
'
'I
"
,
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
'
!
'
!
'P
M
~
:
O
,
:
'
"i
i
'
.
F;
'
M
1 0
'
;I
;
o
t
a
l
':
Pa
g
e
41 of
55 Fu
g
i
t
i
N
;
e
:
'
I~
:E
x
h
a
u
s
t
'
iI
;
'
M
2 1
:
5 '
:
::
'
,;
-
P
t
v
1 2
:
,
5 ;
;
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
f
•
j
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 .,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
~
,
,
,
I
•
~
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-"
-
-
-
-
",
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
_.
Ve
n
d
o
r
••
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0. 0
0 0
0 J
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
t
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
,
I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
~
,
,
I
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
-
-
-
-
-
_.
1 Wo
r
k
e
r
.,
2. 9
9 7
5 '
3. 3
6 3
4 '
37 .
6 9
2 2
'
0. 0
8 9
2 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 4
5 '
0. 0
4 8
8 '1
,
4 8
8 .
3 9
4 '
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 5
3 14
9 .
7 2
1 9
:
'5
,
9 9
6 .
9 3
6 '
5,
9 9
6 .
9 3
6 '
0. 3
2 5
0 '6
,
0 0
3 .
7 6
1 '2
'
'0
'
~
'0
'
0 '
:1
,
To
t
a
l
2. 9
9 7
5 3.
3 6
3 4
37 .
6 9
2 2
0. 0
8 9
2 11
,
4 8
~
.
3 4
5 1
0. 0
4 8
8 11
,
4 8
~
.
3 9
4 I
14 9
.
6 7
6 7
0. 0
4 5
3 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
EX
!
;
l
a
.
u
s
t
:
!
I:
PM
;
1 .
q
.
·
P~
.
1 0
:
·
To
t
a
l
.
:F
u
g
i
,
t
i
v
e
;
. Ex
h
a
u
s
t
,
.p
.
~
:
~
.
:
s
i
:P
~
?
~
5 '
.
'
:,
'
,
'l
I
:
X
j
;
r
~
O
~
:
'I
'
,C
O
"
r
S0
2 ·
'
·
:
l
l
"
g
;
i
;
~
~
1 :.
:
:
:
-
:
:
:
:
;
:
.
:
:"
:
.
:
,
'
:
:
:
,:
:
'
:
'
,:
;
'
:!
.
.
'.
i'
;
:
\
..
;.
:
.
'
:.
>
::
"
:
PM
~
O
:
:
'
qa
t
e
g
o
r
y
i
.;
'
'I
i
'
.:
,
.
'
;
:
"
. ':
I
t
i
f
d
a
y
.'
.
·i
.
!
.
i'
i
:
..
,
,,
:
'
..
<,
..
:~
!
14 9
.
7 2
1 9
PM
2 :
5 ·
.
·
.
To
t
a
l
Ar
c
h
i
t
.
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
31 2
.
1 1
3 9
'
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
,
.
.,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
--..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 1
6 3
4 3.
1 7
9 5
5. 4
9 7
2 8.
9 1
0 0
e
-
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
To
t
a
l
31 2
.
2 7
7 3
3. 1
7 9
5 5.
4 9
7 2
00 3
8. 9
1 0
0 e
-
00 3
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
0. 0
1 1
9 0.
0 1
1 9
5,
9 9
6 .
9 3
6 1
5 ,
9 9
6 .
9 3
6 I
0. 3
2 5
0 o
0 Bi
o
:
-
:c
q
2 :
-
'
I
:
I
:
'
I
B
i
o
~
C
0 2
1 1
i
9 t
i
1 C0
2 ·'
1 ..
I
'
CH
4 1
:
N2
0 :
;.
J
b
/
d
a
y
,
,
0. 0
0 0
0 .
,
,
,
,
,
6,
0 0
3 .
7 6
1 1
C0
2 e
0. 0
0 0
0 -
-
-
-
.
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
-
-
-
-
-
"
.,
0. 0
0 0
0 '8
4 4
.
3 4
4 1
,
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
'
0. 0
5 5
0 '
,
84 5
.
4 9
8 6
,
0. 0
0 0
0 84
4 .
3 4
4 1
I
84 4
.
3 4
4 1
0. 0
5 5
0 84
5 .
4 9
8 6
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
7 12-2994
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3,
6 Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
-
20 2
2 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
",
I
,
:
':
'
:
.
:
:
'
Pa
g
e
42 of
55 Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
.,
,
I
I
•
,
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
V~
n
·
d
~
;
-
-
-
·'
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
O
O
{
;
o
-
..
--
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
r
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
:
_
-
o
-
:
-
o
o
o
o
-
"
T
"
-
o
~
o
o
o
-
•
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
'
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
2. 9
9 7
5 3.
3 6
3 4
I
37 .
6 9
2 2
'0
,
0 8
9 2
91 3
.
9 9
0 7
L
0. 0
4 8
8 I
91 4
.
0 3
9 5
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
L
0. 0
4 5
3 I
92 .
2 8
6 5
To
t
a
l
2. 9
9 7
5 3.
3 6
3 4
37 .
6 9
2 2
0. 0
8 9
2 91
3 .
9 9
0 7
0. 0
4 8
8 91
4 .
0 3
9 5
I
92 .
2 4
1 2
0. 0
4 5
3 92
.
2 8
6 5
3,
7 Pa
v
i
ng
-
20 2
0 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
I'
..
':
i
I
I
F
9 ~
i
N~
X
;
i
~
'I
!
i
'
"
.
,.
:
:'
-
.
'P
M
1 0
'
"
;c
q
'
I"
50 2
<I
:
. Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
;
.
:
l
,
~
,
"
'E
x
h
a
u
~
t
'I
PM
t
O
:"
P
M
1 0
:
,T
o
t
a
l
Ib
/
~
a
y
l
:
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
PM
2 .
:
5 .E
~
~
a
~
s
t
.
PM
2 ;
S
'
'~
M
2 '
.
5 1
,
:T
o
t
a
l
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
1. 3
3 0
1 I
13 .
7 8
4 5
I
14 .
3 5
2 3
I
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
7 3
9 0
0. 7
3 9
0 0.
6 7
9 9
0. 6
7 9
9 ,
,
,
,
,
.,
I.
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
-
-
-
P~
~
i
~
9 -
-
-
-
~-
-
1 ~
1 7
5 1
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
0 ~
O
O
(
;
O
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
O
O
O
O
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
"
l
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
..
.
.
-O
~
o
o
o
o
-
To
t
a
l
2. 5
0 5
1 13
.
7 8
4 5
1 4
.
3 5
2 3
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
7 3
9 0
0. 1
3 9
0 0.
6 7
9 9
0. 6
7 9
9 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
"N
2 0
:
,
I"
C'
0 2
e
'
:
,
'"
,
,
,
,
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
I
I
I
I
I
"
-
-
-
-
~
.
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
__
.
~
~
.
RI
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
,
,
I
I
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-:
-
5 ~
;
9 6
~
9 3
6 ~
-
5 ~
9 9
6 l
i
3 6
~
-
-
O
'
3 2
5 0
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
'
6,
0 0
3 .
7 6
1 -
'
:
0 :
0 :
:
1 ,·
B
i
O
;
-
:
C
0 2
;
5,
9 9
6 .
9 3
6 1
5 ,
9 9
6 .
9 3
6 I
0. 3
2 5
0 o
0 i~
:
~
:
r
;
:
.
?
~
1 To
t
a
:
,
~
'
~
2 '
l
QH
4 '
Ib
:
/
d
a
y
:1
'
N
2 0
;
6,
0 0
3 .
7 6
1 1
C0
2 e
~-
'2
,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 I
2,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 I
0. 6
9 8
8 12
,
1 7
5 .
4 3
2 :
1 :
1 :
I
6 ,
I
I
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
O
O
(
I
O
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-0.
0 0
0 0
-
-
1 2,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 1
2 ,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 I
0. 6
9 8
8 1
1 2,
1 7
5 .
4 3
2 •
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
8 12-2995
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
7 Pa
v
i
n
g
-
20 2
0 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Pa
g
e
43 of
55 :
'F
1 .
l
g
it
i
v
e
.'
-:
1 :
:"
P
M
2 :
$
:
:
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 .
•
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
0. 0
0 0
0 -.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
--
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ve
n
d
o
r
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.
.,
I
I
1 I
,
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wo
r
k
e
r
0,
0 5
4 8
0. 0
6 0
6 0,
6 8
2 2
l
1. 4
6 0
0 e
-
24 .
3 9
9 1
7. 9
0 0
0 e
-
24 .
3 9
9 9
2. 4
5 3
7 7.
3 0
D
O
e
-
2. 4
5 4
5 To
t
a
l
0. 0
5 4
8 0.
0 6
0 6
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Rc
m
:
I,·
·
·
,
1 i'
.
,
,-
'
-
-
-
'.
''
'
'
f
O
x
I~
a
t
~
¢
o
!
y
.
":
:
:
:
'
:
1 :
:
"
:;
j
'
;
'
:\
,
i
:,
1 ,I
,
00 3
00 4
00 4
0. 6
8 2
2 1.
4 6
0 0
e
-
I
24 .
3 9
9 1
00 3
C(
j
,
::
'
1 :
.S
0 2
:
:
'.
'
~
:
_.
_
'
-
Fu
g
i
t
j
v
~
'
'I
P
M
~
~
'
.
7. 9
0 0
0 e
-
I
24 .
3 9
9 9
00 4
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
..
'p
.
r
i
.
.
t
1 ·
O
:
PM
1 0
Tp
t
a
:
I
,
:
'
,
Ib
/
c
~
o
f
l
Y
2. 4
5 3
7 :
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
·
:
,
P"
M
2 ;
S
'
~
7. 3
0 0
0 e
-
00 4
,E
x
h
a
u
s
t
'
'P
,
M
2 ;
5 2.
4 5
4 5
PM
Z
.
q
;T
o
~
1 ':
,
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
0. 3
2 8
1 9.
8 2
5 6
:
16 .
9 2
7 6
:
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
0 3
6 6
0. 0
3 6
6 0.
0 3
6 6
0. 0
3 6
6 .
.,
1 .
I
I
I
,
1 1
1 --
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pa
v
i
n
g
1. 1
7 5
1 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 To
t
a
l
1. 5
0 3
2 9.
8 2
5 6
16 .
9 2
7 6
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
0 3
6 6
0. 0
3 6
6 0.
0 3
6 6
0. 0
3 6
6 Da
l
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
I
I
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
T
_.
~
~
-
__
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 .
,
,
,
•
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
~-
__
_
_
--
..
_-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
10 1
.
2 7
4 0
1 10
1 .
2 7
4 0
5. 6
4 0
0 e
-
1 10
1 .
3 9
2 5
00 3
10 1
.
2 7
4 0
I
10 1
.
2 7
4 0
I
5. 6
4 0
0 e
-
00 3
Si
e
-
C0
2 :
I'
N
B
!
o
~
CO
f
I
To
t
a
l
.
~
~
Z
·
CH
f
Ib
/
d
a
y
'
10 1
.
3 9
2 5
:
NZ
O
l:
.
~O
Z
e
-
0. 0
0 0
0 '
2,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 ,
2,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 1
0. 6
9 8
8 12
,
1 7
5 .
4 3
2 :
1 :
1 :
:
6 1
,
1 1
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
-
o
~
o
o
o
o
-
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-0.
0 0
0 0
"
0. 0
0 0
0 12
,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 /
2 ,
1 6
0 .
7 5
7 I
0. 6
9 8
8 1
1 2,
1 7
5 .
4 3
2 •
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 1
9 12-2996
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 3.
7 Pa
v
i
n
g
-
20 2
0 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
,
EX
h
a
u
s
t
-
i
,'
~
M
1 :
0 '
:
:I
p
f
d
a
y
Pa
g
e
44 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
.B
i
o
:
.
~
C
0 2
.
:"
:
1 G0
2 e
;
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
.,
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 i
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
•
I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
,
•
I
•
, II
-
-
_.
-
-
-
_ ..
-.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-.
-
_.
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
-
-
-
-
-
--
Ve
n
d
o
r
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
O.
O
O
O
O
!
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
t
I
I
•
I
,
-
-
-
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
-.
--
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Wo
r
k
e
r
0. 0
5 4
8 0.
0 6
0 6
0. 6
8 2
2 1.
4 6
0 0
e
~
14 .
9 8
3 5
I
7. 9
0 0
0 e
~
14 .
9 8
4 2
1. 5
1 2
2 7.
3 0
0 0
e
~
1. 5
1 2
9 i
10 1
.
2 7
4 0
1 0
1 .
2 7
4 0
5. 6
4 0
0 e
-
'
10 1
.
3 9
2 5
00 3
00 4
00 4
~
00 3
•
To
t
a
l
0. 0
5 4
8 0.
0 6
0 6
0. 6
8 2
2 3.
7 Pa
v
i
n
g
-
20 2
1 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
1. 4
6 0
0 e
~
00 3
:S
0 2
14 .
9 8
3 5
7. 9
0 0
0 e
~
00 4
F.
.
;
j
g
.
i
t
i
v
~
::
:
1 :
:E
x
h
a
,
u
s
t
1?
1 I
!
1 1
0 ,
,.
i
PM
1 Q
14 .
9 8
4 2
:P
¥
1 0
'
:
.
To
t
a
l
1. 5
1 2
2 7.
3 0
0 0
e
~
00 4
1. 5
1 2
9 Of
f
~
R
o
a
d
1. 2
3 0
8 :
12 .
6 6
0 7
:
14 .
3 5
2 8
:
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
6 6
5 2
0. 6
6 5
2 0.
6 1
2 0
0. 6
1 2
0 "
,
.,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
-
~
-
P~
;
i
~
g
-
-
-
-
..
.
--
1 ~
1 7
5 1
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
0 ~
O
O
O
O
-
.
,
-
-
O
~
O
O
O
O
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
O
~
O
O
O
O
-
'
T
'
-
O
~
O
O
O
O
-
To
t
a
l
2. 4
0 5
9 12
.
6 6
0 7
14 .
3 5
2 8
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
6 6
5 2
0 .
6 6
5 2
0. 6
1 2
0 0.
6 1
2 0
10 1
.
2 7
4 0
I
10 1
.
2 7
4 0
I
5. 6
4 0
0 e
-
00 3
12 ,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 I
2,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 '
0. 6
9 8
7 :
0 :
a
:
10 1
.
3 9
2 5
:
2,
1 7
4 .
9 2
5 ,
0 ,
,
,
,
I
-
~
-
~
-
-
-
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
~
-I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
2,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 /
2 ,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 o
0 0.
6 9
8 7
2,
1 7
4 .
9 2
5 o
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
0 12-2997
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
45 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
3. 7
Pa
v
i
n
g
-
20 2
1 Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 O.
O
O
O
D
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
f
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
,
.
•
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
1 I
•
,
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
••
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
."
"
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Ve
n
d
o
r
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 t
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
,
.,
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
~
,
I
,
,
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
-.
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Wo
r
k
e
r
0. 0
5 1
7 0.
0 5
7 5
0. 6
4 9
2 1,
4 6
0 0
e
-
24 .
3 9
9 1
8. 0
0 0
0 e
~
24 .
3 9
9 9
2. 4
5 3
7 7.
4 0
0 0
e
-
2. 4
5 4
5 ~
99 .
7 7
8 1
99 .
7 7
8 1
5,
4 8
0 0
e
-
'
99 .
8 9
3 3
00 3
00 4
00 4
;
00 3
To
t
a
l
0. 0
5 1
7 0.
0 5
7 5
0. 6
4 9
2 1.
4 6
0 0
e
_
00 3
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
-
S
i
t
e
Of
f
~
R
o
a
d
0. 3
2 8
1 9.
8 2
5 6
16 .
9 2
7 6
0. 0
2 2
3 ,
24 .
3 9
9 1
8. 0
0 0
0 e
~
00 4
0. 0
3 6
6 24
.
3 9
9 9
P,
M
:
1 :
O
~
To
~
~
1 1
0. 0
3 6
6 2.
4 5
3 7
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
:
;P
~
.
2 :
:
5 ;;
'
7. 4
0 0
0 e
-
00 4
0. 0
3 6
6 .,
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
2. 4
5 4
5 0.
0 3
6 6
-
-
-
P~
:
i
~
g
-
"
~
-
"'
-
-
1 ~
1 7
5 1
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
0 ~
O
O
O
O
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
O
o
O
O
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
o
~
O
O
O
O
-
-
.
-
-
O
~
O
O
O
-
To
t
a
l
1. 5
0 3
2 9.
8 2
5 6
16 .
9 2
7 6
0. 0
2 2
3 0.
0 3
6 6
0. 0
3 6
6 0.
0 3
6 6
0. 0
3 6
6 •
99 .
7 7
8 1
99 .
7 7
8 1
S.
4 8
0 0
e
-
00 3
99 .
8 9
3 3
0. 0
0 0
0 '2
,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 I
2,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 '
0. 6
9 8
7 '
2,
1 7
4 .
9 2
5 :
0 :
0:
,
:
0 ,
I
,
I
,
~
-
-
-
~
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
-
-
_"
-
__
I
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
2,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 /
2 ,
1 6
0 .
2 5
3 o
0 0.
6 9
8 7
2,
1 7
4 .
9 2
5 o
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
1 12-2998
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
46 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
3. 7
Pa
v
i
n
g
·
20 2
1 Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Of
f
·
S
i
t
e
:'
~
u
Q
.
i
t
i
~
~
;
,
I;
'
Ex
h
<
i
!
u
~
t
:
:
P;
M
~
,
O
'"
,
PM
l
O
'
Ha
u
l
i
n
g
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 :
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
i
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 •
•
,
,
I
I
r
I
I
I
,
I
~
I
I
I
I
,
~
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
..
-
.
-I
Ve
n
d
o
r
0,
0 0
0 0
•
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
r
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
t
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
;
0,
0 0
0 0
I
o.
o
o
o
a
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
I
~
I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
I
,
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
-,
-
__
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
_.
__
--
Wo
r
k
e
r
0. 0
5 1
7 0.
0 5
7 5
0. 6
4 9
2 '
1. 4
6 0
0 e
~
14 .
9 8
3 5
8. 0
0 0
0 e
~
14 .
9 8
4 3
1. 5
1 2
2 7.
4 0
0 0
e
~
1. 5
1 2
9 ;
99 .
7 7
8 1
9 9
.
7 7
8 1
5. 4
8 0
0 e
~
,
99 .
8 9
3 3
To
t
a
l
0. 0
5 1
7 0.
0 5
7 5
0. 6
4 9
2 4.
0 Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
De
t
a
i
l
·
Mo
b
i
l
e
4. 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Mo
b
i
l
e
00 3
00 4
00 4
i
00 3
,
1. 4
6 0
0 e
-
I
14 .
9 8
3 5
I
8. D
O
O
O
e
-
I
14 .
9 8
4 3
00 3
00 4
1. 5
1 2
2 7.
4 D
O
O
e
-
00 4
1. 5
1 2
9 99
.
7 7
8 1
99 .
7 7
8 1
5. 4
8 0
0 e
-
00 3
99 .
8 9
3 3
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
2 12-2999
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 In
c
r
e
a
s
e
De
n
s
i
t
y
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Di
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
Wa
l
k
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
De
s
i
g
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
De
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
I nc
r
e
a
s
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Ca
l
m
i
n
g
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
NE
V
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Li
m
i
t
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
y
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Tr
i
p
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ma
r
k
e
t
Co
m
m
u
t
e
Tr
i
p
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Op
t
i
o
n
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Va
n
p
o
o
l
/
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
Ri
a
d
e
Sh
a
r
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Pa
g
e
47 of
55 :
'E
x
h
~
~
i
'I
b
/
d
a
y
13 1
8 ,
4 0
2 .
9 ,
31 8
,
4 0
2 .
9 I
13 .
7 3
1 9
'
'3
1 8
,
6 9
1 .
3 :
34 1
:
34 1
:
:
I
03 3
•
I
I
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-~
6 4
4 ~
0 7
7 .
8 -
:
-
6 4
4 ~
o
i
7 :
s
-
:
-
-
2 4
~
5 3
5 0
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
64 4
~
5 9
3 ~
O
-
I
12 3
•
12 3
•
•
47 7
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
3 12-3000
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
48 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
.1
"
"U
~
r
o
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
'
,"
:
1 ,
.
. 'M
i
j
i
g
a
l
i
'
.
d
,
>"
'
,
:
,
W
e
e
W
:
:-
l
!
.
-
;
8 ~
s
;
:
~
~
:
q
7 :
~
-
;
-
'
,
'
r
M
7 :
0 0t
:
9 ~
f
\
J
0 !
-
'
:
-
I
:
H
~
w
:
9 r
:
P
~
~
T
;
H
~
6 (
c
-
C
:
;
L
~
_
:
i
O
o
-
~
-
c
:
N
W
:
'
J
:'
,
: :f
?
~
j
r
:
n
a
o
/
:
,I
':
1 "
l?
i
v
~
r
t
e
d
,-
-
:
1 pa
s
s
~
p
y
,
:
,
'
:
Ci
t
y
Pa
r
k
•
12 .
5 0
,
4. 2
0 ,
5. 4
0 •
33 .
0 0
I
48 .
0 0
:
19 .
0 0
0 66
•
28 •
6 •
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 0
••
•
•
•
•
•
0 •
"o
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
or
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
••
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
Ci
t
y
Pa
r
k
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
33 .
0 0
:
48 .
0 0
:
19 .
0 0
:
66 :
28 :
6 o
•
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 •
O'
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
Co
n
d
o
f
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
Hi
g
h
Ri
s
e
:
11 .
0 0
:
3. 5
0 :
4. 5
0 :
40 .
2 0
:
19 .
2 0
:
40 .
6 0
:
86 :
11 :
3 •
•
0 0
0 •
0 0
0 0
0 ..
.
.
.
.
0 0
••
•
•
"r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
En
c
l
o
s
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0 :
0:
0 •
••
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 ••
•
•
O'
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ot
h
e
r
As
p
h
a
l
t
Su
r
f
a
c
e
s
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0 :
0:
0 o
•
0 0
0 0
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 •
0 ••
•
•
•
Or
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'I
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
.
-
-
••
-
-
-
-
-r
-
•
-
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
"
-
•
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
"
-
-
Ot
h
e
r
As
p
h
a
l
t
Su
r
f
a
c
e
s
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0 :
0:
0 o
•
0 0
0 ••
•
•
•
•
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Or
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'I
"
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
"r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"
-
-
•
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
"
-
-
-
-
-
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0 :
0:
0 o
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 ••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 Or
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
"
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
•
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
-
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
16 .
3 0
:
64 .
7 0
:
19 .
0 0
:
54 :
35 :
11 o
0 0
•
0 ••
•
•
•
0 0
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 Or
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'I
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
"
-
Si
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
:
11 .
0 0
:
3. 5
0 :
4. 5
0 :
40 .
2 0
:
19 .
2 0
:
40 .
6 0
:
86 :
11 :
3 o
0 ••
•
•
•
0 ••
0 ••
•
•
0 ••
0 0
0 •
Or
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
•
"
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
"
••
-
-
-
-r
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
_
•
_
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
"
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Us
e
r
De
f
i
n
e
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
:
12 .
5 0
:
4. 2
0 :
5. 4
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0. 0
0 :
0 :
0:
0 o
0 U;
~
r
O'
D
~
f
i
·
n
~
d
'R
~
c
~
~
~
t
i
o
~
~
i
0 0:
-
-
-1
2 .
5 0
-" -
T
-
-
-
4. 2
0 --
-
T
-
-
-
-5
~
4 c
i
--
-
..
.
.
-
-o
~
o
c
i
--
-~
-
-
'0
"
.
0 0
--
-r
-
-
-
-0
.
0 0
" -
-
-
..
--
-
.
-
a --
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
cj
. -
-
-
..
--
.
" --
-
-
ci
" "
-
-
-
-
-
-
LO
A
,I
,C
o
p
,l
t
l
D
l
:
2 ~
6 \
.
r
'I
LH
o
i
l
C
t
l
D
2 M8
b
TH
f
J
D
l-
o
a
D
s
.
I
~B
U
S
'
,I
MC
Y
I
S
B
U
S
"
r
MH
0. 4
6 9
3 6
4 :
0. 0
6 5
5 7
6 :
0. 1
6 9
8 2
5 :
0. 1
5 9
0 3
6 :
0. 0
3 8
0 8
9 :
0. 0
0 6
1 3
9 :
0. 0
1 1
3 2
2 :
0. 0
7 1
4 9
3 :
0. 0
0 1
3 7
1 :
0. 0
0 1
2 1
1 :
0. 0
0 3
6 0
2 :
0. 0
0 0
5 1
8 :
0. 0
0 2
4 5
4 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
4 12-3001
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Ul
EI
_
~
e
t
a
i
i
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
Us
e
:
N
5. 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
En
e
r
g
y
Ex
c
e
e
d
Ti
t
l
e
24 In
s
t
a
l
l
Hi
g
h
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
Us
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
En
e
r
g
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
2. 1
4 6
6 :
18 .
4 6
0 9
:
8. 6
6 6
3 0.
1 1
7 1
,
,
,
~,
U
9 i
t
i
v
"
e
',
I
'
.
E,
X
h
,
'
a,
u
,
s
t
,R
M
1 ;
O
"
,;
:
PM
~
d
'r
b
~
d
a
y
1. 4
8 3
1 1
.
4 8
3 1
Pa
g
e
49 of
55 i:
'"
Fu
g
i
t
i
y
~
,
'
:1
:
~E
X
h
a
~
s
t
:
,I
~,
~
1 2
,
5 P.
M
2 .
5 ,:
'
,~
r
v
1 2
.
5 ,
'
Jo
t
a
l
1. 4
8 3
1 1.
4 8
3 1
.,
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
.
"N
a
t
~
r
~
I
G
~
;
-
-.
r
-2
.
1 4
6 6
-
-:
-
-,
8 :
4 6
0 9
--
:
-
-8
"
.
6 6
6 3
-
..
.
.
.
-0
.
1 1
7 1
-
-r
-
-
-
-
--
-
..
.
.
.
-;
.
4 8
3 -
'
-
..
.
.
.
-;
.
4 8
3 1
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
--
..
.
.
-;
.
4 8
3 1
-
..
.
.
.
-:
;
.4
8 3
1 -
-
Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
.2
3 ,
4 1
7 .
2 8
I
23 ,
4 1
7 .
2 8
I
0. 4
4 8
8 I
0. 4
2 9
3 12
3 ,
5 5
9 .
7 9
'4
5 :
4 5
:
'
:8
2 ,
I
,
,
I
~
~
-
-
-
-
-~
2 3
~
4 1
7 ~
2 -
B
-
:
-
2 3
~
4 1
7 ~
2 8
-
:
-
-
0 .
4 4
6 a
-
"
"
'
-
O
.
4 2
s
3 -
-
:
-
23 ,
5 5
9 ~
i
9 -
1 ,
a
'
a
'
,
U
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
5 12-3002
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 5.
2 En
e
r
g
y
by
La
n
d
Us
e
·
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Pa
g
e
50 of
55 :'
R
M
1 0
To
t
a
l
.
.
Fi
J
g
i
t
i
-
k
:
'
,
PM
2 .
'
S
:
'
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
I:
:~
j
o
~
,C
0 2
:
i
'
!
i
N
B
i
c
:
.
:
.
:
CO
?
;
;"
:
:
:
c
o
~
e
Co
n
d
o
f
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
·
6a
0 8
2 .
9 :
'
0. 7
3 4
2 6.
2 7
4 3
2. 6
6 9
9 0,
0 4
0 1
0. 5
0 7
3 0.
5 0
7 3
'
0. 5
0 7
3 0.
5 0
7 3
18 ,
0 0
9 .
7 5
6 '
8,
0 0
9 .
7 5
6 '
0. 1
5 3
5 0.
1 4
6 9
18 ,
0 5
8 .
5 0
2 e
Hi
g
h
Ri
s
e
:
,:
I,
4 •
4 :
:
4 I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
•
,
•
I
,
•
I
,
""
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-.
.
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
_.
"
-
-
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
En
c
l
o
s
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
:
a
::
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
I.
:
I
I,
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
~
I
,
I
I
,
""
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Ot
h
e
r
As
p
h
a
l
t
0 t
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 Su
r
f
a
c
e
s
.,
~
,
.,
,
,
,
•
•
,
,
I
•
,
,
•
•
r
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
--
-
-
-.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,-
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
-
_
-
-
-
-
__
I
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
o~
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
'
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 o.
o
o
o
o
!
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 L
,
,
I,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
--
-.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
'*
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
-
-
-
-
-
-_
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
'1
9 9
4 9
.
5 :
'
0. 2
1 5
1 1.
9 5
5 8
1 .
6 4
2 9
0. 0
1 1
7 0.
1 4
8 6
0. 1
4 8
6 '
0. 1
4 6
6 0.
1 4
6 6
~
'2
,
3 4
6 .
9 9
5 '
2,
3 4
6 .
9 9
5 '
0. 0
4 5
0 0.
0 4
3 0
'
2,
3 6
1 .
2 7
8 Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
:
I:
•
Z'
0 '
0 '
,
4 ,
I,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,-
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Si
n
g
l
e
F,
a
m
i
l
y
:
11 1
0 1
5 ::
1. 1
9 7
2 :
10 .
2 3
0 8
:
4. 3
5 3
5 0.
0 6
5 3
0. 8
2 7
2 0.
8 2
7 2
:
0. 8
2 7
2 0.
8 2
7 2
!
:
13 ,
0 6
0 .
5 3
:
13 ,
0 6
0 .
5 3
:
0. 2
5 0
3 0.
2 3
9 4
:
13 ,
1 4
0 .
0 1
HO
U
S
i
n
g
.,
,
,
31 ,
31 ,
74 ,
I,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
__
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,-
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Us
e
r
De
~
n
e
d
O~
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
i
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I,
,
,
I,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
__
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,-
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Ci
t
y
Pa
r
k
0:
:
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 O.
O
O
O
O
!
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I,
,
I,
,
To
t
a
l
2. 1
4 6
6 18
.
4 6
0 9
8. 6
6 6
3 0.
1 1
7 1
1. 4
8 3
1 1.
4 8
3 1
1. 4
8 3
1 1
.
4 8
3 1
23 ,
4 1
7 .
2 8
45 23
,
4 1
7 .
2 8
45 0.
4 4
8 8
0. 4
2 9
3 23
,
5 5
9 .
7 9
82 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
6 12-3003
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 5.
2 En
e
r
g
y
by
La
n
d
Us
e
·
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Pa
g
e
51 of
55 Da
l
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
~,
,
'
is
,
U
s
e
r
'
,
:
:
'
.:
"
'
,"
:
,.
!
,.
'
,.
,
,
1 ,
:
"~
'
,
I
',
'
.
:"
:
,
.
,
;
;'
~
'
:;
:,
'
PM
1 0
I
i~
'
P
M
1 0
:'
"'
,
>
T
O
t
a
I
:
:
'N
a
~
u
r
a
~
~
-
I
I
:
RO
'
l
'
'1
'
;
N
o
x
c
:
~
a
,
u
S
:
t
i
I'
:
:
PM
2 .
S
--
;:
I
I
'
~
i
p
.
!
C
q
2 T
N
B
i
d
;
,
;
'
-
'
,
C
0 2
:
1 :
:
T
o
f
a
,
:
c
,
0 2
1 ·
,
'
;
-
:
C
H
4 i
'
I'
;
'
N2
0 '
:'
,
I
:
~
:
-
'
;
Y
9 ;
z
e
I'
:~
M
;
2 ,
5 :i
:
P~
2 :
:
5 i
::
To
r
s
i
"
,-
::
'
:
>:
.
!
,
.
?
f
:
'
'_
:
:
:
:
;
:
,
:
,
,,
~
.
:
:
!
:
:
,
'
':
:
:
:
:
;:
:
:'
:
:
,
1 :
;:
!
i
':
;:
i
'
~
'
:
i:
:
::
.
, -
-'
,
i:
:
~
B
~
p
o
/
r
:
"'
"
:;
,
.
"
En
c
l
o
s
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
'
0 I.
0,
0 0
0 0
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
::
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 I
I,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
~
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
~
~
-.
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
--
-
-
-
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
"
-
-"
"
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
.
..
.
.
.
--
,
Ot
h
e
r
As
p
h
a
l
t
0:
.
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
~
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 Su
r
f
a
c
e
s
J:
I
,
I.
,
,
I
,
•
,
,
,
,
~
•
,
,
I
,
••
•
-
-
_
••
•
-
-
I"
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-
-
-
-
..
_
..
.
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
0 t
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
t
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
.,
I
•
I.
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
•
,
~
,
•
I
,
•
.
-
_.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
--
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
-
__
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
_"
_
I
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
•
19 .
9 4
9 5
~
.
0,
2 1
5 1
1. 9
5 5
8 1
.
6 4
2 9
0. 0
1 1
7 I
0. 1
4 8
6 0.
1 4
8 6
0. 1
4 8
6 0
.
1 4
8 6
f
'2
,
3 4
6 .
9 9
5 '
2,
3 4
6 .
9 9
5 '
0. 0
4 5
0 0.
0 4
3 0
'
2,
3 6
1 .
2 7
8 Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
:
I:
:
~
•
0 I
0 '
,
4 ,
I,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
~
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
_.
-
-
-
-
-,
.
-
-
-
-
__
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
, __
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
_.
-
-
-
__
I
Si
n
g
l
e
F~
m
i
l
y
:
11 1
.
0 1
5 :
:
1. 1
9 7
2 :
10 .
2 3
0 8
:
4. 3
5 3
5 0.
0 6
5 3
0. 8
2 7
2 0.
8 2
7 2
,
'
0. 8
2 7
2 0.
8 2
7 2
t
:
13 ,
0 6
0 .
5 3
:
13 ,
0 6
0 .
5 3
:
0. 2
5 0
3 0.
2 3
9 4
:
13 ,
1 4
0 .
0 1
HO
U
S
i
n
g
I,
I
"
,3
1 ,
31 ,
,
74 -
-
-
_.
-
-
-
-
-
_;
.
.
__
-
-
-
-
!:
__
_
_
_
_
_
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
:
-
-
-
-
__
_
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
;
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
_:
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
:
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Us
e
r
De
f
i
n
e
d
0 I,
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
;
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
::
!
,
I.
,
,
,
I
,
•
I
,
I
~
,
I
,
I
,
-
__
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
.
-
-
_ -
-
-
..
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
-
-
-
-
-
--
Ci
t
y
Pa
r
k
0 I.
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
f
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 ~:
!
,
I,
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
,
-
_.
_ -
-
_.
-
-
_.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
, __
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
--
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
-
-
-
_"
"
_,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
-
__
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Co
n
d
o
f
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
'
68 .
0 8
2 9
I,
0. 7
3 4
2 6.
2 7
4 3
2. 6
6 9
9 0.
0 4
0 1
0. 5
0 7
3 0.
5 0
7 3
0. 5
0 7
3 0,
5 0
7 3
+
'8
,
0 0
9 .
7 5
6 I
8,
0 0
9 ,
7 5
6 '
0. 1
5 3
5 0.
1 4
6 9
'
8,
0 5
8 .
5 0
2 e
Hi
g
h
Ri
s
e
'
t:
!
.
4 '
4 :
:
4 I,
~
To
t
a
l
2. 1
4 6
6 18
.
4 6
0 9
8. 6
6 6
3 0.
1 1
7 1
1. 4
8 3
1 1.
4 8
3 1
1. 4
8 3
1 1.
4 8
3 1
6. 0
Ar
e
a
De
t
a
i
l
6. 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Ar
e
a
23 ,
4 1
7 .
2 8
45 23
,
4 1
7 .
2 8
45 0.
4 4
8 8
0. 4
2 9
3 23
,
5 5
9 .
7 9
82 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
7 12-3004
Ga
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ga
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Us
e
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
La
w
n
m
o
w
e
r
Us
e
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
Le
a
f
b
l
o
w
e
r
Us
e
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
Gh
a
i
n
s
a
w
Us
e
Lo
w
VO
G
Pa
i
n
t
-
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
Us
e
Lo
w
VO
G
Pa
i
n
t
-
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
Us
e
Lo
w
VO
G
Pa
i
n
t
-
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
Us
e
Lo
w
VO
G
Pa
i
n
t
-
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
Us
e
on
l
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
He
a
r
t
h
s
Us
e
Lo
w
VO
G
Cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
.,
38 0
.
6 5
7 8
2. 3
0 6
5 :
20 0
.
4 0
2 6
0. 0
1 0
6 !;
:
u
g
i
t
i
V
E
!
'
.'
; PM
:
t
O
:
,
:
2. 1
7 9
3 2.
1 7
9 3
Pa
g
e
52 of
55 2.
1 6
8 0
.,
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
2. 1
6 8
0 -
-u
-
n
~
~
·
t
~
g
;
t
e
d
-
-:
~
50 3
~
6 2
6 9
..
.
.
-2
.
3 0
'
6 5
-
-r
-
20 0
~
4 0
2 6
..
.
.
-0.
0 1
0 6
-
..
.
.
.
--
-
-
--
..
.
.
-2
.
1 7
9 3
-
..
.
.
-2.
1 7
9 3
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
--
-
..
.
.
-2
.
1 6
8 0
-
..
.
.
-
2. 1
6 8
0 -
-
Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
'.
c
0 2
e
;
:
";
.
:
0. 0
0 0
0 I
17 ,
3 4
4 .
3 8
I
17 ,
3 4
4 .
3 8
I
0. 6
7 9
4 '
0,
3 1
1 4
11 7
,
4 5
5 .
1 7
:3
4 :
3 4
:
:
:3
9 •
,
,
,
I
-
0. 0
0 0
0 ·
-~
1 7
~
3 4
4 ~
3 8
-:
-
1 7
~
3 4
4 ~
3 8
-
:
-
-0.
6 7
9 4
-
-
'
-
-0.
3 1
1 4
-
-
;
1i
,
4 5
5 ~
1-
7 '3
4 '
3 4
'
'3
9 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
8 12-3005
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 6.
2 Ar
e
a
by
Su
b
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Co
a
t
i
n
g
Pa
g
e
53 of
55 Da
l
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
.,
I
,
J
I
J
,
I
I
I
;,
•
,
,
I
I
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
",
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
_.
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r
.,
37 "
,
."
t
o
u
u
-"
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
0. 0
0 0
0 I
0,
0 0
0 0
I
I
0. 0
0 0
0 '
0. 0
0 0
0 ~
I
1 0.
0 0
0 0
I
I
,
0. 0
0 0
0 I
,
I
I
!
I
:
I
•
,
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
-"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
T
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
--
He
a
r
t
h
1. :
'
>
"
0 0
,-
-
"
"
.
~
""
"
"
-
-
,,
-
_
••
.
""
"
-
-
"
.•
-~
-
-
.•
" ..
.
.
,'
"
.
A,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
-
1. 0
6 4
3 ~
0. 0
0 0
0 11
6 ,
9 8
3 .
5 2
11 6
,
9 8
3 .
5 2
I
0. 3
2 5
5 I
0. 3
1 1
4 11
7 ,
0 8
6 .
8 8
,
94 .:
94 :
I
I
83 .
L;
;
d
~
~
~
p
i
n
-
g
-
-"-
-
6 ~
1 5
1 3
2. 3
0 6
4 20
0 .
3 1
7 7
1. 1
0 3
7 1.
1 0
3 7
,
To
t
a
l
ii
50 3
.
6 2
6 9
i
2. 3
0 6
5 ;
20 0
.
4 0
2 6
i
0. 0
1 0
6 2.
1 7
9 3
2. 1
7 9
3 1.
1 0
3 7
2. 1
6 8
D
,
I
I
I
I
~
~
"
"
~
"
"'
-
;
6 (
;
:
8 5
4 0
~
-
;
6 o
~
8 5
4 o
.
,
-
-
0 ~
3 s
3 9
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
36 8
.
2 8
~
5 6
0. 0
0 0
0 '1
7 ,
3 4
4 .
3 8
1 1
7 ,
3 4
4 .
3 8
'
0. 6
7 9
4 34
34 D.
3 1
1 4
'1
7 ,
4 5
5 .
1 7
39 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 2
9 12-3006
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
54 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
1 0
:
2 8
AM
6. 2
Ar
e
a
by
Su
b
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
'i
'
;
;-
i
'
"
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Co
a
t
i
n
g
.,
23 .
6 8
6 5
:
0,
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 t
0. 0
0 0
0 ,
j
.,
I
1 I
I
I
,
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
0. 0
0 0
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
"*
_.
-
_.
-
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r
.,
34 9
.
2 6
3 3
I
I
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0,
0 0
0 0
~
0. 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
·
'
I
Z
.,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
,
I
I
,
-
-
_
••
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
.,
__
_
_
_
_
_
..
,
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
__
I
He
a
r
t
h
1. 5
5 6
8 I
7. 0
0 0
0 e
-
I
0. 0
8 4
9 0.
0 0
0 0
1. 0
7 5
6 1.
0 7
5 6
1. 0
6 4
3 1.
0 6
4 3
;
0. 0
0 0
0 '1
6 ,
9 8
3 .
5 2
'
16 ,
9 8
3 .
5 2
'
0. 3
2 5
5 0.
3 1
1 4
'
17 ,
0 8
6 .
8 8
'0
0 5
'
:
'9
4 '
9 4
:
,:
8 3
.,
,
,
I
L
,
,
I
,
,
~
,
,
,
L
,
-
-"
-
-
-"
"
-
-
-n-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
*
"
"
-"
"
-
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-"
-"
"
-
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
6. 1
5 1
3 2.
3 0
6 4
20 0
.
3 1
7 7
0. 0
1 0
6 1.
1 0
3 7
1. 1
0 3
7 1.
1 0
3 7
1. 1
0 3
7 i
36 0
.
8 5
4 0
,
36 0
.
8 5
4 0
'
0. 3
5 3
9 '
36 8
.
2 8
5 6
To
t
a
l
38 0
.
6 5
7 8
2. 3
0 6
5 20
0 .
4 0
2 6
7. 0
Wa
t
e
r
De
t
a
i
l
7. 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
Ap
p
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
Us
e
Re
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
Us
e
Gr
e
y
Wa
t
e
r
In
s
t
a
l
l
Lo
w
Fl
o
w
Ba
t
h
r
o
o
m
Fa
u
c
e
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
Lo
w
Fl
o
w
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
Fa
u
c
e
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
Lo
w
Fl
o
w
To
i
l
e
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
Lo
w
Fl
o
w
Sh
o
w
e
r
Tu
r
f
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Us
e
Wa
t
e
r
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
I rr
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
0. 0
1 0
6 2.
1 7
9 3
2. 1
7 9
3 2.
1 6
8 0
2. 1
6 8
0 i
0. 0
0 0
0 11
7 ,
3 4
4 .
3 8
1 1
7 ,
3 4
4 .
3 8
1 0.
6 7
9 4
34 34
0. 3
1 1
4 11
7 ,
4 5
5 .
1 7
39 2.
0 R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 3
0 12-3007
Ca
l
E
E
M
o
d
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
:
Ca
I
E
E
M
o
d
.
2 0
1 3
.
2 .
2 Pa
g
e
55 of
55 Da
t
e
:
1/
1 4
/
2 0
1 5
10 :
2 8
AM
8. 0
Wa
s
t
e
De
t
a
i
l
8. 1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Wa
s
t
e
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
9. 0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
r
o
a
d
: ::
;
"
::
E
q
u
i
j
:
i
r
;
n
-
e
h
t
T
y
p
e
:
,
,
"
~
,.
,-
,
'
,-
""
.
."
' "
,
:-
'
H
o
~
~
~
D
'
a
y
,
':
~
a
x
s
l
Y
e
~
~
,
'
:
,H
o
r
s
'
e
:
P
O
W
l
:
!
r
,
Lo
'
a
d
pa
c
t
o
'
r
10 .
0 Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
2. 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Le
t
t
e
r
N
o
.
7 Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
04 4
-
0 0
1 -
1 3
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2 4
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
r
c
h
2 0
1 5
2. 0
-
2 3
1 12-3008
I.s·· W· .A·. PE· .1 T.ec.hnlcal.Co.mmttatiQn,DntaAnlliytP.;;tlnd . __ -. Uttg~tlQ!1 Support for the environment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Education:
2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206
Newport Beach, California 92660
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Fax: (949) 717-0069
Email: [email protected]
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQAReview
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certification:
California Professional Geulugist
California Certified Hydrageologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to gromldwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wIllie also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations; groundwater ftmdamenta1s; and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 -present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 -present; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H20 Science, Inc (2000 --2003);
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-232
12-3009
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001-2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 -2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 -1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 -1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of numerous environmental impact reports under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and geologic hazards. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a cornunity adjacent to a former Naval shipyard wlder a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technica1 assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE 1itigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H20 Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regu1ation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and minking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 2 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-233
12-3010
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the dischrge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of coUlltywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Nahual Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model grOl.mdwater flow and contaminant transport ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contantinated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues/ wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vuinerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two commlmities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-234
12-3011
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic Investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action Investigations of waste sites and led Inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations Including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 4 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-235
12-3012
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinkillg water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superhmd NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests,
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee lnember for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt currently teaches Physical Geology (lecture and lab) to students at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California.
Invited Testimony. Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.s.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinkillg Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Tnlst, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.P., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
5 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-236
12-3013
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on £he Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. hwited presentation to the U.s. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to £he Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annua1 meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
6 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-237
12-3014
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division; National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. u.s. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukmlaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oal1U, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, CaHfomia Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-238
12-3015
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Grolmdwater: An Ounce of Prevention ... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011.
8 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-239
12-3016
JESSIE MARIE JAEGER
11815 Mayfield Ave
Los Angeles CA, 90049
SUMMARY
530-867-6202
[email protected]
Innovative, energetic, driven, and a results oriented leader, w.ith proven success producing quality results in research, student government, and academia. A recipient of the UCLA Bruin Advantage Scholarship, Dean's List honoree, and a leader amongst peers, who uses ambition and passion to effectively develop the skills needed to assess and solve major environmental and conservation issues.
Skills include:
• Execution of Laboratory Techniques (DNA • Experience in Field Work, including capture extraction, Tissue Cataloging etc.) of Amphibian species and water sampling • Understanding of Statistical},{odels used in within Ballona Watershed Ecology and Conset"Vation Biology • Steering Committee Coordination and • Experience with programs such as Excel, Working Group lvlanagement ?vlicrosoft Access, QuickBooks, ArcGIS, • Organizational Skills AERlvIOD, CalEEMod, AERSCREEN, and • Effective Communication Abilities ENVI • Customer Service Experience
• Knowledge of California policies and
municipal codes
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE, SANTA MONICA, CA
SWAPE Technical Consultation, Data Analysis, and Litigation Support 2014 -Present
Project Analyst
http://www.swape.com/staff/jessie-jaeger/
;\-[aintain and update national public ,-vater system_ database through usc of idicrosoft Excel and _-\cces!.'. (hher responsibilities include cancer risk assessment: calculations, in depth research of environmental issues such as fLacking.
Leaking Underground Storage 'l'anb (J ,UST) and their associated funding programs. groundwat"u cont;unination, Proposition 65 formaldehyde test methods, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination within schools, ~l11d environmental modeling llsing _-\ERi\l( )1), CalEEI\-Iod, ~-\JiRSCREEl\". and ~--ircGIS. • Expert understanding of rvIicrosoft Excel and Access, with the ability to manipulate, analyze, and manage large sets of data. Expertise include the creation of queries via Access, utilization of Pivot Tables and statistical functions within Excel, and proficiency in formatting large datasets for use in final repotts. • rviastery of modeling programs such as CalEEfvlod, AERSCREEN, .. / .. .reGIS, as well as the ability to prepare datasets for use within these programs. For ~xamplc, the conversion of addresses into geographical coordinates through Ule utilization of Geocode programs.
• Experience in the composition and compilation of final analytical reports and prcsentations, with proficicncy in technical writing, organization of data, and creation of compelling graphics. • Knowledge of federal and California EPA policies, such as CEQ-A, accepted methods, and reporting limits, as well as experience with city and county personnel and municipal codes.
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-240
12-3017
UCLA H. BRADLEY SHAFFER LAB, LOS ANGELES, CA 2012-2014
Undergraduate Research Assistant
Responsible for phylogenetic prioritization within the Turtles of the \'x/orld project (T01V?). i\[erhocls include obtaining 2-3 tissue samples of every species of turtle on earth, and sequencing them for -20 independent genes. The results of the TOT\'V' project are being used to create a phylogenetic tree of as many currently existing turtle species as possible. This will allow evolurionary biologists and hC1l1ctol0f,>1srs to better understand how turtle taxa are interrelated, and will aid in efforts to conse.tve threatened turtle species.
• Expert understanding of laboratory technigues, including the amplification of DNA through the method of polymerase chain reactions (PCR), extraction of DNA from tissue, cataloging of tissue samples etc. • Proficiency in programs such as Excel, Google Eardl, and Specify. • IVIaste.ry of laboratory equipment usage, including but not limited to, Thermocyclers, Centrifuges, Nanodrop }l'1acrunes, Autoclave Devices, and Vortexes.
• Experience in fieldwork, including capture of salamander, turtle, and newt specimens to add to the Shaffer Lab tissue database.
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE, LOS ANGELES, CA
Climate Action and Sustainability, Institute of the Environment, UCLA 2011-2012
Work Group and Event Manager
Responsibility for organization of steering committee meetings, as well as for the organization of the working groups within the collaborative. Maintaining and updating the website, as well as sending out weekly newsletters on behalf of the Collaborative to its members.
• Organized the first Solar Planning working group withill the steering committee, which consisted of representatives from universities, government agencies, and private sectors within r.A County. • Coordinated monthly steering committee meetings as well as assisted in the organization of Quarterly l~l'feetings and Sustainability Forums.
• Managed membership, weekly newsletters, website updates, general assistance, and clerical duties.
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION COUNCIL, UCLA
Academic Wellness Director, Academic Affairs Commissioner (2013) Student Groups Support Committee Member, Internal Vice President (2012) 2012-2013
USAC's programs offer an invaluable se~vice to the campus and surrounding communities by providing an opportunity for thousands of students to participate in and benefit from these services. Two to three thousand undergraduates participate annually.in the more than 20 outreach programs.
• Directed the organization of academic campus programs that provide tools and resources to manage the academic rigors experienced by university students.
• Oversight control of and responsibility for tlle Academic \X/ellness committee and all its members. • Created a Universal Funding application for student groups that facilitates the process of requesting funds to support philanthropic activities.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Environmental Science
Minor in Conservation Biology
Senior Project, Ballona Watershed Phytoplankton and Water Quality Assessment University of Californi'l Los .1-\ngeles, Los Angeles, CA High School Diploma
Valedictorian, June 2010
Pioneer IIigh School, Woodland, CA
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Recipient, Bmins Advantab>e Scholarship, 2010-2014
Academic Honoree, Dean's List, 2013-2014
Life Member, National Honor Society & California Scholarship Federation, 2006-2010 Valedictorian, Pioneer High School, 2010
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-241
12-3018
EXHIBIT B
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-242
12-3019
SMITH ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
January 15, 2015
Mr. Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: Section 24 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2014011035) Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Dear Mr. Drury:
At your request, I have reviewed the traffic and transportation aspects of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR") for the Section 24 Specific Plan (the "Project") by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, a site that is within the City Limits of the City of Rancho Mirage. My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California and over 46 years professional consulting engineering practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and reviewed traffic and circulation analyses of environmental review documents, including major land use developments. My professional resume is attached.
Findings of my review are summarized below.
Findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis Are Invalidated by Assumptions Unreasonably Favorable to the Project
While the DEIR and its supporting traffic study (Appendix G) give the superficial appearance of a thorough analysis of traffic impacts and mitigation needs, close examination reveals that the traffic analysis is based on key assumptions that are both unreasonably favorable to the Project and not reasonably supportable. r]{ ,\]. Fie • -r It.\ ~ S I' t.) R T __ \ TIt.) '" • /1.1 . .\ \l A (; E !loll,. K I 5311 Lowry Road. Union Cit~·, CA 94587 tel: 510.-4-09.';1+77 f:1X: 5Itl-l-1N.9-1-73 58 59
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-243
12-3020
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
Underestimate of Basic Trip Generation of Non-residential Component The DEIR estimates the trip generation of the non-residential component of the Project as if these land uses were aggregated in a single mega-shopping center of 3,139,000 gross square feet (lTE Trip Generation, 8th Edition land use category 820). One of the characteristics of the trip generation function for this shopping center category is that the trip generation per thousand square feet of gross leasable area declines with the size of center. For example, based on the trip rate function for this use category, the total daily trips for a 3.139 million gross square foot shopping center is 63,800 (as reported in the DEIR Appendix G).
However, if the total non-residential use in the Project were considered as two independent shopping centers each half that size (each 1,569,500 gross square feet for the same aggregate total of 3,139,000 gross square feet), according to the reference source relied on by the DEIR, each of these 'half-sized' centers would have a trip generation of about 40,000 daily trips or an aggregate of 80,000 daily trips. This is over 25 percent more trips than estimated by assuming the non-residential uses are lumped into a single unrealistically gargantuan mega-shopping center.
In all reality, the non-residential uses in the Project will be developed as a number of separately functioning components that may probably include a neighborhood retail center focused on a grocery store; a moderately large shopping center (say 1.0 million gross square feet) focused on two or three major department store anchor tenants and possibly including such uses as a bank, cinema and modest amount of office space; freestanding office development; freestanding big-box retail (such as say Home Depot or I KEA) , freestanding discount superstores (such as Walmart); and freestanding membership discount superstores (such as Costco). Such a likely mix of development would have even more trip generation than the 80,000 daily trips we estimated by treating the entire non-residential development as two independent shopping centers instead of one hugely oversized one. While the exact composition and configuration of the non-residential component of the development cannot currently be known, it is evident that the assumption of a single mega-shopping center made by the DEIR preparers grossly understates potential trip generation of the non- residential component. Hence, this assumption is not consistent with the good faith effort to disclose impact that CEQA demands.
Overestimate of Intemal Trips
One of those assumptions is the presumption that 15 percent of the trips generated by the residential component of the Project would remain entirely internal to the Project and offset an equivalent number of trip ends generated by the non-residential components of the Project. Since these trips are presumed to travel only on streets intemal to the Project, they are assumed to not impact 53] J Lowt"\, Rnad, Union City. CA 9+587 tel: 51O.-J-89.9+77 f:l.I:: 51O.-/-1N.l)-I-7fi 60 61
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-244
12-3021
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
streets and highways outside the Project and are erased from the analysis at the trip generation stage.
The problem with the notion 15 percent of the residential-generated trips in a mixed use development might be completed close to home, is that this is considerably discrepant form actual traveling behavior in the Coachella Valley area. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2004 Origin / Destination Survey, a document referenced in the DEIR's Appendix G Traffic Study, shows that for all of Rancho Mirage, an area of 24.8 square miles, only
30.6 percent of trips generated at residences within the City are completed within City limits. In other words, an average only 1.23 percent of trips per square mile are internalized locally in Rancho Mirage. Contrast this with the Project area, an area of only about 1 square mile. Assuming 15 percent of the residential trips are completed internally in this Project area -15 percent in a square mile -is more than twelve times the average rate per square mile in the City as a whole.
Other data from the Coachella Valley Origin / Destination Survey also points to the unreasonableness and insupportability of the DEIR's 15 percent internalization assumption. Average trip duration in the area for work trips is 24.5 minutes, 15.7 rninutes for home-to-shop trips, 15.0 minutes for home to school,
19.6 minutes for home-to-other and 20.3 minutes for all trips. In the Project area, the longest internal trip possible is a trip from one corner of the Project site to the diagonally opposite corner. Such a trip would be a distance of 1.41 miles. At a reasonable speed for internal streets of 30 miles-per-hour, such a trip would be completed in 2.83 minutes. That is only about 13.9 percent of the average trip duration in the general vicinity. And this is the longest possible internal trip in the Project area. If one assumes the average internal trip in the Project area is about half the longest possible one, then the average internal trip length would be 1.42 rninutes and about 0.71 miles. In a region where, according to SCAG data, only about 3.7 percent of all work trips are one mile or less, the 15 percent internalization assumption seems all the more implausible.
Overestimate of Attracted Passerby Trips
The DEIR estimates that 15 percent of trip generation for the non-residential component of the Project will be attracted from passerby traffic. It presents various rationalizations for this. However, if fails to account for a crucial consideration -whether existing passer-by traffic can reasonably sustain the assumed level of passerby attraction. In brief, the question is whether the numbers of existing passers-by can reasonably be expected to visit the uses in the site frequently enough to justify the actual numbers, not just the percentage, of attracted passers-by. Much of the data regarding attracted passer-by percentages is drawn from urban sites bounded from very high volume arterial roadways. Although some of these data confirm that various uses attract high percentages of their trip generation from traffic already passing the site, those rl~;\I·I'I(-• TR \NS!'\)RT.-\TI,)i'-.: • l\lANAGE!\ILr" I 531 I LowlY Road, Union Cit~·, CA l)-I-SS7 lei: 5lO.-!-S9.9+77 (a,\; 5ll1.-I-S9.9478 61 62
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-245
12-3022
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
percentages are as much driven by the amount of traffic passing the site as by the character of the land uses. So the sheer percentage of passer-by attraction is not transferrable to other sites purely based on land use characteristics, contrary to what the DEIR analysis assumes. To cite an exaggerated example, it would be ridiculous to claim that a regional shopping center generating 200,000 trips sited on two country roads each carrying an existing 100 trips per day in the existing condition would draw 15 percent of its traffic from passer-by traffic. To be sure, other growth in the area would increase the pool of traffic from which passers-by could be drawn, but assuming that is simply blaming the Project's traffic generation on other developments, which is an unacceptable assumption under CEQA.
In this case, the existing traffic on roadways abutting the Project is approximately 64,500 daily vehicles in peak season. In order to attract the assumed 9180 daily vehicles from passer-by traffic, about one of each seven drivers passing the site each day would have to call on some on-site use while passing the site on a trip to somewhere else. If the non-residential uses on the site were primarily gas stations, fast food restaurants, banks, mini-marts and groceries, such a frequency of visitation might be plausible. But if a substantial portion of the commercial usage of the site is office, specialty retail, research and development, flex-use and similar, this rate of passer-by visitation is unsustainable.
The preparers of the DEIR may attempt to assert that future traffic growth should be considered as part of the sustaining traffic base for attraction of passers-by.
However, much of the predicted traffic growth over the period of this Project's development remains, at this point in time, speculative. And presuming that the traffic from other projects will be there to be intercepted is in essence a blaming of the Project's traffic on other potential concurrent projects. Taken to extreme over multiple projects, this logic leads to a situation where nobody generated the traffic, they all just intercepted it.
Extent of Degradation of Traffic Conditions Concealed by Assumption of Rise in Peak Hour Factor to 1.0
DEIR page 5.14-18 and DEIR Appendix G page 5-5 both state that the peak hour factors used in the intersection Level of Service (LOS) calculations that form a primary basis for determining traffic impacts were as observed in the existing traffic counts for the peak hour operational analysis of existing and year 2022 conditions. However, the narrative also indicates that the horizon year 2035 analysis a peak hour factor of 1.0 was assumed instead. The importance of this subtlety may not be obvious to the layman.
The peak hour factor is the ratio of the actual peak hour volume to four times the volume in the busiest 15 minutes during that hour. If traffic at an intersection is intense and congested for about 15 minutes of the peak hour, but notably less r I{ ,\ I-j' j (" • TR.\ ~SPl) R T .-\ T I ,)0: • 1\1:\ ~ A(;E .~Il..: I' ! 531 J Lowry Ro;,d. Union Citr, CA l)4-5~7 tel: 510.-:1-89.,-)-1-77 r,1.\-: 5!OA({9.9-1-7;) 62 63
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-246
12-3023
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
intense and congested for most of the other 45 minutes of that hour, the intersection might have a peak hour factor (sometimes abbreviated PHF in computation sheets) of, for example, 0.85. If traffic at an intersection is almost constantly intense and congested during the peak hour, the peak hour factor at that intersection will be at or approaching 1.0. If traffic within the peak hour fluctuates considerably, a given hourly volume and mix of movements will produce considerably worse congestion and delay over a significant portion of that hour than if the same amount of traffic and movement mix is spread evenly over that hour. So by assuming a peak hour factor of 1.0 in the long range analysis, the analysis is eliminating from consideration the effects of traffic fluctuations and concentrations within the peak hour that are observed in the existing conditions, leading to computations of lower levels of delay and potentially better levels of service than computations at the presently observed peak hour factors would indicate. Since the peak hour factor is a divisor in the complex computational process that determines intersection delay and critical volume-to-capacity (critical vic) ratios, assuming it to be 1.0 rather than the lesser values observed reduces the delay and critical vic reported in the DEIR's 2035 traffic analysis below what would have been indicated had the observed PHF values been used. Hence, this assumption is inconsistent with the good faith effort to disclose impact that CEQA demands. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines 15125(a) state (in part):
"An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. "
Since the peak hour factor values observed are one of the physical conditions that constitute the ordinary baseline specified by the above article, the substitution of a peak hour factor of 1.0 in the 2035 analysis is a violation of CEQA guidelines.
What Impacts Would the Traffic Analysis Indicate If the Four Inappropriate Assumptions Described Above Were Corrected?
What would the traffic analysis conclude if the three inappropriate assumptions described above were corrected? The effects of the four inappropriate assumptions described above are compounding and the outcome of correcting them cannot be estimated without redoing the entire traffic analysis computations. This is not within the obligation of the concerned public nor the time and resources available during this comment period. The Project applicant should redo the traffic study addressing these considerations and resubmit this portion of the DEIR for review in draft status.
rH;\ I-I'! (-• TR -\ N SI'l)H T .-\ T [l)" • I\I"\:-.J AGE !'.llf'.: ! 531J Lowr:: RO;h.-i. Uninll Cit:" CA 9+587 lei: 51O.+StJ,L)-l-77 I~l\:: SIll.+H9.9478 63 64
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-247
12-3024
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
Claimed Mitigation of Impactful Condition at Ramon Road -Da Vall Drive Intersection In Doubt
The DEIR identifies the need to add an additional southbound left turn lane on the southbound approach of Da Vall Drive to its intersection with Ramon Road in order to mitigate unacceptable conditions that would exist in 2035 and it presumes these will be carried out in a timely fashion. However, development of this additional lane may be problematic since scaled aerial photography indicates there may be insufficient space for development of such a lane in the existing curb-to-curb width and the roadway appears confined to that existing curb-to- curb width by the Desert Memorial Park cemetery on the west and the newly constructed multi-use trail on the east.
Furthermore, the DEIR blithely assumes that this potentially infeasible improvement will be funded by others because the roads are eligible for Measure A and TUMF funds (though none are committed) and because improvements to Da Vall Drive are identified in the Coachella Valley Transportation Project Prioritization Study, though admitting the improvement is not currently identified for funding. Under CEQA, such uncertain funding (in essence, being on the "wish" list instead of on the "do" list) does not qualify an impactful condition to be presumed mitigated.
The DEIR Includes No Analysis of Traffic Impacts On Freeways and Freeway Ramps
Although the DEIR acknowledges Caltrans jurisdiction over the 1-10 freeway and its ramp systems, other than analyzing operations at intersections between freeway ramps and the local roadway system, the DEIR utterly fails to conform to Caltrans requirements for traffic impact analysis. Those requirements are defined in a document entitled Guide For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, 2012). The portion of those guidelines detailing when a traffic impact study of Caltrans facilities under Caltrans procedures and guidelines must be performed includes the criterion that when a project generates over 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility, a traffic impact study of that facility is needed. Since DEIR Appendix G Table 4.2 indicates the adjusted trip generation of the entire Project would be 3524 inbound and 3433 inbound trips in the pm peak hour and Figure 5.14-4 indicates that 7.3 percent of those trips would utilize each direction of 1-10 west of Bob Hope Drive and 9.3 percent of those pm peak trips would utilize each direction of 1-10 east of Ramone Road, the Project's contribution to pm peak traffic on 1-10 would be about 1155 trips or more than eleven-fold the criterion requiring study.
Given the significant volume contributed to the freeway, Caltrans may require freeway segment analysis, weaving section analysis and ramp and ramp junction analysis to be performed. The DEIR preparers should consult with Caltrans r I{ A 1· F j C • -r R \ N S!' U R T .-\ T r 1.);-": • 1\1 A N A (; E .r..ll.: K r 5311 Lowry Road. Union City, CA 9-+5;:\7 lcl: 5[0.-+89.9-!-77 f;l.\:: 51O.-I-tN.9·~78 65 66
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-248
12-3025
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
Page?
officials, perform the required analysis and recirculate the traffic section of the DEIR in draft status.
The Evaluation of Alternatives To The Project Is Inadequate Since the DEIR has not performed an analysis of the Project's impacts on the 1- 10 freeway system, it cannot be known if any of the Alternatives to the Project would avoid significant irnpacts the Project may have on the freeway system.
Conclusion
This concludes my current comrnents on the DEIR for the Section 24 Specific Plan Project. In surnrnary, the DEIR is deficient in multiple ways that require significant new information be added to the docurnent. Consequently, the revised docurnent must be recirculated in draft status for a full 45 day comment period
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
rl~ ,\ j-)'! ( • -I R.\ ~ SI'Ul{ T ,\ TIl)l'..: • )\.1 A 1'1 .-\(;1:: !I. I 1.: l' I 5311 Lowry Road, Union City, CA 9-!-587 tel: 510.-1-80.9-1-77 f:1X: SIO..-I-tN.9 ... 118 66 67
68 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-249
12-3026
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
Attachment 1
Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
531 J Lowry Road. Union Citr, CA 94587 tel: 510.-189.9-+77 C1X: 510.·4-/'::0.9-+70
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-250
12-3027
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
.~ \1 : [ I: N ~ i I ~ .: I: J{ I :'-\~ f· 1\:1 A N ~ G E Ivl [. t'-." T DAl"'IIEL T. SMITH, Jr.
President
EDUCATION
B/lcbeloo" of Srimce, ~gmdAppMd Sdenr~, Yale UDi\'m!I:y.. i967 Mao;1l!rofSdell£.e, TIim~ Planning, Uo.i~'8'5ify ofCa!ifontia, .Bm:~r. 1968 PROIESSION.u'REGIR'I'RATION
ClltifomiaNG. 21913 (a ... il)
ClIlifomia No. 91B (Tt-affu.)
PROfESSIONAL EXPERlE."JICE
Newdi'l No.. 1959 (Civil) W~biDg:oonNo. 2!Jo311 (Ch,il} Arimm MG. 2-2131 (~"il)
Litig:ablm GlIlrslIltmg.. Priltidi!!i [Ons;ultlltion. ffi\'e;ti!!;~a;: Mlli e;pat wilne;s te51imooy ill highwil}' dl!s.ign. transit &s~ and traffic e!Jgl.Jl.eer.in,g. matters mrooliing: cOlld~mID;uOOim.v.\)MngtI:imsporta.!IDnZrCC1l!:;S hs.us: tri'lffk accidelln inVDWlllg rughway ID!s:fgn or trnffk enginMing ktors:; ];md me-i!OO lfta'!!l~ ma.tte:li IM'Ohiing ./Ic-[I!~s;md Irn~rt.llion impacts;.pIIOOllgimd other traffic wd jIlIn~1i{ffimnt'El".:L Urblln Conidor Sladii:!IAJantlllms: Aulysis. Princip~l-m-cbm:ge rorSj/lte Route, (SR) HI:! F~;!bilitySt'ildyT a:
J5-:r:W11! fr~ill' ilhgnmarl: ~ north of.SiKI"MllI!!!;I~. Cnmultlln1 aD 1-1110 ltrtffi1Mi! Tnns:f~ C"'oceptPro,grnm.
Sm FnllociS(o, an. AAlEIS fur COO1pl~tm oH-200, ID!amli1ioB of Embmndero mway. ~ub.stitute light Iilli and CDlIlUJIItI!r :mil projeds.. Prinrjpal-in-dmge. SR 2JS ronii.lm :freewllyfl!:!:pm'SWay dl!;ignle!il~iromne.l:...jDl srudy.
Hajn-.ud (Calif.) Project iI!ilIlllgef. SarnJmKl'to -N~t ~ mw.a-modai trnn.spona.titm co:rridor !,rudy.
TrampOJtUilm plroJn1!t for I-OON \V51:THmfrutI Study. mlHubor Dm.:~ Tr 5I:\lliy, I-SR-fi fi"eewq' ID"'Ol\'5? miLiiooJ. ¢ offiri!!l'corn.m:w::ial ~ 85CD dwelling rurifi.l!lld (omnIImity far:ilLfie"i. TraIl5;lllltaEiDll:fe.lru:re:!; include re1ocat.ion -of (iJIlIlI:IIIW rail st.Uion; O:l.teniIDn.ofMUNI·Mmo LRT: itIUniti-modal. ternri:na.! forLRT • .commute! li'Iil MId 1"0[-111 bus; m!lD'L'lII of a qmmer mile: ~atl!d ~ repiManmt by M-i'V ramps: and a oollkwlIll: l!ll.:internal :roi'idway tl;!!\'ImEk: OVE![-I:~ C015lririn.t!l inIpnsed by im :immW tidal basin~ :fJ:eewa)' :'imocffiJes ;md rail. :facili£il!5~ mil mnrept pms f-lJ£ 10,000 5IIIIl:tifrI!d pllrlliDg spoc:e;. .PrinripaI-m.d!M@! fur cirruJatiOOl pWJ. to-lIC(OOIl:lIKIIBte [) million gsf of {Iiiie&'"~l ~h in.&nmtolm Bella'lli!: (\Jlaib.). PImcipa1·in-c~ for €4 ilCIe, 2 million J!,'5! mu.~-u'il! mmpl~ .. fur FMC 3~ fD Sm JC6e: Imi!ll1atiru!al AbpOlt Pi:Dj&t maBa~er for tIimspOrtation e~ of SiKIilIllI!Illi) Capiml Mea: P!m fDr the slilt-!! govmnnanal-(-omp!e~ and fDr Downtown SmimJen.tD Rede'\.-Mlpmeni Plan. Pmjed: mamger fur Napa (e!illf.) ~ Plm CirculaEicm Elw!.eDt and Dlrn'nIDwn.
Riverfront Redi!"!.~ Pllm, 00 piuki~ progmn for OOThU~o£m-u Vlallliill: Creclt, 00 OOwnroWEl tr1l!EpJffi-iIDn pllIn fM Sill!; M1iteo ml H!da~¢m fur-oowEltoWnMo1mtEn View (Calif.), rortf ":.:;::' r [{ A I·]' I ( '11{ \N~I'\JR T.-\TIOi': • !\1.·\;-..Ji\G!::!\!lf' I 5J!! Lowry Road, Union Ci(~', CA lJ-1-5S7 tel: 5!O.-W9.Y~77 ['ax: S IO.-l-iN.9-+7~
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-251
12-3028
Mr. Richard Drury
January 15,2015
Page \0
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus tenninai, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal tennillal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg.
Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for footballibaseball stadiums, indoor SPOIts arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination res01ts throughout western United States.
Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking reasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, rcsident prererential parking.
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to dcvelop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street trafiic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Cali C), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application oftmffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Palticipated in dcvclopment or photo/radar speed enforcement device and experimented with speed humps. Co-author ofInstitute of Transportation Enginecrs reference publication on neighborhood traffic control.
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington. D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau ofRcclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and ovcrcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of TranspOltation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Streef Design and li·affic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, kfission Bay Master Plan, with LM. Pci WRT Associated, 1984.
Residential Traffic Management, Slate of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et ai., U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Db·ectiol1s, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570, 1976.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Fmncisco Hay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979.
r [{ ,\ [. [. I ( • T R \ ~ S l' lJ R T .\ T r I.)" • 1\.[..\ N :\ (J I: !\I l f"' 1 531 I Lo\Vr~· Road. Union Cit:·, CA 9-l5;)7 tel: 510A:)9.9-+77 (ax: :,)IOAIN.9-lfo
2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-252
12-3029
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-253 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 7
Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), Local Union No. 1184 Richard T. Drury
Attorney, Lozeau Drury LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Response to Comment 7-1
As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, the EIS for the Project is being prepared in accordance with the Agua Caliente Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) (Tribal Ordinance No. 28) because the Project Site consists of land that is part of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) that is under the jurisdiction of the Tribe. The Tribe, which is a sovereign tribal government, is not required to comply with CEQA. The Tribe elected to prepare the EIS in compliance with both TEPA and CEQA, in accordance with Section 15221 of the CEQA Guidelines, titled “NEPA Document Ready Before CEQA Document”.
Section 15221 of the CEQA Guidelines states that when a project will require compliance with both CEQA and NEPA, state or local agencies should use the EIS rather than preparing an EIR or Negative Declaration if the EIS will be prepared before an EIR or Negative Declaration would otherwise be completed for the project, and the EIS complies with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines.
To facilitate the potential future use of the EIS to comply with CEQA by any public agency required to comply with CEQA, the Tribe prepared the EIS in compliance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines by organizing the document like an EIR, including all required content required by the CEQA Guidelines, such as providing a separate discussion of mitigation measures and growth inducing impacts, and complying with all procedural requirements, such as providing the Draft EIS to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse for distribution for review by state agencies.
The separate expert comments attached to this letter are addressed in detail below.
Response to Comment 7-2
The comment identifies the background of the Project. The Tribe prepared the Project Description in accordance with Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines in order to serve as a basis for the environmental analysis.
12-3030
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-254 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 7-3
The comment is noted and all potential impacts to the surrounding residents were identified in the Draft EIS, with the appropriate Mitigation Measures to reduce potential impacts, and provided a discussion of alternatives to the Project to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts.
Response to Comment 7-4
Pursuant to Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the fundamental purposes of CEQA are to (1) inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities, (2) identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced, (3) prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible, and (4) disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
The Tribe as the lead agency has prepared this EIS in compliance with both TEPA and CEQA in order to analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. The Tribe has identified appropriate Mitigation Measures and an environmentally superior alternative to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significance. The Tribe will consider these findings within the Record of Decision for the Project, which will be disclosed to the public. Therefore, the EIS has met the fundamental purposes of CEQA.
Response to Comment 7-5(a)
As discussed in Section 1.0, the EIS for the Project is being prepared in accordance with the Agua Caliente Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) (Tribal Ordinance No. 28) because the Project Site consists of land that is part of the Reservation that is under the jurisdiction of the Tribe. The Tribe agrees that it is the proper lead agency for TEPA purposes.
However, the Tribe, which is a sovereign tribal government, is not required to comply with CEQA 1 and is not acting as the “Lead Agency” for any “Project,” as both are defined by CEQA, so any actions taken by the Tribe are not subject to CEQA compliance.
1 28 U.S.C.A. § 1360(b); see also Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage (9th Cir. 1987) 813 F.2d 1387, 1393 (“It is beyond question that land use regulation is within the Tribe’s legitimate sovereign authority over its lands.”); In re Humboldt Fir, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1977) 426 F.Supp. 292, 296 aff’d sub nom. U.S. v. Homboldt Fir, Inc. (9th Cir. 1980) 625 F.2d 330 (“Indian trust lands are a Federal instrumentality held to effect the Federal policy of Indian advancement and therefore may not be burdened or interfered with by the State … Where a dispute involves trust or restricted property, the state may not adjudicate the dispute nor may its laws apply.”).
12-3031
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-255 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Because the Section 24 Specific Plan area is located adjacent to the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) and annexation of some or all of the Specific Plan Area may be pursued at some point in the future, the Tribe voluntarily elected to prepare the EIS in compliance with both TEPA and CEQA, in accordance with Section 15221 of the CEQA Guidelines, titled “NEPA Document Ready Before CEQA Document.” While compliance with CEQA is not required at this time, Section 15221 of the CEQA Guidelines states that when a project, or a portion thereof, will require compliance with both CEQA and NEPA at some later date, state or local agencies should use the EIS at that later date rather than preparing an EIR or Negative Declaration if: (1) the EIS will be prepared before an EIR or Negative Declaration would otherwise be completed for the project; and (2) the EIS complies with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the foregoing, these responses will address the CEQA compliance issues raised in the comments, even though any actions taken by the Tribe with respect to the Project are not subject to CEQA. The Tribe is merely responding to such CEQA comments in an effort to ensure that the Final EIS provides a thorough and complete analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on the environment, and so that the Final EIS will be useful to any public agency that may be required to comply with CEQA with respect to the Project.
To facilitate the potential future use of the EIS to comply with CEQA by any public agency required to comply with CEQA, the Tribe prepared the EIS in compliance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines by organizing the document like an EIR, including all required content required by the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, such as providing a separate discussion of mitigation measures and growth inducing impacts, and complying with all procedural requirements, such as providing the Draft EIS to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse for distribution for review by state agencies. The Tribe also consulted extensively with the City on the contents of the EIS, to ensure that the City’s input on the environmental document could be included in the EIS, prior to the Tribe considering approval of the EIS or the Project.
At such future time that any discretionary action is proposed that would require any public agency subject to CEQA to comply with CEQA, that agency, serving as Lead Agency as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, would be responsible for reviewing the Final EIS to independently determine that it complies with all the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines.
Response to Comment 7-5(b)
It is neither appropriate nor necessary to designate a CEQA lead agency at this time because (1) any actions taken by the Tribe are not subject to CEQA compliance (as discussed in Response to Comment 7- 5(a)); and (2) it is premature for any local agency to assume a lead agency role (as discussed in more detail below in Response to Comment No. 7-5(c) regarding the Amador and Parchester decisions). 12-3032
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-256 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Responses to Comment 7-5(c)
This comment overstates the state or local agency permitting authority for projects on tribal land as well as the holding in County of Amador v. City of Plymouth (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1089, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 10, 2007).
As discussed above, neither the state nor any local agency has any land use or CEQA authority over the Tribe’s lands, and it is premature to invoke CEQA for any non-Tribal activity because no local agency has proposed to approve any action with respect to the Project.
Amador involved land for which an application had been made for the United States Secretary of the Interior to take the land in trust for use by the tribe to build a casino. County of Amador at 1093-1094.
The court in Amador conceded that there was no activity by the tribe to which CEQA applied because “neither the taking of the subject lands in trust nor the Gaming Development require the formal approval of the City.” County of Amador at 1100.
Instead, the only activity in Amador that fell under CEQA was activity which the city had approved by contractually agreeing to perform the work under a municipal service agreement (“MSA”). “The public works and road vacation constitute a project subject to CEQA and the MSA constitutes the approval or contingent approval of the project.” County of Amador at 1100. The “project” for purposes of CEQA consisted of only those things which the MSA committed the city to complete rather than anything the tribe had proposed to develop on its own. County of Amador at 1097, fn. 6.
The court in Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond confirmed the narrowness of the decision in Amador.
In Amador, the appellate court found the acquisition of trust lands for a casino development was not the ‘project’ of the City of Plymouth within the meaning of CEQA precisely because ‘neither the taking of lands in trust nor the [casino development] requires the formal approval of the City’ ... Instead, the municipal services agreement involved in that case was deemed to be subject to CEQA because it unconditionally obligated the city to vacate a portion of a city road and to remodel the city’s existing fire station. The agreement also conditionally obligated the city to construct connections to the casino’s sewer and water systems and to increase system capacity to meet the needs of the casino development. (Cite.) The appellate court ‘made clear’ that the project for purposes of CEQA consisted ‘of the things which the MSA commits the City to construct.’
Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 305, 314, as modified on denial of reh’g (Mar. 25, 2010).
12-3033
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-257 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
After recognizing the narrowness of the Amador decision, the court in Parchester held that the development at issue in that case, also a casino, as well as the related MSA were both outside the scope of CEQA because CEQA did not apply to tribal land. “In our view, the Tribe’s casino development does not constitute a ‘project’ of the City under CEQA because the City has no legal authority over the property upon which the casino will be situated.” Parchester Village at 313. “CEQA applies only to ‘discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies....’” Parchester at 311.
The tribe was not a public agency.
The MSA at issue in Parchester Village was also outside of the scope of CEQA because it did not rise to the level of a CEQA “project.” The MSA “set no timeline for the construction of physical improvements and d[id] not obligate the City to undertake any specified construction project.” Parchester at 317-318. “While the MSA does indicate that the City agreed to support the Tribe’s efforts to acquire the land and to obtain the requisite approvals from the BIA and the Governor, this expression of support does not transform the casino into a ‘project’ so as to trigger the City’s preparation of an EIR.” Parchester at 313.
In the present matter, just as in Parchester, the Tribe’s proposed development is not a “project” under CEQA because (1) no public agency has regulatory authority over the tribal land and (2) there is no MSA or related agreement with a public agency, nor any other action of a public agency, proposed for approval that could be subject to CEQA.
Response to Comment 7-5(d)
As discussed above, no CEQA review is required at this time. The Tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over tribal lands, and there is no pending approval of annexation into the City by LAFCo as no application for annexation has been filed. There is also no action under consideration regarding any of the various potential approvals by the City. Thus, it is premature for CEQA designation of a “lead agency” at this time.
Nonetheless, the Tribe will revise Table 3.0-2 as indicated on Page 3.0-2 in Section 3.0 of the Final EIS to clarify that the Tribe will serve as the Lead Agency for TEPA purposes and that the City and LAFCo are potential future lead and/or responsible agencies. The Tribe will also add the Coachella Valley Water District as a potential responsible agency.
Response to Comment 7-5(e)
Once again, CEQA is inapplicable to the Project at this time. There is no rubber-stamping when the Tribe has sovereignty over its own lands.
Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1397-1398, as modified on denial of reh’g (Aug. 17, 1995), is inapplicable. The case involved the issue of independent judgment by each public agency 12-3034
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-258 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
after one public entity handed off “lead agency” designation to a second public entity. “[W]here two public agencies successively are lead agency for a project, they could likewise engage in ‘cooperative efforts,’ provided each agency exercises an independent judgment on the matters which actually come before it for decision.” Gentry at 1398. The case involved CEQA applicability from the start rather than land immune from state and local regulation due to tribal sovereignty, for which CEQA could apply in the future. Nevertheless, the Tribe and the City have engaged in “cooperative efforts” with respect to the Project’s environmental review, and the Tribe recognizes that the City or another public agency may be required to exercise independent judgment on the adequacy of the Project’s environmental review in the future, if any aspects of the Project “actually come before it for decision.” Response to Comment 7-5(f)
As discussed above, there is no “project” under CEQA due to the Tribe’s authority to regulate land use on its own lands. Tribal sovereignty also means the situation is not analogous to the commenter’s reliance on authority involving development by a private party for which public agency approval was required.
Response to Comment 7-6
Acting as the lead agency under TEPA, the Tribe analyzed potential environmental impacts of the Project through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The structure of the EIS follows the structure typically found within an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to Sections 15120 to 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts are analyzed in accordance with CEQA with feasible mitigation and alternatives identified pursuant to Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Evaluation of impacts associated with the Active Adult Community followed a project-level analysis, while the evaluation of impacts associated with the Tribal Planning Areas followed a program-level analysis. Mitigation measures to be enforced by the appropriate jurisdiction have been identified within the Draft EIS to feasibly reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significance. All identified Mitigation Measures for the Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas, as well as alternatives analyzed for the Project can be found within Section 2.0, Summary of the Draft EIS.
Response to Comment 7-7
The commenter indicated that the Project will result in “the release of a phenomenal 94,104 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year” per page 2.0-33. The commenter mistakenly adds the results of the three modeled scenarios together to result in a vastly overstated 94,104 MTCO2e per year. The Project proposed is a Specific Plan that will permit the development of the 577 acre Project Site which is divided into 8 different planning areas. The Active Adult Community is a defined portion of 12-3035
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-259 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
the Project, while the Tribal Planning Areas are conceptual with a maximum amount of 3,138,600 square feet of commercial retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses, and up to 1,406 residential units. As indicated on Page 2.0-33 of the Draft EIS which summarizes the conclusions in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gases, Project operational GHG emissions for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined Development would be 8,879.39, 39,326.09, and 45,899.94 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year, respectively; not the 94,104 MTCO2e per year as claimed in the comment.
The comment also misstates the status of currently adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions.
As explained in the Draft EIS, the SCAQMD has not officially adopted a threshold of significance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and therefore, there is not “a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold” for GHG emissions. Rather, CEQA Guidelines sections 15064 and 15064.4 calls for the lead agency to use “careful judgment…, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,” and “a lead agency should make a good faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific or factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. CEQA Guideline section 15064.4 also provides that the lead agency “shall have discretion” to determine the appropriate approach for assessing the significance of the project’s GHG emissions, which may include “a qualitative analysis,” “performance based standards,” or “a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions.” Finally, CEQA Guidelines section 15664.4 states that the lead agency should consider, among other things, the following three factors:
“ (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Here, even though the Tribe is not subject to the requirements of CEQA, its analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions carefully tracks and complies with the requirements specified in CEQA Guideline section 15064.4. First, the Draft EIS quantifies and discloses the amount of GHG emissions that will result from the Active Adult Community (8,879.39 MTC02e/year), the Tribal Planning Areas (39,326.09 MTC02e/year), and the combined total for the entire Specific Plan (45,899.94 MTC02e/year), and compared those emissions to the existing baseline environmental setting (no current GHG emissions).
However, this analysis alone is not sufficient to determine significance because impacts from GHG emissions are cumulative in nature on a nearly global basis, and therefore, all such GHG emissions assessments must be made relative to large-scale plans and programs designed to reduce impacts from GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Tribe considered the various plans, programs and standards, that have 12-3036
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-260 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
been proposed or adopted for analyzing the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, and determined that the tiered approach proposed by SCAQMD provides the most appropriate model because it parallels the state’s commitment to reduce GHG emissions by an additional 15 percent from current levels by 2020. Finally, the Draft EIS evaluates whether the Project complies with the climate action plans adopted by the City and the County of Riverside to reduce or mitigate the effects of GHG emissions.
As set forth in the Draft EIS, the Active Adult Community, the Tribal Planning Areas, and the entire Project as a whole were determined to not have a significant impact as a result of GHG emissions because under all three scenarios, the Project’s GHG emissions will be below the threshold of significance established by the Tribe (as recommended by SCAQMD) and will be consistent with the climate action plans established by the City and the County of Riverside, after taking into account the Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures set forth in the Draft EIS.
In particular, the comment misinterprets the regulatory setting surrounding GHG emissions. The 3,000 MTCO2e annual threshold that the comment references is not published in SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance for CEQA projects, but rather, is suggested as an initial screening threshold for certain types of projects. In fact, the 3,000 MTCO2e per year is a screening threshold for residential/commercial projects whereas a screening threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e per year is suggested for mixed use projects.
The tiered level of GHG analysis presented by the previously organized GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group (“Working Group”) requires additional analysis if an individual project exceeds the initial screening threshold, as described in detail on page 5.6-14 in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIS. The initial screening thresholds are not the same as the ultimate threshold for determining whether a project has significant impacts from GHG emissions, it is merely the start of the analysis.
Here, the Draft EIS contains that additional analysis recommended by SCAQMD.
By way of background, SCAQMD organized the Working Group to evaluate potential strategies to establish a tiered threshold approach for land use development projects. The Working Group convened on fifteen occasions to deliberate on assigning a metric against which to compare a project’s GHG emissions, but ultimately the group discontinued its meetings without arriving at a conclusive solution.
The Working Group reviewed 798 Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) for projects submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). During the review, the Working Group excluded general, master, and specific plans from the analyses, “because they are comprised of large regional multiuse projects as opposed to individual projects undertaken at 12-3037
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-261 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
the local level.”2 The Working Group analyses were specifically focused on individual residential, commercial, and mixed use projects. Therefore, even if the SCAQMD had decided upon a final threshold of significance for GHG, it would not be applicable to the Section 24 Specific Plan Project. The comment demonstrates a misinterpretation of the SCAQMD review process pertaining to the adoption of a quantitative CEQA threshold of significance for GHG emissions.
The comment did not identify the first two tiers to determine GHG significance. The first tier determines if the Project is exempt from CEQA, which the Project would not be if it were subject to CEQA. The second tier of analysis is to determine consistency of the Project with an adopted GHG reduction plan.
The Draft EIS and the responses below contain further discussion and clarification of consistency analysis with the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan and the City Sustainability plan, both of which are adopted, consistent with tier 2. The fourth tier of analysis proposed by the Working Group identifies three options: (1) achieve some percentage reduction in GHG emissions from a future, hypothetical base case scenario, including land use sector reductions from AB 32, (2) for individual projects, achieve a project-level efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population by 2020 or a target of 3.0 MTCO2e per year per service population by 2035; for plans, achieve a plan-level efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population year by 2020 or a target of 4.1 MTCO2e per service population by 2035, or (3) early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan measures.
The GHG analysis provided in Section 5.6 utilized Tier 2 and Tier 4, Option 1. Further clarification related to GHG analysis is presented in the response to comments below demonstrating consistency of the Project with a GHG reduction plan (per Tier 2 of the Working Groups tiered series of thresholds).
Emissions of GHGs from the Project do not exceed any applicable or adopted threshold and remain less than significant as determined in the Draft EIS, after taking into account the Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures specified in the Draft EIS.
Response to Comment 7-8
The comment incorrectly states that the GHG analysis in the Draft EIS is based upon reducing GHG emissions from the maximum level possible with buildout of the Project Site under the existing Riverside County and Rancho Mirage zoning and General Plan designations. To the contrary, the Draft EIS calculates and discloses a realistic assessment of the amount of GHG emissions the Project will generate, as compared to the existing conditions. Then, the Draft EIS analyzes the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions by using a “business as usual” comparison approach to determine consistency with the
2 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #12. Wednesday, July 29, 2009. SCAQMD. 12-3038
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-262 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
SCAQMD guidance and AB 32, as discussed above. This comparison requires analyzing construction of the Project as proposed, including meeting 2008 Title 24 residential and non-residential building standards, but without implementation of Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, or current (2014) applicable SCAQMD and CARB rules and regulations (i.e., SCAQMD Rule 403, Rule 403.1, CARB Tier 4 off-road engine requirements, etc.) designed to reduce GHG emissions to a level of less than significant. This analysis determined after the incorporation of Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and exceedance of 2008 Title 24 standards by 15 percent, the Project would substantially reduce GHG emissions from the business as usual scenario, consistent with State goals, County of Riverside reduction goals, and the City goal of 19.8 percent reduction in City GHG emissions by 2020.
Response to Comment 7-9
The comment suggests that the Draft EIS uses an approach to analyzing the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions that “has been rejected under both CEQA and NEPA.” The comment both misstates the applicable authorities and mischaracterizes the analysis in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS analyzes and discloses the GHG emissions from the Project as compared to the existing baseline of no GHG emissions.
Then, the Draft EIS utilized the appropriate “business as usual” comparison identified in the Riverside County Climate Action Plan and the City of Rancho Mirage Sustainability Plan. In order to determine if a project is consistent with the Riverside County Climate Action Plan, a project must either incorporate project design features and mitigation measures that total or exceed a score of 100 points from the checklist, or a project must compare the business as usual year 2011 emissions to the project emissions utilizing an adopted air quality model to quantify GHG emissions. If quantified emissions are reduced by a minimum of 25 percent with Project buildout when compared to the business as usual scenario, then the Project would be found consistent with the Riverside County Climate Action Plan and less than significant. As further clarified in response to comments below, the appropriate baseline according to the Riverside County Climate Action Plan is year 2011 emissions, with which the Project was properly compared in order to determine GHG significance.
As discussed and analyzed in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIS, the City of Rancho Mirage Sustainability Plan established a framework for the development and implementation of policies and programs that will reduce the City’s emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, consistent with statewide reduction goals. The Sustainability Plan identifies 82 measures to be implemented over 8 years to reduce GHG emissions by
19.8 percent from business as usual by 2020. The Project’s identified Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures are consistent with the following “Spheres” identified in the City’s Sustainability Plan:
12-3039
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-263 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
• Where We Live: energy efficient residential lighting (LIVE-6), household efficiency Audit (LIVE-8), solid waste diversion (LIVE-9 and LIVE-10), development planning (LIVE-11), and water efficient landscaping, drought tolerant landscaping (LIVE-12, LIVE-13, and LIVE-14). • Where We Work: energy efficient commercial lighting (WORK-3), integrated lighting systems (WORK-4), car-pooling and mass transit (WORK-10), telecommuting (WORK-11), and the CVWD water efficient landscape ordinance (WORK-12).
• Where We Build: sustainable parking lots (BUILD-1), cool roofs (BUILD-2), new and efficient construction (BUILD-3), plan check and permit (BUILD-4), and green building program (BUILD-5). • How We Get Around: electric vehicle charging stations (MOBILITY-4), biking and walking (MOBILITY- 6), bike, walking, NEV CV Link (MOBILITY-7), van pools (MOBILITY-9), and car sharing (MOBILITY-11). • How We Govern: transit oriented development (GOVERN-16) and water feature efficiency (GOVERN-17).
• Where We Visit and Plan: resort management (RECREATE-4), visitor shuttles (RECREATE-7), neighborhood electric vehicles (RECREATE-8), and water efficient system controls and drought tolerant landscaping (RECREATE-9 and RECREATE-10).
• How We Teach and Learn: commercial sector green business (LEARN-2) Implementation of Project Design Features, compliance with regulations, and incorporation of Mitigation Measures would ensure that the Project is consistent with the above identified City of Rancho Mirage Sustainability Plan GHG reduction measures to reduce emissions by 19.8 percent by 2020, as discussed in Section 5.6.
Moreover, none of the cases cited in the comment address the CEQA requirements for analyzing GHG emissions, including the “business as usual” comparison utilized in the Draft EIS to determine consistency with the applicable climate action plans. In the authorities cited in the comment, the lead agencies erred in comparing a Project’s impacts to a more intense permitted use on the site, to determine that the Project would have a reduced impact as compared to the more intense permitted use. That is quite different from the GHG analysis in the Draft EIS, which compares the GHG emissions and reduction measures to the goals and requirements of two adopted climate action plans to determine consistency with those plans.
Response to Comment 7-10
This comment refers to analytical review of the Draft EIS conducted by a subcontracted consulting firm, “SWAPE,” and provides an overview of their findings with regards to greenhouse gas emissions assessment. The comment addresses the methodology for determining whether a project’s greenhouse gas emissions are significant under Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. Most notably, the comment recommends using the same tiered analysis proposed by SCAQMD, including the “business as usual” 12-3040
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-264 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
comparison the commenter asserted is inappropriate in the preceding comments. The comment goes on to assert that a different option under the SCAQMD’s recommended tiered analysis would be more appropriate. As discussed above, the Tribe determined that the Tier 4, Option 1 analysis was the most appropriate option for assessing the significance of GHG emissions for this Project, and the CEQA Guidelines plainly give the lead agency the discretion to make this determination under CEQA.
The comment cites excerpts from two CEQA cases, Friends of Northern San Jacinto Valley v. County of Riverside and Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife, related to the characterization of a GHG baseline and proper definition of BAU emissions scenario. Neither case involves a published decision finding any error in the approach to analyzing GHG emissions used in the Draft EIS. The Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife litigation is currently being considered by the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court has not yet reached a final decision on the ruling, and therefore speculation about the validity of the GHG baseline assessment in that case is unfounded at this time. The evaluation of GHG emissions in the Draft EIS is consistent with the current regulatory framework, which is not undermined based on a possible future Supreme Court ruling. To the contrary, there is not one CEQA authority, in the Public Resources Code, the CEQA Guidelines, or case law, stating that the approach used in the Draft EIS is invalid. As such, the discussion of GHG emissions significance presented in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIS remains valid.
The comment goes on to suggest that comparing emissions of GHGs from Project implementation to a realistic BAU scenario would result in non-compliance with the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32.
This claim is not supported by calculations to demonstrate that the Project would in fact violate AB 32 objectives. The comment does not make reference to any local or regional Climate Action Plan to verify that Project emissions exceed local GHG emission inventory projections for achieving compliance with statewide policies.
As discussed in Section 15064.4, it is the lead agency’s discretion to determine the methodology and model during the preparation of GHG impact analysis. The commenter only states one option identified in the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency may use when assessing GHG impacts, which is the initial screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year (which SCAQMD has indicated would not apply to specific plans because it is intended to screen individual residential projects). The commenter fails to identify the other two options identified in Section 15064.4(b) that identifies, “whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.” Or “the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.” As noted in Response to Comments below, the Tribe determined that consistency with the Scoping Plan and Updated Scoping Plan reduction percentages is the appropriate threshold for this Project. The Project 12-3041
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-265 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
was found consistent with this threshold based on a reduction of GHG emissions with incorporation of Project Design Features, regional and state regulations, and implementation of Mitigation Measures to the Project. (GHG Mitigation Measures are provided in the Draft EIS as MM 5.6-1 through MM 5.6-10, discussed in Section 2.0 and Section 5.6 of the document). The reductions exceed the Statewide goals of reducing GHG emissions by 2020, as specified in AB 32. Furthermore, as discussed in Response to Comment 7-8, the Project was also found to be consistent with the City of Rancho Mirage’s Sustainability Plan that identifies implementation measures to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by 19.8 percent by 2020. The Project was also determined to be consistent with the County of Riverside’s Climate Action Plan for unincorporated areas in Riverside County.
Response to Comment 7-11
As discussed previously, the Tier 3 threshold referred to in this comment (3,000 MTCO2e/year) was not adopted by the SCAQMD and is not applicable to the Project. The Project is a specific plan, comprised of several types of land uses, and encompassing 577 acres. The SCAQMD acknowledged that general, master, and specific plans should not be analyzed for GHG impacts in the same way as individual projects due to their scale. As such, the Project does not exceed an applicable regulatory threshold established by the SCAQMD and does not cause any significant, unmitigated impacts with regards to GHG emissions. Consequently, the Project is not required to obtain emission reduction credits – or carbon offsets – to qualify for implementation under CEQA.
Response to Comment 7-12
The building design features discussed in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIS will be implemented as aspects of the Project. The language has been clarified in this Final EIS to reflect that the Project incorporated these features into its analysis of GHG emissions. This comment suggests mitigation measures that are discussed in the Draft EIS, such as passive solar achieved through building configuration (Draft EIS page
3.0-27), LED lighting installation (Draft EIS page 5.1-11), and stormwater retention/infiltration (Draft EIS page 5.5-11). Many of these measures are imposed on the Project as enforceable Mitigation Measures, as set forth in the Draft EIS at pages 5.6-32 through 5.6-35. The comment also mentions several Mitigation Measures that are clearly infeasible for the Project (i.e., wind turbines and solar panels in open spaces), reflecting a lack of familiarity with the design objectives discussed in the Draft EIS.
Contrary to the assertions made in this comment, a new Draft EIS is not warranted as no substantial changes to the Project have been identified. The purpose of this Final EIS is to update and clarify certain aspects of the Project analyses that raised questions during the public review period. The suggestion that the Project has significant GHG emissions is inappropriately founded upon a threshold that has not been adopted by the SCAQMD, and would not apply to the Project if it were adopted. As discussed 12-3042
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-266 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
previously, the Project is comprised of several land uses and cannot be evaluated in the same manner as a small-scale, individual project.
Response to Comment 7-13
The Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) utilized the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) to generate the Project’s forecasted trip generation. This forecasted trip generation was used to evaluate Project-related impacts as discussed in Section 5.14, Traffic and Transportation in the EIS. With the incorporation of the applicable Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features, these potentially significant impacts on traffic are considered to be reduced to a level of less than significance. Pursuant to Section 21166 of the CEQA Guidelines, a supplemental EIR is required when substantial changes to a Project or its circumstances have occurred, or if new information that was not previously known has become available. The analysis in Section 5.14 determined that the feasible Mitigation Measures proposed in the Draft EIS reduced all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. No new feasible Mitigation Measures have been proposed, nor has any new or substantially greater traffic impacts been identified. Therefore, a supplemental environmental document would not be needed.
Response to Comment 7-14
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip-generation rates for shopping centers were not used to determine the future horizon year 2035 daily traffic projections that would reflect traffic conditions upon full development of the Project. As stated in the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) as well as thoroughly discussed in Section 5.14, the RivTAM was used by AFSHA Consulting, Inc. (a firm approved by Riverside County to modify RivTAM) to develop total traffic volume projections for the future horizon year 2035. RivTAM was used to ensure consistency with regional transportation modeling and to avoid the need for subjective assumptions regarding which trip-generation rates are appropriate and what percentage of the future site traffic would be pass-by trips and internal trips.
RivTAM is not a land use based transportation model and does not utilize ITE trip-generation rates for shopping centers or any other land uses. The trip generation component of RivTAM uses detailed socioeconomic input data for the Project Site, as well as multinomial nested logit vehicle availability model, census household classification models, cross-classification trip production models, and regression trip attraction models on household and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) employment data to estimate total person trips, including non-motorized trips, divided into 14 trip types. The traffic analysis zones in RIVTAM reflect SCAG modeling by Census Tract. Base year and future land use forecasts provided by individual jurisdictions and Riverside County are used in developing the socio-economic input data required by RIVTAM. The 2035 SCAG population and 12-3043
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-267 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
employment growth projections were allocated by area, based on the existing and proposed future land use forecasts identified by each city. Riverside County planners provided estimates for Tribal lands and unincorporated areas. RIVTAM reflects the transportation network shown in the approved general plans of the jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley. The socioeconomic input parameters used by RivTAM for the Project Site are provided in Appendix 2 of the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS).
As discussed on page 5.14-17 in Section 5.14 of the EIS and on page 4-12 of the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS), RivTAM is approved by Riverside County and the members of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) as the regional source for future horizon year 2035 travel demand estimates. RivTAM is intended for use for transportation planning purposes throughout Riverside County by all levels of governmental jurisdiction and by private entities and as a tool to determine the potential impacts of large development proposals, General Plan land use changes, and forecasting for Transportation projects. RivTAM has been calibrated and validated for the entire six-county southern California region. Thus, the trip generation forecast that was utilized to evaluate the Project-related traffic impacts was based upon the numerous socio-economic parameters for each of the traffic analysis zones within the Project Site. Accordingly, the non-residential trips generated by the Project are based upon accurate and valid assumptions and a supplemental EIS is not warranted.
Response to Comment 7-15
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-14. RivTAM was used to avoid the need for subjective assumptions regarding what percentage of the future site traffic would be internal trips. The traffic impact analysis discussed in Section 5.14 in the EIS addressed all of the future year 2035 project-related external trips projected by RivTAM. As discussed on page 5.14-19 in Section 5.14 and page 4-5 in the Traffic Study, the internal capture rate between the proposed residential and non-residential uses on- site would be limited by the total number of residential trips. The residential trips for the Project represent approximately 14 percent of the total amount of trips generated by all the proposed uses, therefore, the conservative internal capture rate of 15 percent of residential trips was assumed for purposes of analysis. Accordingly, the traffic impact analysis, specifically the use of the internal capture rate of 15 percent, presented in Section 5.14 and in the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) addressed all of the future year 2035 Project-related external trips.
Response to Comment 7-16
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-14. As noted above, RivTAM was used to avoid the need for subjective assumptions regarding what percentage of the future site traffic would be pass-by trips. The traffic impact analysis discussed in Section 5.14 in the Draft EIS addressed all of the future year 2035 project-related external trips projected by RivTAM. As discussed on page 5.14-20 in Section 5.14 and 12-3044
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-268 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
page 4-6 in the Traffic Study, pass-by trips will be attracted to the commercial uses in the Project Site from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets. While these pass-by trips would be turning in and out of the site access points, these trips would not be new trips on the roadway network. For this reason, these trips were deducted from the background traffic when the site traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadways. The proportion of pass-by trips has been found to decrease with the size of the shopping center. While very large shopping centers, those with more than a million square feet of gross leasable area, have been found to attract as little as 19 percent of their trips from passing traffic, small shopping centers, those with less than 100,000 square feet, have been found to attract between 51 and 72 percent of their trips from traffic passing on the adjacent roadways.3 The average pass-by rate for shopping centers is 34 percent.4 Depending on the type of commercial uses developed, up to approximately 25 percent of the commercial trips could come from pass-by traffic on the adjacent streets. Since the commercial uses anticipated on-site have not been established, a conservative pass-by rate of 15 percent was assumed. Accordingly, the traffic impact analysis, specifically the use of the pass- by rate of 15 percent, presented in Section 5.14 and in the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) addressed all of the future year 2035 Project-related external trips.
Response to Comment 7-17
Exhibit C of the Riverside County Transportation Department Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide5 includes a series of signalized intersection analysis input parameters. The final paragraph on Exhibit C states the following:
“Actual signal timing and peak hour factors should be collected in the field and utilized in the existing and near-term analyses… A peak hour factor of 1.0 shall be applied to buildout traffic conditions.” As discussed on page 5.14-18 in Section 5.14, the peak hour factors determined from the peak hour traffic counts at the existing key intersection were assumed for the existing and year 2022 operational analyses. The traffic analysis used a peak hour factor of 1.0 for full development of the Project consistent with the input parameters specified by the Riverside Country Transportation Department.
The higher peak hour factor reflects future conditions with heavier traffic volumes distributed more evenly during the peak hours.
3 Stover, Vergil G., Frank J. Koepke, Transportation and Land Development (Second Edition), ITE, (2002). 4 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook – An ITE Recommended Practices, (March 2001), p. 48-57. 5 Riverside County Transportation Department, Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, (April 2008), Exhibit C, p. 16. 12-3045
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-269 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 7-18
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for monitoring freeway performance and developing plans and strategies to address any deficiencies on State Highways and other State-operated facilities, as stated on page 5.14-28 of Section 5.14 in the Draft EIS. Caltrans evaluates development projects of local and regional significance to determine if they will impact the State transportation system and works with lead agencies to develop potential mitigation measures.
District 8 of Caltrans reviewed the Draft EIS and prepared comments in a letter dated January 15, 2015 (Comment Letter No. 3). Caltrans did not require a freeway segment analysis, a weaving section analysis, or a ramp analysis to be performed.
Caltrans typically requires an operational analysis of the intersections where interchange ramps terminate at arterials that provide access to I-10. Section 5.14 of the Draft EIS included an operational analysis of the Project-related traffic impacts on the I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road, identified as Intersections 1, 2, and 7. These three intersections represent the constraining component of the closest ramps that provide access to and from I-10 in both directions. All three ramps in the Existing with development of the Active Adult Community are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours, as identified in Table 5.14-6 in Section 5.14. All three ramps in the Existing with Full Project Development are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours, as identified in Table 5.14-8. Intersection 1 during the AM peak hour and Intersections 2 and 7 during both peak hours in the Year 2035 with Full Project Development are projected to operate at LOS B or better, as identified in Table 5.14-12 in Section 5.14. Intersection 1 during the PM peak hour in the Year 2035 with Full Project Development is projected to operate at LOS D, as identified in Table 5.14-12.
The eastbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS A during the peak hours, as shown in Table 5-5 on page 5-12 of the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS).
The I-10 Route Concept Fact Sheet is currently in the process of being updated by Caltrans and will identify the future right-of-way requirements and a design concept to accommodate buildout of the local general plans with a target of maintaining LOS E during the peak periods in the urbanizing areas and LOS C in the rural areas. If the design concept achieves the goal of accommodating buildout of the local general plans, it will accommodate the Project and all project alternatives at acceptable levels of service. The Project would generate less traffic than buildout per the adopted land use designations for the Project Site in the Riverside County General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan.
Maintaining these levels of service will achieve a reasonable balance between desired levels of mobility and forecasted traffic with consideration of development abutting rights of way and constrained financial transportation resources. Accordingly, the Project would operate within the LOS identified by 12-3046
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-270 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Caltrans for ramps along the I-10 during peak hours. No supplemental analysis would be required as no new significant impacts or substantially increased impacts were identified.
Response to Comment 7-19
LIUNA contracted an environmental firm, SWAPE, to evaluate the air quality analyses prepared for the Draft EIS. The SWAPE comments are attached to the LIUNA letter as Exhibit A. A portion of SWAPE’s review was focused on the values used to characterize emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project in the California Emission Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). The comment provides an overview of the variables that SWAPE identified as being incorrect or requiring revision. The CalEEMod input files were revisited and updates were made as appropriate to maintain consistency with the air quality assessment in the text of Section 5.2, Air Quality of the Draft EIS. Specific responses to SWAPE’s comments and modifications to the CalEEMod input sheets are discussed in Response to Comment 7-41.
The comments provided by SWAPE relied upon analyses that suffered from several methodological errors and misrepresented air quality impacts from implementation of the Project. This Final EIS contains a discussion of supplemental modeling performed to address the assertions made by SWAPE.
Upon incorporating the accurate and relevant comments into the updated analyses, no additional air quality impacts were identified associated with construction and operation of the Project. Appendix 3.0 attached to this Final EIS provides technical documentation of the calculations utilized to arrive at this conclusion. A detailed discussion of the methodologies employed to respond to the SWAPE comments is provided in Response to Comment 7-47, Response to Comment 7-48, and Response to Comment 7-49.
Response to Comment 7-20
This comment claims that emissions of criteria air pollutants generated during construction and operation of the Project were not accurately quantified, and suggests that these emissions were not adequately abated using the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIS. Extensive supplemental analyses were conducted to evaluate the SWAPE comments pertaining to emissions quantification.
Updated CalEEMod development scenarios for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and the Combined Scenario were processed. Results of the supplemental assessment for the Final EIS determined that the SWAPE comments lacked validity regarding determination of significance for air quality impacts. Findings and conclusions of the Final EIS air quality assessment are presented in Response to Comment 7-49.
The Draft EIS provides an extensive array of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The comment does not make any effort to determine whether or not the recommended Mitigation Measures are feasibly applicable to the Project. 12-3047
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-271 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
In fact, several of the mitigation measures suggested in the comment have already been incorporated into the Project, such as improved bicycle lanes (Draft EIS pp. 5.9-12, 5.9-14, 5.9-17, 5.9-19, 5.9-23) and low VOC paints (Draft EIS pages 3.0-30, 5.2-25). Additional Mitigation Measures presented in Section
3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIS include, but are not limited to:
• Energy Star appliances;
• Electric car charging stations;
• Solar roofing;
• Solar water heating; and
• Passive solar configuration.
It appears that the reviewer did not account for many of the Mitigation Measures that are already incorporated into the Project. The Mitigation Measures discussed in the Draft EIS are reiterated several times throughout this Final EIS. The Mitigation Measures remain adequate and reduce Project emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs to the maximum extent feasible.
Response to Comment 7-21
This comment erroneously claims that the Draft EIS did not calculate emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) that will be generated during Project construction. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is the primary TAC released in the exhaust of construction equipment. The CalEEMod – developed by the California Air Resources Board and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association – produces estimates of CAP and GHG emissions for land use development projects. One of the chemicals that are quantified is DPM from construction equipment. Emissions of DPM for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and the Combined Scenario were presented in Appendix B to the Draft EIS. This comment is incorrect in asserting that TAC emissions were not calculated in the Draft EIS.
Updated emissions estimates for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined Scenario were processed in CalEEMod for this Final EIS, and are attached as Appendix 3.0. Estimates of DPM emissions were used to prepare a screening health risk assessment (HRA) for nearby residential receptors during Project construction in accordance with SCAQMD and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidance. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgates the AERSCREEN software as the preferred screening air dispersion model; AERSCREEN was used to simulate maximum reasonable concentrations of DPM at off-site receptor locations during Project construction. The modeled concentrations were used to calculate cancer risks to adults, children, and infants living in the vicinity of the Project. The cancer risks to adults, children, and infants calculated in this supplemental screening HRA were 0.69 in one million, 3.85 in one million, and 6.53 in one million, 12-3048
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-272 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
respectively. The SCAQMD threshold of significance for cancer risk to an individual is 10.0 in one million, therefore the Project will not pose significant cancer risks to nearby residents. A thorough discussion of the Final EIS HRA formulation is presented in Response to Comment 7-47, Response to Comment 7-48, and Response to Comment 7-49.
SWAPE’s calculations were reviewed and it was determined that the methodology suffered from several flaws, as discussed in Response to Comment 7-47, rendering the results unreliable. The comment is unfounded in its assertions and does not accurately reflect cancer risks posed by implementation of the Project.
Response to Comment 7-22
The potential impacts to sensitive plant and animal species was analyzed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources of the Draft EIS. As discussed on page 5.3-11 in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIS, two habitat conservation plans (HCPs) have been prepared in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) addresses approximately 1.2 million acres in the Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains. Because approximately 69,000 acres of Indian reservation lands are not included in the CVMSHCP area the acreage covered by the plan is about 1.1 million acres. The Agua Caliente Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP) addresses approximately 31,500 acres of land within the Reservation.
The THCP establishes conservation areas to be dedicated as habitat preserves which would be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of covered species. The habitat preserve would be assembled through land dedications, restrictions, or conditions on covered projects through the adoption of development standards, assessment of fees, and other mitigation measures to ensure the covered projects are approved consistent with the THCP. The Tribe is currently collecting mitigation fees to be used to purchase conservation lands to implement the THCP.
As identified in Section 5.3, Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-1 will require payment of the THCP that will be collected to purchase conservation lands to implement the THCP. Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-2 follows the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols to ensure that an incidental take does not occur to a burrowing owl. Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-3 requires breeding surveys to be conducted prior to construction to ensure that no impacts or a take does not occur to a Loggerhead shrike. These Mitigation Measures are required to be implemented prior to construction activities to ensure that no significant impacts will occur to sensitive plant and wildlife species within the Project Site, and therefore, do not defer measures to a later date. Accordingly, the Project will result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. Please also see the responses to Comment Letter No. 8 regarding the analysis and mitigation of impacts to biological resources. 12-3049
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-273 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 7-23
While this EIS follows the structure of CEQA, this EIS is prepared in accordance with TEPA with the Tribe serving as the appropriate lead agency. Pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public review and before certification. The lead agency must provide notice of the recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Section 21092 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant impacts related to air contaminants, criteria air pollutants, and greenhouse gases have been analyzed in compliance with CEQA within Section 5.2 and Section 5.6 in this Draft EIS. The Project’s potentially significant traffic impacts are analyzing in compliance with CEQA within Section 5.14 in this Draft EIS. Based on comments received on the Draft EIS, the Final EIS provides additional information to clarify the analysis presented in the Draft EIS. Any revisions or clarifications in the text of the Draft EIS can be found in Section 3.0 of the Final EIS. As presented in this Final EIS, no new significant environmental impact would result from the Project nor is a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented as a result of the comments received. As clarified for air quality, greenhouse gas, biological resources, and traffic analysis, no substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur nor was a feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed to lessen significant environmental air quality impacts identified for the Project. As discussed in the EIS, all analysis presented herein was based on facts provided by technical experts and on available research to support the identified environmental impacts. No new significant information has been added to this EIS nor has any new information become available that was previously unknown; therefore, the recirculation of a supplemental EIS is not required to further address these particular impacts.
Response to Comment 7-24
The comment is noted and will be reviewed by the Tribal Council in their consideration of the Record of Decision for the Project.
Response to Comment 7-25
This comment identifies a conclusion of the SWAPE reviewer that emissions of criteria air pollutants generated by construction and operation of the Project are not adequately mitigated. The comment is expanded upon within subsequent comments in the letter. Responses have been prepared to elaborate and clarify information regarding characterization and mitigation of criteria air pollutants from construction and operation of the Project in successive responses. As set forth in these responses, the Draft and Final EIS do adequately disclose, evaluate and mitigate construction and operational criteria air pollutants to the maximum extent feasible.
12-3050
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-274 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 7-26
This comment suggests that the Draft EIS did not properly evaluate potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors that may result from of using diesel-fueled heavy equipment during Project construction. Estimates of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions are provided in the CalEEMod output files in Appendix B of the Draft EIS along with criteria air pollutants and GHG for construction and operation of the Project. To address comments received from LIUNA and SWAPE, certain parameters input to CalEEMod were updated to ensure consistency with the analyses discussed in the Draft EIS. Section 5.2 on page 5.2-42 provides a discussion of potential toxic air contaminant impacts on residents within the Project Site. The updated CalEEMod files are attached to this Final EIS as Appendix
3.0. Updates to Section 5.2 are provided in Section 3.0 of this Final EIS.
Emissions of DPM from construction equipment would be spread out over the course of 18 years between construction of the Active Adult Community and the Tribal Planning Areas. Furthermore, the Draft EIS identifies that Tier 4 interim diesel equipment will be used to substantially reduce atmospheric releases of DPM during construction of the Project. To further elaborate on the analysis presented in the EIS, the CalEEMod output files were revised to clarify that estimates of exhaust DPM emissions during construction, and the revised results confirm that the Project would not result in significant impacts to residents surrounding the Project Site. To clarify, the CalEEMod output files were utilized to prepare a screening HRA. Subsequent responses, and Response to Comment 7-49, provide a more elaborate discussion of potential DPM impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Estimates of DPM emissions from construction equipment were extracted from the updated CalEEMod output files, attached to this Final EIS as Appendix 3.0. As a conservative approach, and following SWAPE’s recommendation, equipment usage counts were doubled for the Tribal Planning Areas construction to account for the potential shortening of the construction schedule. An emission rate was calculated for each year of construction based on maximum daily emissions of DPM during that year.
Each emission rate was plugged in to AERSCREEN, the screening-level air dispersion model promulgated for regulatory purposes by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
The model produced maximum single-hour concentrations of DPM at downwind distances of sensitive receptors, which were converted to approximate maximum annual concentrations using a 10 percent scaling factor. Cancer risks were calculated for adult, child, and infantile exposures to the modeled concentrations. Over the consolidated 6.73 years of Combined Scenario construction, cancer risks to adult, child, and infant receptors were approximately 0.69 in one million, 3.85 in one million, and 6.53 in one million, respectively. The SCAQMD threshold of significance for cancer risk is 10 in one million.
Results of the screening HRA concluded that no new significant air quality impacts will occur to sensitive receptors from Project construction. Accordingly, impacts will remain less than significant. 12-3051
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-275 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 7-27
The Draft EIS provides an extensive discussion of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures that will be implemented to reduce energy consumption and emissions of GHGs. Project Design Features are addressed in Section 5.2, on pages 5.2-25 to 5.2-26, and in Section 5.6 on pages 5.6-21 to 5.6-22. These PDFs and Mitigation Measures substantially reduce the Project’s environmental impacts associated with GHG emissions. Please also see Responses to Comments 7-7 through 7-12, above, regarding the GHG emissions analysis in the Draft EIS.
The comment suggests that the BAU scenario defined for the Project in the Draft EIS was improperly characterized. The comment does not acknowledge or reference the approved and adopted 2012 Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). The 2012 CAP provides a methodology for determining whether or not implementation of a project will result in significant air quality impacts. As originally discussed in Response to Comment 7-7, SCAQMD unofficially recommended a 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold for individual projects. This screening criterion was incorporated into the 2012 CAP, but does not apply to large scale developments such as the Project. For those projects exceeding the 3,000 MTCO2e screening criterion, or those that are too large to evaluate against a simple metric, the 2012 CAP offers the following alternative for GHG emission quantification in unincorporated areas of the county to demonstrate compliance with AB 32:
Analysis of development projects not using the screening tables should use the latest version of the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Two modeling runs should be completed. The first modeling run calculates GHG emissions at 2011 levels of efficiency using energy efficiency standards (Title 24) and the California Air Resources Board on road vehicle emissions factors (EMFAC2012) set at 2011. A second modeling run is required that calculates GHG emissions at Project buildout year levels of efficiency and includes Project design features and/or mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions such that the levels of efficiency result in a 25% reduction of GHG emissions compared to the model run using the 2011 levels of efficiency.
The 2012 CAP identifies 2011 as the BAU year that emission reduction strategies should be compared against. The baseline is defined by 2011 GHG emissions that are not reduced beyond Title 24 levels, as this was the regulatory framework for GHG emissions mitigation when the 2012 CAP was prepared.
Updated CalEEMod runs were processed for the 2011 Combined Scenario without mitigation beyond Title 24. The Draft EIS BAU scenario was conducted using a 2022 operational baseline as a conservative approach. Incorporating the 2011 baseline, as recommended by the 2012 CAP, actually increases the unmitigated BAU annual estimate from 82,065.58 MTCO2e per year – as stated on page 5.6-29 of the Draft EIS – to 96,236.10 MTCO2e per year based on the less recent CARB emission factors. The comment 12-3052
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-276 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
is erroneous in its interpretation of the Project BAU scenario, and the Draft EIS was overly conservative in using 2022 as the operational baseline.
The updated CalEEMod runs completed to supplement the Final EIS calculated that annual emissions of GHGs from the Combined Scenario after mitigation would be 46,481.27 MTCO2e. The 2012 CAP requires that a 25 percent reduction compared to the 2011 emissions be achieved through implementation of mitigation measures. The total annual 2011 Combined Scenario emissions are 96,236.10 MTCO2e per year. Comparing the updated Final EIS operational GHG annual emissions (46,481.27 MTCO2e/year) to the 2011 scenario as recommended per the 2012 CAP guidance, mitigation measures for the Project will achieve a reduction of approximately 52 percent in GHG emissions. This value is more than double the required 25 percent stated in the 2012 CAP, and no further consideration of mitigation measures is required.
Response to Comment 7-28
This Final EIS was prepared to address comments received on the Draft EIS, in accordance with TEPA.
Clarifications and updates presented in the Final EIS do not represent significant new information regarding environmental impacts of the Project. Because the EIS has been prepared in accordance with both TEPA and CEQA, CEQA Guidelines 15088.5 states when a Draft EIS must be recirculated and only if significant new information is added, such as:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it;
4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
None of these conditions apply to the Project with regards to air quality and greenhouse gases.
Information in the Final EIS has been updated to clarify information provided in the Draft EIS.
Accordingly, the Draft EIS does not need to be required to be recirculated prior to Project approval. As discussed in the Responses to Comment 7-5 above, if and when a lead agency under CEQA proposes to take any action on the Project, that agency will need to independently determine the adequacy of the 12-3053
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-277 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
existing environmental review under CEQA, including whether the Final EIS needs further revisions and/or recirculation.
Response to Comment 7-29
This comment refers to the air pollutants that will exceed applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) emissions thresholds of significance during construction and operation of the Project, and suggests that additional mitigation measures available that should be incorporated into the Project. All feasible mitigation measures have been identified and, as determined in San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (Aug. 26, 2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, not every infeasible mitigation measure is required to be discussed. Furthermore, Section 21002 of the CEQA Guidelines states a project should not be approved if there are feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. The Project identified feasible mitigation to reduce air quality impacts during construction and operation. Implementation of the suggested measures identified in Comment 7-31 would not substantially reduce these significant air quality impacts.
The definition of feasible, per Section 21061.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Response to Comment 7-30
The comment correctly identifies the mitigation measures to reduce significant construction and operational VOC impacts. The Draft EIS did identify significant VOC impacts during construction of the Tribal Planning Area and Combined Project (Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Area) scenarios. The VOC emissions during construction of the Tribal Planning Areas would be 126.21 pounds per day, 51.21 pounds per day over the SCAQMD construction threshold of 75 pounds per day for VOC.
The VOC emissions during construction of the Combined Project would be 278.94 pounds per day, 203.94 pounds per day over the SCAQMD construction threshold. The reported construction emissions in Section 5.2 included reductions from Project Design Features, SCAQMD regulations, and the identified Mitigation Measures to reduce the significant impacts to the extent feasible.
Response to Comment 7-31
As discussed in Response to Comment 7-29 and 7-30, the identified VOC emissions during the construction phases for the Tribal Planning Area and the Combined Scenarios included incorporation of Project Design Features, compliance with SCAQMD regulations, and reductions from the identified 12-3054
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-278 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Mitigation Measures. VOC emissions during operation for all three scenarios included all Project Design Features, compliance with regulations, and reductions from Mitigation Measures.
The commenter identified three other mitigation measures to reduce VOC emissions. The use of zero VOC paint, construct buildings that do not require paint, and require the use of spray equipment with greater transfer efficiencies.
Project Design Feature PDF 5.2-5 indicates that the Project construction contractor will be required to use low and zero VOC paints, finishes, adhesives, caulks, and other substances to improve indoor air quality and reduce the harmful health effects of off-gassing. Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-1 requires the use of paint with VOC emissions below the required 50 grams per Liter SCAQMD requirement; a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent for high-pressure, low-volume paint applicators by construction contractors; utilize construction and building materials that do not require painting; and prepainted materials. As discussed in Response to Comment 7-30, implementation of mitigation still resulted in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds by a minimum of 51.21 pounds per day under the Tribal Planning Area construction scenario and a minimum of 203.94 pounds per day under the combined construction scenario. As discussed in Section 5.2 on page 5.2-46, the precise quantification of VOC emission reductions cannot be determined accurately as it cannot be determined precisely how much prepainted construction materials and materials that require no painting will be used in the development of the Project. Under the assumption that the identified mitigation measures reduce construction VOC emissions by a maximum of 30 pounds per day, the Tribal Planning Areas would still exceed the 75 pound per day VOC standard during construction by 20 pounds per day. The Project would continue to result in significant VOC impacts during construction for the Tribal Planning Area and Combined Project scenarios, with the incorporation of Project Design Features PDF 5.2-5 and implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-2 and MM 5.6-10.
Response to Comment 7-32
The commenter incorrectly quotes information in the Draft EIS. The commenter indicates that the Draft EIS “claims no feasible Mitigation Measures are available to reduce…operational…NOx…emissions below SCAQMD regional thresholds (p. 5.3-2)”. First, Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIS included the discussion on the environmental setting, applicable regulations, potential impacts, and mitigation to reduce impacts on air quality to less than significant. Second, Mitigation Measures have been identified to reduce NOx, specifically Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-2 that will require construction equipment to utilize Tier 4 engines or better during construction and Mitigation Measures MM 5.6-10 that will require the use of employment based trip and vehicle miles traveled policies for the use of alternative transportation to reduce operational NOx emissions.
12-3055
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-279 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
The commenter indicates that the Draft EIS states that the Project “implements all feasible mitigation measures and complies with all applicable SCAQMD Rules directed toward reduction of NOx emissions,” and that “no feasible mitigation measures exist that would further substantively reduce these emissions” (p. 4.3-32). First, Section 4.0, Environmental Setting is 22 pages in length, so page 4.3-32 does not exist. Second, Section 5.2 does not contain the quoted sentence identified above or in this comment. The Draft EIS does acknowledge that operational NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Mitigation Measures were identified to reduce NOx emissions during all construction scenarios to below the SCAQMD threshold of 100 pounds per day. Mitigation Measures were also identified to reduce operation related NOx emissions to the extent feasible. However, the operational emissions for the Tribal Planning Area and Combined Project scenarios continued to exceed SCAQMD thresholds by 119.8 pounds per day and 206.2 pounds per day, respectively.
Response to Comment 7-33
The recommended measures identified by the commenter have been included in the Draft EIS. As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description in Figure 3.0-9, Existing and Conceptual Public Transportation System Plan, there are 4 identified SunLine bus stops located adjacent to the Project Site near the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. As part of the Project, two new bus stops will be proposed near the Ramon Road and Los Alamos Road intersection to provide residents and employees increased access to public transportation. Three future neighborhood circulator stops will also be incorporated within the Project Site to provide residents and employees to public transportation. Additionally, Mitigation Measures MM 5.6-10 requires project proponents to offer services to encourage the use of alternative transportation.
Greenhouse gas emissions were found to be less than significant with incorporation of Project Design Features and implementation of Mitigation Measures, as discussed in Section 5.6.
As identified in Section 3.0, in Figure 3.0-5, Conceptual Open Space Plan, the interior of the Project Site will include a pedestrian trail connection between the Active Adult Community (Planning Area 8) and the Tribal Planning Areas (Planning Areas 1 through 7). Furthermore, Figure 3.0-8, Conceptual Pedestrian and Alternative Vehicle Circulation Plan, identifies numerous pedestrian, bicycle paths, and golf cart paths within the interior of the Project Site. As shown in Figure 3.0-8, on-street neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) paths have been identified bisecting the Active Adult Community, as well as providing connections to all Planning Areas within the Tribal Planning Area along the internal roadways. Sidewalks and bicycle paths have also been identified along major roadways within the Project Site. A pedestrian trail is also proposed to provide access by residents to the Tribal Planning Areas along the boundary of the Active Adult Community. Greenhouse gas emissions were found to be less than significant with 12-3056
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-280 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
incorporation of Project Design Features and implementation of Mitigation Measures, as discussed in Section 5.6.
Response to Comment 7-34
The CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines referenced in this comment were prepared in August 2011 by the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), whose jurisdiction is limited to a northern desert portion of Los Angeles County. The Project Site, comprised of the Active Adult Community (identified as Planning Area 8 in Section 3.0) and the Tribal Planning Areas (identified as Planning Areas 1 through 7 in Section 3.0), is located in the Coachella Valley, which falls under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Please note that the Tribe is not subject to the rules and regulations of SCAQMD, but for purposes of analysis, has utilized the SCAQMD guidance for the Draft EIS. While consideration of guidelines formulated by other air districts can aid in the preparation of air quality assessments, conformance with those air quality guidelines is not required and could potentially create a risk of inconsistencies with the applicable guidance. The air quality and greenhouse gas analyses presented in the Draft EIS were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, the SCAQMD Rule Book, and applicable regulations for mitigating emissions.
The comment suggests that the Draft EIS did not adequately address the data values that were used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the Project. The CalEEMod is the preferred regulatory model promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for estimating emissions from land use development projects. The model is designed to accept user-input data describing project-specific characteristics, and relies upon default data derived through a survey of facilities in California to generate estimated emissions of CAPs, ozone precursors (oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds), and GHGs associated with construction and operational phases of implementing a proposed project. When project-specific data is not available, CalEEMod utilizes default values to characterize emissions from phases of construction, associated vehicle trips, and operational emissions from mobile, area, and stationary sources.
The CalEEMod run that was prepared for the Draft EIS (in Appendix B) did not rely upon unsubstantiated assumptions, as the comment suggests. Each user-input value was selected based on correspondence with the Applicant and Project-specific parameters determined through the air quality analyses. The CalEEMod program automatically fills in data corresponding to user-input information for land uses within the project. Modification of the default values filled in by the model are shown on pages five to eight of Appendix B of the Draft EIS. Each of the values that was changed was discussed in Section 5.2 starting on page 5.2-21 of the Draft EIS. There were no instances where a value was modified from the 12-3057
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-281 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
default provided by the model unless specified in the text of the Draft EIS or denoted in the CalEEMod remarks. Specific parameters are discussed in the following responses.
Response to Comment 7-35
The focus of this comment refers to the acreage of the site that will be graded during construction of the Project Site. The total acreage of the site upon which the Project will be developed is approximately 577 acres, and the entirety of the site will be graded during the construction phase of the Project. The text of the Draft EIS is consistent in its designation of the area to be graded (see page 5.2-23 and 5.2-24 in Section 5.2). However, based on the user-defined land use inputs, CalEEMod assigned a default value of 450 acres for grading. This value remained unchanged as it did not appear within the list of value modifications in Appendix B to the Draft EIS. An updated CalEEMod run was prepared to address the total site acreage to be graded, and the default value of 450 acres was updated to 577 acres to comply with the description of the Project in the Draft EIS. A thorough discussion of the updated modeling results is presented in subsequent responses. As discussed in Response to Comment 7-37 refinement of the model to include 577 acres of grading area did not substantially increase on-site fugitive dust emissions. No additional air quality impacts were identified with the updated value input into the CalEEMod model.
Response to Comment 7-36
This comment refers to the number of construction worker trips that will be required during the utilities trenching phase of constructing the Project. The comment identifies a discrepancy between the value given in the text of the Draft EIS (page 5.2 -23 in Section 5.2) and the default number of worker trips generated by CalEEMod (Appendix B to the Draft EIS, page 15). The value was updated and an updated CalEEMod run was prepared, as discussed in Response to Comment 7-35. The amendment resulted in a total addition of approximately 600 worker trips over five and a half months of trenching activities. The change in the input value did not generate a substantial increase to estimated emissions from trenching activities or significant impacts related to air quality. The results of the updated analysis are more extensively discussed in ensuing responses, and no additional consideration of mitigation measures is warranted.
Response to Comment 7-37
User-defined equipment lists were prepared for the Active Adult Community, and for the Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined CalEEMod scenarios in the Draft EIS. The comment has been considered and updated CalEEMod runs, as mentioned above, were prepared for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined scenarios. Results of the revised modeling scenarios are more comprehensively discussed in Response to Comment 7-41, and the output files are provided in 12-3058
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-282 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Appendix 3.0 to this Final EIS. As a conservative approach, the two equipment lists for the Active Adult Community Trenching and Combined Scenario Trenching were merged and duplicate pieces of equipment were removed. Table 1, Updated Trenching Equipment List and Usage Rates, identifies the equipment and usage rates that were incorporated into the updated CalEEMod runs, as well as the estimates of total daily emissions for the two scenarios. Ultimately, a Signal Board and a Trencher were added to the Combined Scenario list from the Draft EIS CalEEMod runs (Appendix B to the Draft EIS).
Table 1
Updated Trenching Equipment List and Usage Rates
Equipment Type
Draft EIS
Active
Adult
Count
Draft EIS
Active
Adult
Usage
Hours
Draft EIS
Combined
Count
Draft EIS
Combined
Usage
Hours
Final EIS
Trenching
Count
Final EIS
Trenching
Usage
Hours*
Air Compressor 0 N/A 1 6.0 1 6.0
Forklift 1 4.0 4 4.0 1 8.0
Generator Set 0 N/A 1 8.0 1 8.0
Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.0 2 8.0 2 8.0
Signal Board 1 8.0 0 N/A 1 8.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 N/A 3 7.0 3 7.0
Trencher 1 6.0 0 N/A 1 6.0
Welder 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0
*Usage hours for Combined FEIS CalEEMod emissions modeling were all set to 8 for maximum emissions scenario.
Trenching emissions were included in both the Active Adult Community and Combined Scenarios for the updated Final EIS CalEEMod runs. As noted in the Table 1, for the Combined Scenario, all equipment was assumed to be operating for eight hours per day to maximize emissions estimates during this phase of construction. The emissions estimates during the 2016 Trenching and Grading phase for the Draft EIS Active Adult Community and Combined Scenarios, Final EIS Active Adult Community and Combined Scenarios, and the incremental increases based on updated inventory data are presented in Table 2, Comparison of Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during 2016 Trenching/Grading.
12-3059
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-283 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Table 2
Comparison of Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during 2016 Trenching/Grading Pollutant (pounds/day)
Scenario VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
DEIS Active Adult Comm. 1.64 29.72 57.03 0.10 3.48 1.53 FEIS Active Adult Comm. 2.04 37.544 70.08 0.12 3.82 1.62 Incremental Increase 0.40 7.82 13.05 0.02 0.34 0.09
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
FEIS Exceeds? No No No No No No
DEIS Combined 2.00 37.03 68.28 0.11 3.79 1.65
FEIS Combined 2.66 42.84 73.30 0.12 4.21 1.98
Incremental Increase 0.66 5.81 5.02 0.01 0.42 0.33
SCQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
FEIS Exceeds? No No No No No No
The updated CalEEMod emissions were incorporated into the remainder of the analysis for the Final EIS air quality assessment. Results of the updated Final EIS analysis for the Trenching emissions demonstrate that no significant incremental increases occurred through the merging of construction equipment inventories for the previously defined Draft EIS Active Adult Community and Combined Scenarios. The updated emissions estimates do not exceed the SCAQMD construction thresholds of significance for any of the criteria pollutants, and therefore the conclusions of the analysis have not changed. Therefore, the identified significant VOC air quality impacts during construction would remain significant and the incremental increase in construction emissions for NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would remain less than significant.
Response to Comment 7-38
As stated throughout the Draft EIS and in Table 2-1 of the Traffic Study (Appendix G to the Draft EIS), the total maximum population that the completed Project will accommodate is 4,331 individuals. This is based on the assumption that the overall Project population density would not exceed 1.8 persons/household with 2,406 total dwelling units, and was the population used in deriving traffic study circulation projections. The traffic study circulation projections were manually input to CalEEMod for operational vehicle trips to reflect the most accurate representation of future traffic conditions.
Therefore, the population values presented in the land use table in the CalEEMod output files are not directly tied to the estimates for vehicle trips, which are based on the traffic study.
The reviewer suggests that population values in CalEEMod were underestimated and references a Remark in the CalEEMod output files. The CalEEMod files were prepared in July 2014, prior to receipt of the final Traffic Study for the Project. The population estimates in the Draft EIS CalEEMod files included 2,340 for the Active Adult Community and 2,028 for the Tribal Planning Areas, as shown in Appendix B 12-3060
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-284 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
to the Draft EIS, for a total population of 4,368. This value is greater than the maximum anticipated population of 4,331, and therefore the CalEEMod population was overstated relative to the actual Project specifications derived from the Traffic Study (Appendix G to the Draft EIS).
The comment recommends that the CalEEMod population estimates be updated to reflect the Remark that population for each housing type was calculated by multiplying the number of dwelling units by a factor of 1.95. The Remark was denoted prior to receipt of the final Traffic Study, wherein it was denoted that the total Project population density would not exceed 1.8. As discussed in Section 5.11.B.2 of the Draft EIS, the Active Adult Community would accommodate up to 2,160 new residents, and the Tribal Planning Areas would house up to 2,171 inhabitants, for a total of 4,331. These numbers have replaced the previous population values of 2,352 and 2,028, respectively, in the updated CalEEMod runs attached to the Final EIS as Appendix 3.0. The vehicle trips and energy use calculations relied upon these population values, and therefore the updated information has no effect on the emission estimation for operational sources in CalEEMod.
Response to Comment 7-39
This comment addresses the characterization of construction equipment usage for the Combined Scenario in the Draft EIS. The reviewer asserts that because the duration of the Tribal Planning Areas construction period was shortened by approximately half to be concurrent with the Active Adult Community development, the number of equipment should have been doubled, citing a Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) document. As discussed previously, the Project is located in the Coachella Valley and falls under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Guidelines and regulations set forth by other air districts are not directly applicable to the Project under CEQA.
However, the assertion is conceptually sound and has been incorporated into the updated CalEEMod emissions estimates provided with the Final EIS as Appendix 3.0. To be overly conservative, it was assumed that all construction equipment would be operating for eight hours each day under the Combined Scenario. The equipment inventory for the Building Construction and Architectural Coating phases were doubled, and the schedule of construction phases was preserved from the original Active Adult Community and Combined Scenarios. A thorough discussion of the parameters that were updated for the Final EIS supplemental CalEEMod scenarios is presented in Response to Comment 7-41.
Response to Comment 7-40
As mentioned on pages 5.2-23 and 5.2-24 of the Draft EIS, it is anticipated that all off-site travel during construction will take place on paved roads. The Project is bounded by paved roads on all sides: Ramon Road to the north, Bob Hope Drive to the east, Dinah Shore Drive to the south, and Los Alamos Road to the west. All construction worker, vendor, and hauling trips are expected to access the site via one of 12-3061
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-285 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
these existing roadways. On-site fugitive dust emissions are automatically incorporated into the CalEEMod estimates; changing the percentage of travel on paved roads only affects off-site fugitive emissions calculations. The comment suggests that assuming 100 percent travel on paved roads was unrealistic. Appendix D to the CalEEMod user guide provides default values for paved road travel. Within SCAQMD, paved road travel is assumed to be 100 percent. Additionally, at the county level, paved road travel is assumed to be 100 percent by default for all of Riverside County. There is no legitimate reason to assume that off-site construction traffic would be traversing unpaved roads, and this default value remained unchanged in the updated CalEEMod runs prepared for the Final EIS.
Response to Comment 7-41
Updated CalEEMod runs were prepared to address the assertions within this comment regarding grading acreage, construction equipment usage, and population data. Table 3, Parameters Updated for Final EIs CalEEMod Runs, provides an overview of the parameters that were updated based on comments and review of the Draft EIS text. Each value selected for the updated CalEEMod runs is justified with a description in the final column of the table, citing either text in the Draft EIS or an alternative reference value.
Table 3
Parameters Updated for Final EIS CalEEMod Runs
Parameter DEIS Value
LIUNA
Value
FEIS
Value Citation/Justification
Grading Acreage 450 577 577 Entire Project Site will be graded; Default CalEEMod value replaced.
Active Adult Community
Population
2,340 N/A 2,160 Updated CalEEMod input value to
match text of DEIS (p. 5.11-5).
Tribal Planning Areas Population 2,028 2,352 2,171 Updated CalEEMod input value to match text of DEIS (p. 5.11-5).
Trenching Worker Trips 15 20 20 Updated CalEEMod input value to match text of DEIS (pp. 5.2-23, 5.2-
24).
Combined Scenario Tribal Planning
Areas Equipment Counts
Single Double Double Tribal Planning Area equipment
counts were doubled for the
Combined Scenario and all usage
rates were set to 8 hours to maximize
emissions.
Incorporating the updates mentioned above, CalEEMod runs were processed and model outputs were evaluated against SCAQMD thresholds for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined Scenarios. As discussed in Response to Comment 7-40, the percentage of paved roads upon 12-3062
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-286 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
which workers would be traveling to the site remained unchanged at 100%. This value is consistent with the default data tables provided in Appendix D to the CalEEMod User’s Guide and with existing surface street conditions surrounding the Project Site. There is no evidence to suggest that off-site construction worker travel would occur on unpaved roads, as the commenter suggests.
The updated CalEEMod runs are attached to this Final EIS as Appendix 3.0. When comparing the updated emissions estimates to those presented in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIS (Tables 5.2-6 to 5.2-11, pages 5.2-30 to 5.2-37), no additional instances of exceeding SCAQMD thresholds of significance were incurred by revising the input values. The estimates calculated by the reviewer are not representative of anticipated construction emissions for particulate matter due to the assumption regarding percentage of paved roads. The tables in Section 3.0 of this Final EIS display the updated CalEEMod emissions estimates for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined Scenarios.
As evidenced by the emissions estimates in the tables on pages 3.0-3 through 3.0-6, the updated parameters for Project construction and operation did not result in any additional significant air quality impacts. No new Mitigation Measures are required based on the updated emissions estimates. The estimates prepared by the reviewer are not as accurately representative of Project conditions, as they overestimate fugitive dust generation from construction activities. As described in the Draft EIS, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-1 and MM 5.2-2 will reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, but significant and unavoidable air quality impacts previously disclosed in the Draft EIS will remain.
Response to Comment 7-42
This comment relies on inaccurately calculated emissions estimates to assert that implementation of the Project will result in additional cumulatively considerable air quality impacts relative to those disclosed in the Draft EIS (page 5.2-38). The CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines) specifies that cumulatively considerable impacts should be evaluated for criteria air pollutants, “for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).” The Project is situated in Coachella Valley, which is in nonattainment for ozone. Therefore, only emissions of ozone precursors exceeding applicable thresholds may be characterized as cumulatively considerable.
The SCAQMD prepared a white paper in 2003 to address cumulatively considerable impacts. The document states that a CEQA document,
may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project’s 12-3063
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-287 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.6
Ample Mitigation Measures have been prepared and presented in the Draft EIS, as referenced in Response to Comment 7-31, for emissions of VOCs that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As such, compliance with the requirements for cumulatively considerable impacts is achieved, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Furthermore, the commenter does not identify the source of this information. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not specifically mention that an exceedance of the air quality pollutant threshold would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these pollutants.
Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and a reasonable range of Alternatives have been identified and analyzed in the Draft EIS to reduce the identified significant air quality impacts during construction and operation, to the maximum extent feasible.
Response to Comment 7-43
This comment is related to previous comments regarding updated Project parameters in the CalEEMod model and has already been addressed in prior responses. An updated CalEEMod model was prepared for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and the Combined Scenario to establish consistency with the text of the Draft EIS; no additional significant air quality impacts were identified based on the clarified information. Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-1 and MM 5.2-2 were previously incorporated into the analyses and will remain applicable to the updated Project emissions. This Final EIS presents an updated discussion of potential air quality impacts from implementation of the Project, but no significant changes resulted from including the recommended revisions to the construction and operational emissions. The updated analysis presented in this Final EIS is sufficient to demonstrate conformance with the CEQA environmental checklist requirements pertaining to air quality.
Response to Comment 7-44
This comment addresses emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM), associated with construction of the Project that were not previously evaluated in the Draft EIS. Long-term operation of the residential land uses subsequent to Project completion will not
6 SCAQMD Cumulative Impacts White Paper – Appendix A. 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper- appendix.pdf?sfvrsn=4
12-3064
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-288 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
generate substantial quantities of DPM as stated in the Draft EIS (page 5.2-42). Emissions of DPM during construction will be temporary and considerably variable, as each phase of construction requires a different inventory of equipment operating for different daily durations. To address this comment, a supplemental assessment of air quality impacts from construction of the Combined Scenario, which represents a worst-case emissions projection, was prepared and maximum off-site concentrations of DPM were analyzed against the SCAQMD carcinogenic risk threshold. The results of the screening HRA prepared for the Final EIS are discussed in Response to Comment 7-49, and show that the Project will not have a significant impact.
Response to Comment 7-45
This comment references a 2012 document published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and suggests that the Project’s air quality impacts analyzed in the Draft EIS do not satisfy the CEQA environmental checklist criterion regarding exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The recommendations set forth in the 2012 OEHHA Technical Support Document (TSD) for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis have not yet been adopted or incorporated by any regulatory authority responsible for oversight of land use development projects and air quality. Until recently, there was no published literature with a framework for assessing potential health risks attributed to short-term construction projects.
The CAPCOA organization is responsible for providing guidance on health risk assessments under CEQA, and it has not updated its Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects document to reflect the recent OEHHA recommendations. The CAPCOA document states that, “[t]his guidance does not include how risk assessments for construction projects should be addressed in CEQA” (p. 2).
Furthermore, the SCAQMD is in the process of updating its Air Quality Analysis Handbook which was originally published in 1993, and therefore would not account for recent OEHHA recommendations.
Despite the fact that there is no current regulatory guidance on assessing air quality impacts from short- term construction projects, a supplemental HRA has been prepared to address DPM emissions associated with Project construction. Results of this assessment are presented in Response to Comment 7-49, and show that the Project will not have a significant impact.
Response to Comment 7-46
This comment identifies AERSCREEN as the appropriate regulatory model for conducting screening-level health risk assessments based on USEPA recommendations, citing guidance from both OEHHA and CAPCOA. AERSCREEN was selected as the appropriate screening air dispersion model for the supplemental HRA prepared as part of this Final EIS. The model generates estimates of maximum downwind ground-level concentrations of an air pollutant released to the atmosphere from a 12-3065
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-289 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
continuous emission source. A more thorough discussion of the modeling exercise and results of the screening HRA are presented in Response to Comment 49, and show that the Project will not have a significant impact.
Response to Comment 7-47
The reviewer prepared a CalEEMod run using modified input parameters and relied upon the estimated emissions to conduct a screening-level health risk assessment. The CalEEMod data was attached as Appendix A to Exhibit A to Comment Letter No. 7. This comment describes the selection of DPM emission estimates from the CalEEMod output files that were subsequently incorporated into the AERSCREEN model. It should be noted that Appendix A did not contain the annual emissions estimates, so the Tribe was unable to compare the annual estimates to the maximum daily emissions.
The comment identifies that the Combined Scenario emissions were selected based on a recommendation from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Upon reviewing the CalEEMod output files, it was determined that the selected quantity of DPM emissions during Project construction (purportedly 6,248 pounds) was derived using a flawed calculation methodology. It appears that the reviewer misinterpreted the CalEEMod output files, and the miscalculation resulted in a severe overestimation of DPM emissions from Project construction.
The comment claims that the estimated 6,248 pounds (3.124 tons) of DPM was derived from the “highest daily emission” during the Combined Scenario construction. However, dividing the DPM emissions by the total number of construction work days presented in the CalEEMod table (1,755), the daily emission rate is calculated to be approximately 3.56 pounds per day (lb/day). This value does not correspond to the maximum daily emission rate for any of the years evaluated in the SWAPE CalEEMod runs, but is the sum of the highest daily emission rates for all eight of the years during which construction is occurring in the Combined Scenario.
The maximum daily “Exhaust PM10” emission rate produced by the CalEEMod software was approximately 0.6779 lb/day in 2016 (Table 2.1, Combined Scenario p. 8 of 55, Appendix A to Exhibit A, Comment Letter No. 7). This value represents the maximum daily emission rate of DPM during Project construction under the Combined Scenario. Based on the model output provided by the reviewer, none of the daily emissions of DPM during each year of Project construction would exceed 1 lb/day, much less
3.5 lb/day. The misinterpretation of the model output resulted in the average emission rate being exceeded by at least 5.25 times. Using an emission rate that is 5.25 times the appropriate value resulted in an overestimation of the consequential exposure as calculated by the AERSCREEN dispersion model.
Therefore, supplemental screening-level HRA calculations were prepared for the Project’s Combined Scenario using the updated Final EIS CalEEMod runs and are discussed extensively in Response to 12-3066
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-290 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment 7-49. As determined below, the Project would not result in any significant DPM impacts to on- site or off-site residents. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Response to Comment 7-48
This comment provides a brief description of the parameters that were used to characterize the DPM emissions and maximum downwind concentrations from construction of the Combined Scenario Project.
As previously discussed, the values used in the emission rate calculation on page 14 of Exhibit A to Comment Letter No. 7 are incorrect. To supplement the Final EIS, additional CalEEMod runs were processed for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined Scenario emissions based on the comments received in the LIUNA letter. As shown in the table within Response to Comment 7-41, certain input parameters were updated to establish consistency between the text in the Draft EIS and the data in the model. Using the updated Project information, maximum daily and annual emissions were estimated for the three construction scenarios. As identified by the reviewer, the Combined Scenario generated the highest daily emission rate due to the compounding of construction activity, and was selected as the basis for the screening-level HRA.
In reviewing the updated Final EIS CalEEMod output files, the Winter season emission rates were marginally higher than those calculated for the Summer season, and were used for estimating the annual average emission rate during construction activities. Average DPM emission rates were calculated for each of the eight years that construction is anticipated to take place (2015-2022) by dividing the maximum daily “Exhaust PM10” emissions by 24 hours and then converting the rate to grams per second. The generic equation is the same as was presented on page 14 of Exhibit A to the LIUNA letter: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠�=𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 �𝑙𝑙𝑔𝑠𝑔𝑑� × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑙𝑙 × 1 𝑠𝑔𝑑24 ℎ𝑠𝑜𝑔𝑔 × 1 ℎ𝑠𝑜𝑔3,600 𝑔𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑔 Once the average emission rate for each of the eight years of construction was calculated, AERSCREEN models were conducted to determine the maximum average single-hour concentration of DPM at an off-site receptor location. AERSCREEN relies on a continuous emission rate to simulate atmospheric releases; the average emission rate for each year was used and eight different models were prepared.
For screening purposes the Project Site was evaluated as a rectangular area source of approximate dimensions 1600 meters by 1450 meters to characterize the Project boundary closest to residential receptors (1,600 meters along Dinah Shore Drive and 1,450 meters along Los Alamos Road). The release height was set to three meters to simulate exhaust stacks on construction equipment, with an initial vertical dimension of 1.5 meters to represent instantaneous plume dispersion. As stated in Comment 7- 48, meteorological inputs assumed an urban setting and program defaults for wind speed and direction distribution.
12-3067
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-291 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
The Project Site is bordered to the south and west by residential communities, with sensitive receptors located within approximately 40 meters to the west and extending to far greater distances radially. The size of the Project Site is so large that cumulatively maximum concentrations from all construction equipment operating simultaneously may be generated at distances from the boundary greater than the most proximal receptors. This means that a receptor located approximately 1,000 meters from the Project Site may be exposed to a higher concentration of DPM at a given moment than a receptor located approximately 100 meters from the Project Site based on atmospheric dispersion patterns. For the purposes of the screening model and health risk assessment, the maximum one-hour concentration of DPM was extracted from the AERSCREEN output data tables for each year that construction emissions were modeled.
Table 4, Daily Emission Rates from CalEEMod and Maximum 1-hour Concentrations, presents the maximum daily DPM emission rate in grams per second and the corresponding maximum one-hour concentration that was produced by the AERSCREEN model for the eight years evaluated. The maximum concentrations vary based on the construction activities that were assigned start and end dates in CalEEMod.
Table 4
Daily Emission Rates from CalEEMod and Maximum 1-hour Concentrations Year
Exposure
Start Date
Exposure
End Date
Year
Fraction
DPM Emission
Rate (lb/day)
DPM Emission
Rate (g/s)
Max One-
Hour
Concentration
(µg/m3)
2015 11/1/2015 12/31/2015 0.17 0.102 0.00054 0.032
2016 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 1 0.928 0.00487 0.285
2017 1/1/2017 12/31/2017 1 0.961 0.00505 0.295
2018 1/1/2018 12/31/2018 1 0.926 0.00486 0.284
2019 1/1/2019 12/31/2019 1 0.892 0.00469 0.274
2020 1/1/2020 12/31/2020 1 0.848 0.00445 0.260
2021 1/1/2021 12/31/2021 1 0.146 0.00076 0.044
2022 1/1/2022 7/22/2022 0.56 0.109 0.00057 0.033
Total Duration
(years) 6.73
Weighted Average
Concentration
(µg/m3)
0.218
It should be noted that these values represent the highest maximum daily DPM emissions and resulting single-hour concentrations. Within each year, daily emissions will not remain at the maximum for the entire duration of the year. Therefore, these emissions quantities and concentrations represent 12-3068
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-292 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
conservative approximations for a screening-level exposure assessment. As stated in Comment 7-48, the USEPA recommends that the maximum reasonable estimate of an annualized average concentration can be defined as 10 percent of the single-hour maximum concentration in screening model output. This methodology for estimating the annual average concentration was utilized for the exposure assessment in this Final EIS. The weighted average concentration for the 6.73 years of construction was calculated and multiplied by 10 percent, resulting in an annualized average concentration for the duration of the exposure assessment of 0.0218 µg/m3.
Using this annualized average concentration during construction, maximum cancer risks to off-site receptors were calculated following guidance from CAPCOA and OEHHA for adult, child, and infant exposures. The methodology and results of the health risk assessment are presented in Response to Comment 7-49. None of the three exposure scenarios exceeded the ten in one million cancer risk threshold established by the SCAQMD. Emissions of DPM during construction will not present any significant air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from a health risk assessment perspective.
Response to Comment 7-49
This comment presents the results of the screening-level HRA prepared by the reviewer. The described methodology in the comment, however, is not consistent with the calculations that were executed to estimate the cancer risk to sensitive receptors. The 2012 OEHHA TSD promulgates the use of Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) in quantifying carcinogenic risks to susceptible populations, such as young children, as the comment states. The ASF for the first two years of life (“Infant”) is ten, for the subsequent fourteen years of life (“Child”) is three, and for the remaining years (“Adult”) is one. These scaling factors were designed to account for the increased sensitivity to air pollution – and specifically carcinogens – that young children with developing biological systems possess.
It appears that calculation of the “Infant” exposure in Comment 7-49 applied the scaling factor of ten to all 6.73 years of exposure. This error exaggerates the calculated cancer risk by approximately two times, as the average scaling factor over the first 6.73 years should have been calculated as 5.08 instead of ten.
This miscalculation, in combination with the misinterpreted CalEEMod output for maximum daily emissions, resulted in the cancer risks to off-site residential receptors to be drastically overestimated. A screening-level HRA was prepared to supplement the Final EIS and address the comments within the LIUNA letter. Results of the HRA for the 6.73 years of exposure are identified in Table 5, Combined Scenario Cancer Risks to Off-site Sensitive Receptors.
12-3069
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-293 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Table 5
Combined Scenario Cancer Risks to Off-site Sensitive Receptors Parameter Description Units Adult Exposure Child Exposure Infant Exposure Cair Concentration µg/m3 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218
DBR Daily Breathing Rate L/(kg-day) 302 581 581
EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 350 350
ED Exposure Duration years 6.73 6.73 6.73
AT Averaging Time days 25,550 25,550 25,550
Doseinh Inhaled Dose mg/(kg-day) 6.1 E-07 1.2 E-06 1.2 E-06 CPF Cancer Potency Factor 1/(mg/kg-day) 1.1 1.1 1.1
ASF Age Sensitivity Factor - 1 3 5.08*
Cancer Risk 6.68 E-07 3.85 E-06 6.53 E-06
SCAQMD
Threshold 1.0 E-05 1.0 E-05 1.0 E-05
Exceeds? No No No
*5.08 is weighted average ASF from 2 years of exposure with ASF = 10 and 4.73 years of exposure with ASF = 3.
To simplify the process, weighted average calculations were performed to estimate the annual average concentration during the 6.73 years of construction. The ASF values of 1, 3, and 5.08 were applied to the Adult, Child, and Infant exposure scenarios, respectively, for the 6.73-year exposure duration. The total cancer risks to the maximally exposed off-site receptor were calculated to be 6.52 in one million for Infant exposure, 3.85 in one million for Child exposure, and 0.67 in one million for Adult exposure.
Contrary to the assertion made by Response to Comment 7-49, the calculated exposures do not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for cancer risk of ten in one million, and a refined air dispersion modeling exercise is not warranted. Construction of the Project will not result in cancer risks to nearby residential receptors exceeding the SCAQMD threshold of significance. No significant air quality impacts are associated with DPM emissions generated by construction of the Project.
Response to Comment 7-50
This comment claims that actual excess cancer risks may be higher than those calculated for the exposure assessment presented in Exhibit A to Comment Letter No. 7. Based on the misinterpretation of the CalEEMod output data and the incorrect application of the ASF value for the Infant exposure, it is factually impossible for the exposures to be higher than those presented in Exhibit A. Having corrected for the erroneous calculations upon which the commenter relied, the estimated cancer risks presented in Response to Comment 7-49 represent the maximum reasonable estimates for cancer risks to off-site residential receptors during Project construction. As such, conclusions expressed in Section 5.2 of the 12-3070
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-294 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Draft EIS remain valid, and it is confirmed that implementation of the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, nor emit toxic air contaminants resulting in exposures exceeding the ten in one million individual cancer risk threshold. Air quality impacts from TACs remain less than significant with selected DPM mitigation strategies.
Response to Comment 7-51
The comment suggests that the BAU scenario defined for the Project in the Draft EIS was improperly characterized. The comment does not acknowledge or reference the approved and adopted 2012 Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). The 2012 CAP provides a methodology for determining whether or not implementation of a project will result in significant GHG emissions and air quality impacts. As originally discussed in Response to Comment 7-7, SCAQMD unofficially recommended a 3,000 MTCO2e initial screening threshold for individual projects. This screening criterion was incorporated into the 2012 CAP, but does not apply to large scale developments such as the Project. For those projects exceeding the 3,000 MTCO2e screening criterion, or those that are too large to evaluate against a simple metric, the 2012 CAP offers the following alternative for GHG emission quantification in unincorporated areas of the county to demonstrate compliance with AB 32:
Analysis of development projects not using the screening tables should use the latest version of the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Two modeling runs should be completed. The first modeling run calculates GHG emissions at 2011 levels of efficiency using energy efficiency standards (Title 24) and the California Air Resources Board on road vehicle emissions factors (EMFAC2012) set at 2011. A second modeling run is required that calculates GHG emissions at Project buildout year levels of efficiency and includes Project design features and/or mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions such that the levels of efficiency result in a 25% reduction of GHG emissions compared to the model run using the 2011 levels of efficiency.
The 2012 CAP identifies 2011 as the BAU year that emission reduction strategies should be compared against. The baseline is defined by 2011 GHG emissions that are not reduced beyond Title 24 levels, as this was the regulatory framework for GHG emissions mitigation when the 2012 CAP was prepared.
Updated CalEEMod runs were processed for the 2011 Combined Scenario without mitigation beyond Title 24. The Draft EIS BAU scenario was conducted using a 2022 operational baseline as a conservative approach. Incorporating the 2011 baseline, as recommended by the 2012 CAP, actually increases the unmitigated BAU annual estimate from 82,065.58 MTCO2e per year – as stated on page 5.6-29 of the Draft EIS – to 96,236.10 MTCO2e per year based on the less recent CARB emission factors. The comment is erroneous in its interpretation of the Project BAU scenario, and the Draft EIS was overly conservative in using 2022 as the operational baseline.
12-3071
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-295 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
The updated CalEEMod runs completed to supplement the Final EIS calculated that annual emissions of GHGs from the Combined Scenario after mitigation would be 46,481.27 MTCO2e. The 2012 CAP requires that a 25 percent reduction compared to the 2011 emissions be achieved through implementation of mitigation measures. The total annual 2011 Combined Scenario emissions are 96,236.10 MTCO2e per year. Comparing the updated Final EIS operational GHG annual emissions (46,481.27 MTCO2e/year) to the 2011 scenario as recommended per the 2012 CAP guidance, Mitigation Measures for the Project will achieve approximately a 52 percent reduction in GHG emissions. This value is more than double the required 25 percent stated in the 2012 CAP, and no further consideration of mitigation measures is required.
Response to Comment 7-52
Response to Comment 7-51 provided a discussion of the 2012 Riverside County CAP and how the document evaluates a BAU scenario. All analyses prepared for the Draft EIS and Final EIS are consistent with the methodologies outlined in the 2012 CAP for unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The Project is a specific plan and is not subject to the same GHG thresholds as an individual project. This comment reflects the reviewer’s lack of familiarity with the Riverside County approach to reducing regional GHG emissions and achieving compliance with state-wide efforts. Also see Responses to Comments 7-7 through 7-12 regarding the adequacy of the GHG emissions analysis for the Project.
Response to Comment 7-53
This comment misinterprets the analysis presented in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIS regarding the definition of a baseline scenario. There is not a single iteration of the word “baseline” included in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS does not suggest that “business as usual” constitutes a baseline for GHG emissions. A baseline, in terms of GHG analysis, refers to a level of emissions that is established as a metric to which future emission inventories and projections may be compared. A baseline can apply to state level, regional level, and local level GHG emission inventories. From a set baseline, forecasters generate projections of future GHG emissions using assumptions to accommodate for anticipated growth and development. The Draft EIS does not suggest that “business as usual” constitutes a baseline for analyzing potential GHG impacts.
The Riverside County Greenhouse Gas Technical Report states that, “business as usual refers to continued operations and development of the County according to 2008 policies, without the inclusion of proposed reduction or sustainability initiatives as part of the forthcoming Climate Action Plan.” Characterization of “business as usual” for the Project in the Draft EIS provided a conceptual framework for evaluating the effectiveness of identified mitigation measures relative to what they would have been in 2008. The “business as usual” operating condition does not reflect a “worst case scenario” as the 12-3072
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-296 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
comment suggests, but rather, a realistic assessment of the Project’s GHG emissions without the emissions reducing Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and regulatory effects. In the referenced Friends of San Jacinto case, the “business as usual” scenario was rejected because it ignored local planning and zoning laws, stripped all vegetation from the project, and contemplated infeasible development. Therefore, the business as usual assumptions in that case were rejected as unrealistic.
None of these conditions apply to the “business as usual” scenario as described in the Draft EIS, which does provide a realistic business as usual scenario.
Response to Comment 7-54
The comment addresses the methodology for determining whether a project’s greenhouse gas emissions are significant under Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The comment cites excerpts from two unpublished trial court decisions in CEQA cases, Friends of Northern San Jacinto Valley v. County of Riverside and Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife, related to the characterization of a GHG baseline and proper definition of BAU emissions scenario. The subject of defining a GHG baseline and “BAU” emissions is a controversial one.
The Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife litigation is currently being considered by the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court has not yet reached a final decision on the ruling, and therefore speculation about the validity of the GHG baseline assessment is unfounded at this time. The evaluation of GHG emissions from Project implementation is consistent with the current regulatory framework. As such, the discussion of GHG emissions significance presented in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIS remains valid.
The comment goes on to suggest that comparing emissions of GHGs from Project implementation to a realistic BAU scenario would result in non-compliance with the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32.
This claim is not supported by calculations to demonstrate that the Project would in fact violate AB 32 objectives. The comment does not make reference to any local or regional Climate Action Plan to verify that Project emissions exceed local GHG emission inventory projections for achieving compliance with statewide policies. The assertion that the Project is in violation of AB 32 is unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, as addressed previously in these responses to comments, the Project (with Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures) is consistent with the climate action plans of Riverside County and the City, and is consistent with AB 32.
As mentioned previously, master, general, and specific plans were excluded from the consideration of the SCAQMD GHG Working Group in evaluating the tiered approach to determining significance.
Comparing GHG emissions from the Project to those of a retail center is worse than comparing apples to oranges; the two projects are of drastically different sizes and scope. The Project will consist of 577 12-3073
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-297 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
acres of residential, recreational, and retail space, developed in stages over eighteen years. As expressed by the SCAQMD, it is inappropriate to compare GHG emissions from a specific plan to those of a retail center, and the same regulatory thresholds would not apply when they are officially adopted.
As stated in the SWAPE letter, the tiered threshold approach for GHG analysis is only a draft and has not been officially adopted, and therefore does not qualify as a definitive regulatory metric. The comment repeatedly refers to the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, but that initial screening threshold would not apply to the Project because it is a specific plan. GHG Mitigation Measures are provided in the Draft EIS as MM
5.6-1 through MM 5.6-10, discussed in Section 2.0 and Section 5.6 of the document. No additional mitigation measures are required and no significant changes to the GHG analysis are warranted.
Response to Comment 7-55
As discussed previously, the Tier 3 threshold is a draft screening threshold that has not been adopted, and even upon adoption would not apply to a specific plan such as the Project. Furthermore, this proposed screening threshold identifies which projects would need further evaluation under Tier 4, it does not determine when carbon offsets would be required or appropriate. The Project has incorporated extensive mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions associated with construction and operational phases. The purchase of carbon offsets is not required as GHG emissions from the Project are less than significant after mitigation.
Response to Comment 7-56
This comment suggests that additional GHG mitigation measures are available that should be incorporated into the Project. All feasible mitigation measures have been identified and, as determined in San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (Aug. 26, 2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, not every infeasible mitigation measure is required to be discussed. Here, the Project identified feasible mitigation to substantially reduce impacts from GHG emissions during construction and operation. Implementation of the suggested measures identified in this comment are not needed to substantially reduce any significant impacts from GHG emissions.
The definition of feasible, per Section 21061.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
The comment lists several mitigation measures that were identified for GHG emissions in the Draft EIS, in Table 2.0-1 and on pages 5.6-32 to 5.6-35. The reiteration of mitigation measures demonstrates that minimal attention was paid to the details of the GHG reduction strategies presented in the Draft EIS.
Furthermore, as discussed in Response to Comment 7-51, the Project does not have any remaining 12-3074
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-298 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
significant GHG impacts. The 3,000 MTCO2e screening criterion does not apply to the Project, as evidenced in the 2012 Riverside County CAP and the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting minutes.
The comment relies on inaccurate and unfounded assumptions in suggesting that further mitigation of GHG emissions is required.
Response to Comment 7-57
This comment presents a conclusory statement summarizing the topics evaluated in the SWAPE comments. Previous responses have addressed the comments regarding mitigation of criteria air pollutant emissions, potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to DPM, and determination of significance for the Project’s GHG emissions.
Response to Comment 7-58
The comment incorrectly states that the Project Site is located within the City limits. The Project Site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence, which is not recognized by the Tribe. The comment is noted and will be reviewed by the Tribal Council in their consideration of approval of the Project.
Response to Comment 7-59
The comment indicates that the traffic analysis is based on key assumptions that are both unreasonably favorable to the Project and not reasonably supportable. Four key assumptions presented in the letter are discussed and responded to in further detail below, none of which change the accuracy of validity of the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIS.
Response to Comment 7-60
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-14 with a more detailed response on the trip generation rates used to analyze the Project’s potential traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network. As stated in the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) as well as thoroughly discussed in Section 5.14, the RivTAM was used to develop total traffic volume projections for the future horizon year 2035. RivTAM was used to ensure consistency with regional transportation modeling and to avoid the need for subjective assumptions regarding which trip-generation rates are appropriate and what percentage of the future site traffic would be pass-by trips and internal trips.
RivTAM has been calibrated and validated for the entire six-county southern California region. Thus, trip generation forecast that was utilized to evaluate the Project-related traffic impacts was based upon the numerous socio-economic parameters for each of the traffic analysis zones within the Project Site.
Additionally, Endo Engineering did not make direct manipulations to RivTAM model runs nor were there 12-3075
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-299 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
any assumption changes in RivTAM to make them more favorable to the Project. Accordingly, the non- residential trips generated by the Project would not result in higher traffic numbers.
Response to Comment 7-61
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-14 and 7-15 for a discussion on the use of internal trips. The traffic impact analysis discussed in Section 5.14 in the EIS addressed all of the future year 2035 project- related external trips projected by RivTAM. As discussed on page 5.14-19 in Section 5.14 and page 4-5 in the Traffic Study, the internal capture rate between the proposed residential and non-residential uses on-site would be limited by the total number of residential trips. The residential trips for the Project represent approximately 14 percent of the total amount of trips generated by all the proposed uses, therefore, the conservative internal capture rate of 15 percent of residential trips was assumed for purposes of analysis. Accordingly, the traffic impact analysis, specifically the use of the internal capture rate of 15 percent, presented in Section 5.14 and in the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) addressed all of the future year 2035 Project-related external trips.
Response to Comment 7-62
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-14 and 7-16 for a discussion on the use of pass-by trips. As discussed on page 5.14-20 in Section 5.14 and page 4-6 in the Traffic Study, pass-by trips will be attracted to the commercial uses in the Project Site from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets. As noted above, RivTAM was used to avoid the need for subjective assumptions regarding what percentage of the future Project traffic would be pass-by trips. The analysis presented in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIS and the Traffic Study addressed all of the future year 2035 project-related external trips projected by RivTaM. Since the commercial uses anticipated on-site have not been established, a conservative pass- by rate of 15 percent was assumed. Accordingly, the traffic impact analysis, specifically the use of the pass-by rate of 15 percent, presented in Section 5.14 and in the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) addressed all of the future year 2035 Project-related external trips.
Response to Comment 7-63
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-14 and 7-17 about the peak hour factor. As discussed on page
5.14-18 in Section 5.14, the peak hour factors determined from the peak hour traffic counts at the existing key intersection were assumed for the existing and year 2022 operational analyses. The traffic analysis used a peak hour factor of 1.0 for full development of the Project consistent with the input parameters specified by the Riverside Country Transportation Department. The higher peak hour factor reflects future conditions with heavier traffic volumes distributed more evenly during the peak hours.
12-3076
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-300 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 7-64
The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), completed in May 2009, was developed with the cooperative efforts of the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The RivTAM incorporates a detailed description of Riverside County, while maintaining consistency with the SCAG Regional Model. RivTAM is intended for use for transportation planning purposes throughout Riverside County by all levels of governmental jurisdiction and by private entities and as a tool to determine the potential impacts of large development proposals, General Plan land use changes, and forecasting for Transportation projects.
As discussed in Section 5.14 pages 5.14-21 through 5.14-26 and thoroughly discussed in the Traffic Study prepared for the Project, the methodology used for the traffic study was agreed upon with the City. The scope and methodology for preparation of the Section 24 Traffic Impact Study was discussed and coordinated with City Staff at a meeting held in January 9, 2014, prior to preparation of the study.
The number and locations of the intersections to be studied were reviewed, as well as the use of the RivTAM to assess project and cumulative impacts. The number of intersections proposed for study was increased at the request of the City. In addition, it was agreed that the RivTAM was the most appropriate traffic demand model available for use. All potential traffic impacts to intersections and roadways within the study area were identified as less than significant or were determined to be less than significant with feasible mitigation. Accordingly, the Traffic Study prepared for the Project would not need to be re-modeled based on the four assumptions identified in the letter.
Response to Comment 7-65
No improvements would be required at the intersection of Da Vall Drive with Ramon Road to accommodate existing plus Project buildout traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service. The traffic generated by the Initial Phase of the Section 24 Specific Plan in the year 2022 would represent only 6 percent of the total Project-related traffic and would not have a significant impact at this intersection.
The mitigation required at this intersection in the horizon year 2035 would be needed with or without Project traffic. The primary increase in traffic that will occur on Da Vall Drive at this intersection will be the result of the future I-10 interchange at Da Vall Drive. For that reason, Riverside County has included improvements to DaVall Drive in the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS). The additional southbound left-turn lane on Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road will need to be in place before the Da Vall 12-3077
2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-301 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Drive interchange is constructed and opened, and is therefore expected to be part of the interchange improvement project.
Response to Comment 7-66
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-18 for a more detailed discussion on potential impacts on freeways and freeway ramps. Section 5.14 of the Draft EIS included an operational analysis of the Project-related traffic impacts on the I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road, identified as Intersections 1, 2, and 7. These three intersections represent the constraining component of the closest ramps that provide access to and from I-10 in both directions. All three ramps in the Existing with development of the Active Adult Community are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours, as identified in Table 5.14-6 in Section 5.14. All three ramps in the Existing with Full Project Development are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours, as identified in Table 5.14-8. Intersection 1 during the AM peak hour and Intersections 2 and 7 during both peak hours in the Year 2035 with Full Project Development are projected to operate at LOS B or better, as identified in Table 5.14-12 in Section 5.14. Intersection 1 during the PM peak hour in the Year 2035 with Full Project Development is projected to operate at LOS D, as identified in Table 5.14-12. Accordingly, the Project would operate within the LOS identified by Caltrans for ramps along the I-10 during peak hours.
No supplemental analysis would be required as no new significant impacts or substantially increased impacts were identified.
Response to Comment 7-67
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-66. Without the I-10 Route Concept Fact Sheet, which is currently being updated by Caltrans, it is not possible to accurately identify the future right-of-way requirements and design concept to accommodate buildout of the local general plans with a target of maintaining LOS E during the peak periods in the urbanizing areas and LOS C in the rural areas. If the design concept achieves the goal of accommodating buildout of the local general plans, it will accommodate the Project and all Project alternatives at acceptable levels of service.
Response to Comment 7-68
Please refer to Response to Comment 7-64 in which the Traffic Study utilized the local traffic model (RivTAM) adopted by jurisdictions within the CVAG boundary. The analysis presented in Section 5.14 determined that, with the incorporation of Project Design Features PDF 5.14-1 through PDF 5.14-9 and Mitigation Measures MM 5.14-1 through MM 5.14-6, transportation and traffic impacts would be less than significant.
12-3078
January 20, 2015
Via Electronic Mail and Overnight Mail
Margaret Park, AICP
Director of Planning and Natural Resources
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Email: mpark@aguacaliente‐nsn.gov
Fax: (760) 699‐6822
City of Rancho Mirage
Mayor Iris Smotrich ([email protected])
And Honorable Member of the Rancho Mirage City Council
Cindy Scott, City Clerk ([email protected])
Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney ([email protected]) Bud Kopp, Planning Manager ([email protected])
Rancho Mirage City Hall
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Phone: (760) 324-4511
Fax: (760) 324-8830
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
3850 Vine St, Suite 240
Riverside, CA. 92507-4277
(951) 369-0631
([email protected])
Re: Comment re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (SCH No. 2014011035)
Dear Ms. Park, Mayor Smotrich and Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 1184 and its thousands of members in Riverside County(collectively "LIUNA" or "Commenters") regarding the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan project proposed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (SCH No. 2014011035). (“Project”). This letter supplements our letter submitted 1 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 8
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015
2.0-302
12-3079
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 20, 2015