HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-18; Carnation Property; Tentative Map (CT) (27)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-18/CDP 98-85/HDP 98-2Q/LCPA 98-08/ZC 98-11
DATE: February 23. 1999
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
CASE NAME: Carnation Property
APPLICANT: Spectrum Communities L.L.C.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 15375 Barnacle Parkway. Suite B-211
Irvine. California 92618
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 11. 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 32 single family residential lots on 10 acres
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
[x] Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services
[ | Biological Resources | [ Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources [ | Aesthetics
[XI Hazards [ | Cultural Resources
| | Noise | | Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Q] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
f~| I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Q I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
^ H-Y\
Planner Signature ~ Date
Planning^Directof's Signature/ Date
13
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (I) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (EIR 90-03)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (EIR 90-03)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (EIR 90-03)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (EIR 90-03)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (EIR 90-03)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
O
D
a
a
D
D
a
a
a
a
a
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (EIR 90-03)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (EIR 90-03)
c) Displace existing housing, especially. affordable
housing? (EIR 90-03)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary
geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc
dated December 1998)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary
geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc
dated December 1998)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report
prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 90-03)d)
e)
g)
h)
Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary
geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc
dated December 1998)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR
90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by
GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998)
Subsidence of the land? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary
geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc
dated December 1998)
Expansive soils? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary
geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc
dated December 1998)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D IEI
DDK
Rev. 03/28/96
11*
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 90-03,
Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by
GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D D D 13
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (EIR 90-03,
hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and
Associates dated December 1998)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (EIR 90-03, hydrology
study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated
December 1998)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study
prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated
December 1998)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared
by Hunsaker and Associates dated December
1998)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study
prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated
December 1998)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared
by Hunsaker and Associates dated December
1998)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by
Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 90-03,
hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and
Associates dated December 1998)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by
Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (EIR
90-03, MEIR 93-01)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (EIR 90-
03, MEIR 93-01)D
D
D
D D
D m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (EIR 90-03, MEIR
93-01)
d) Create objectionable odors? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-
01)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (EIR
90-03, MEIR 93-01)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-
01)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (EIR 90-
03, MEIR 93-01)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (EIR 90-03, Dudek
and Associates dated December 1999)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated
December 1999)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek
and Associates dated December 1999)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated
December 1999)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EER 90-
03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(EIR 90-03)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (EIR 90-03)
D
D
D
D D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (EIR 90-
03)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (EIR
90-03)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 90-03)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (EIR 90-03)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (EIR 90-03)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (EIR 90-03)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (EIR 90-03)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR
90-03)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
El
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (EIR 90-03)
b) Police protection? (EIR 90-03)
c) Schools? (EIR 90-03)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(EIR 90-03)
e) Other governmental services? (EIR 90-03)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (EIR 90-03)
b) Communications systems? (EIR 90-03)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (EIR 90-03)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 90-03)
e) Storm water drainage? (EIR 90-03)
f) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 90-03)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 90-03)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (EIR
90-03)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(EIR 90-03)
c) Create light or glare? (EIR 90-03)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 90-03)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 90-03)
c) Affect historical resources? (EIR 90-03)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(EIR 90-03)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (EIR 90-03)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 90-03)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR
90-03)
D
D
D
D
D
D
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when-viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
The Certified EIR 90-03 for Zone 20 was used as a reference in the analysis of this project. A
copy can be found on file with the Carlsbad Planning Department.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
10 Rev. 03/28/96
-•'*%,.
Sate Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
HAZARDS:
There are potential environmental issues regarding the property. These issues include the
potential for restricted agricultural chemical residues to be encountered within the near-surface
soils onsite from the use of the property for floriculture. It is likely that significantly high
residue concentrations would not be detected onsite unless agricultural chemicals were stored
onsite or were accidentally spilled, improperly applied, or illegally disposed of onsite. Although
a majority of currently banned pesticides have not been used for at least 20 years, there remains a
potential for historical farming operations to have utilized currently restricted agricultural
chemicals onsite. This application may have resulted in some chemical residue contamination of
the subject property. Under normal conditions, most pesticides/herbicides currently used in
California degrade, and are not overly persistent in nature. There are, however, certain restricted
agricultural chemicals that were commonly used over 20 years ago throughout California that are
known to be a persistent substance in nature.
The overall potential for significant agricultural hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum
contamination onsite is low to moderate; however, the uncertainty of potential environmental
concerns cannot be eliminated and mitigation measures are listed as follows:
1. A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall be
completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Health
Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
2. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance with
current local, state and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered
during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant and
shall be treated per the consultant's recommendation prior to removal of the material.
3. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediation
completed prior to their demolition.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
Signature
12 Rev. 03/28/96
PROJECT NAME: Carnation Property FILE NUMBERS: CT 98-18/CDP 98-85/HDP 98-20/LCPA 98-08
APPROVAL DATE: April 21. 1999
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with
recommended remediation shall be completed and
comments received from the County of San Diego
Environmental Health Services prior to the issuance of
a grading permit.
All trash and debris within the property shall be
disposed of off site, in accordance with current local,
state and federal disposal regulations. Any buried
trash/debris encountered during grading of the site
shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental
consultant prior to removal of the material.
An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be
performed prior to their demolition.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Engineering
Plancheck
Engineering
Inspections
Building
Permits
Shown on
Plans
i,:,. Verified
implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
SipsShown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.